1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,000
All right.

2
00:00:03,000 --> 00:00:06,000
Thank you, everyone.

3
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:07,000
Thank you.

4
00:00:07,000 --> 00:00:11,000
Please be seated.

5
00:00:11,000 --> 00:00:21,000
So before we begin, let me just remind everyone about proper decorum, both in the courtroom

6
00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:25,000
and for those who are appearing online through the Zoom call.

7
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:30,000
It's important that we maintain proper courtroom decorum.

8
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:42,000
If you are on the Zoom call, please leave your camera off and your line muted unless you wish to be heard regarding one of the matters that are before the court today.

9
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:50,000
And disruptions won't be tolerated. Anyone disrupting on the Zoom call will be removed immediately and not allowed back in.

10
00:00:50,000 --> 00:01:07,000
Before we begin, I also want to address a letter that I received from four U.S. senators.

11
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:10,000
It's an inappropriate export that communication, number one.

12
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:22,000
Number two, I want to make perfectly clear that I will make my decisions on the matters referred to in the letter based only upon admissible evidence and the arguments of parties and interests presented in open court.

13
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:26,000
I'm not going to, I am going to dock at the letter. In fact, I did that this morning.

14
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:35,000
But it will have no impact whatsoever on my decisions in this case, which will only be based upon the facts and law presented by the parties.

15
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:39,000
So with that, we'll proceed.

16
00:01:39,000 --> 00:01:42,000
Good morning, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

17
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:50,000
Adam Landis from Landis, Rath and Cobb, counsel to FTX Trading Limited and its affiliated debtors.

18
00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:54,000
We're here today, Your Honor, on second day relief.

19
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:57,000
We filed an amended agenda.

20
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:01,000
It's 27 pages long, Your Honor, 30 items on it.

21
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:06,000
But thanks to the very hard work of many people in this room and lots of people out of it.

22
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:12,000
I'm pleased to say that we have a limited number of matters that Your Honor is going to have to hear and decide today.

23
00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:23,000
But before we get into the agenda, I'd like to see the podium to Mr. Deer, who will give the court and parties an interest in updates as to activities that have been going on since we last before you.

24
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:27,000
Thank you.

25
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:35,000
Thank you, Mr. Landis. Good morning, Your Honor. May it please the court. I have a short case update for the record.

26
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:39,000
The debtors filed for Chapter 11 60 days ago.

27
00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:42,000
The level of activity since has been extraordinary.

28
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:49,000
We've identified over 9 million customer accounts with about 120 billion associated transactions.

29
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:57,000
We are engaged in a complex effort now to recreate petition date claim values for every customer.

30
00:02:57,000 --> 00:03:10,000
We are building financial statements from the ground up using the general ledger and bank transaction records rather than the previous incomplete and unreliable financial statements of the debtors.

31
00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:18,000
This will put us in the position to describe the financial results of the debtors accurately for the first time.

32
00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:29,000
We have located over five billion dollars of cash liquid cryptocurrency and liquid investment securities measured at petition date value.

33
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:45,000
This does not describe any value to holdings of dozens of illiquid cryptocurrency tokens, where holdings are so large relative to the total supply that our positions cannot be sold without substantially affecting the market for the token.

34
00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:56,000
The five billion liquid assets also does not include approximately 425 million of crypto at the petition date values in the custody of the Securities Commission of the Bahamas.

35
00:03:56,000 --> 00:04:01,000
That position was valued at about 170 million at the end of 2022.

36
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:07,000
It contains a large amount of FTP and is highly volatile.

37
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:12,000
We have started a strategic review process for our assets.

38
00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:20,000
We've established data rooms and solicited interest for the four operating subsidiaries subject to the bidding procedures motion today.

39
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:32,000
We also are well underway on plans to monetize over 300 other non-strategic investments with a book value of over 4.6 billion dollars.

40
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:43,000
We've established, Your Honor, cooperative relationships with the joint provisional liquidators in our only subsidiaries that are subject to separate proceedings, Australia and the Bahamas.

41
00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:54,000
Our recently announced cooperation agreement with the JPL and the Bahamas is an important first step to align incentives and maximize joint recoveries.

42
00:04:54,000 --> 00:05:04,000
The principle of that agreement is simple. It does not matter who collects a dollar for customers as long as the customers get it.

43
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:16,000
We've established a task force with the official committee of creditors and the Bahamas JPL to explore alternatives for the sale or reorganization of the international platform.

44
00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:23,000
We have cooperated and spent countless hours providing information to law enforcement.

45
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:37,000
These 60 days have already seen Mr. Bankman-Fried indicted, arrested, extradited, released on bail and plead not guilty with a trial date set.

46
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:45,000
We have seen Ms. Ellison and Mr. Wang plead guilty, make public plea statements and cooperate with law enforcement.

47
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:48,000
And we have learned about what happened.

48
00:05:48,000 --> 00:06:02,000
We know how Sam Bankman-Fried instructed Gary Wang to create the Alameda backdoor, a secret way for Alameda to borrow from customers on the exchange without permission.

49
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:16,000
Mr. Wang created this backdoor by inserting a single number into millions of lines of code for the exchange, creating a line of credit from customers to Alameda to which customers did not consent.

50
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:22,000
We know the size of that line of credit. It was $65 billion.

51
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:31,000
We know what Alameda did with the money. It bought planes, houses, threw parties, made political donations.

52
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:34,000
It made personal loans to its founders.

53
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:44,000
It sponsored the FTX arena in Miami, a Formula One team, the League of Legends, Coachella, and many other businesses, events, and personalities.

54
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:49,000
It gambled on cryptocurrency investments, often unsuccessfully.

55
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:59,000
And it made debt and equity investments in diverse businesses, many at prices that greatly exceeded market value at the time of the investment.

56
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:06,000
We know that all this has left a shortfall in value to repay customers and creditors.

57
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:11,000
The amount of the shortfall is not yet clear.

58
00:07:11,000 --> 00:07:16,000
It will depend on the size of the claims pool and our recovery efforts.

59
00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:26,000
But every week, we come closer to completing the work necessary to estimate recoveries for the purposes of a plan of reorganization.

60
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:30,000
We also have begun to engage on the central legal issues in the case.

61
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:41,000
These include the nature of customer entitlements, property or claims, and how to close out derivatives to calculate petition day claim amounts.

62
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:53,000
Finally, we have established great working relationships with the U.S. trustee, our new official committee of creditors, welcome, and regulatory stakeholders around the world.

63
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:57,000
Many people and many institutions have worked hard to get us here today.

64
00:07:57,000 --> 00:08:03,000
Chapter 11 is a fishbowl, and we welcome that.

65
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:05,000
In this case, more than most.

66
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:12,000
And as a result of the effort by so many, we stand before you with only limited open issues on our second day relief.

67
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:19,000
This is despite the volume and the unique nature of many of the issues everyone is faced together.

68
00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:23,000
And those of you who have questions for me, Your Honor, I propose we move directly to the agenda.

69
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:35,000
As Mr. Landis mentioned, it is an extremely long agenda, but it is mostly matters that have either been adjourned or reflected in orders that have been either entered or in a reform.

70
00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:40,000
For our point today, Your Honor, I'll see also Mr. Hanson is raising his hand.

71
00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:43,000
I'll see the podium to him if he would like to make some preliminary remarks.

72
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:49,000
Thank you.

73
00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:50,000
Good morning, Your Honor.

74
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:54,000
Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings, proposed counsel to the official committee.

75
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:56,000
Just quick introductions.

76
00:08:56,000 --> 00:09:04,000
My partners, Arizalad and Gabe Sassen, are here with me today, as are Mr. Lund and Mr. Poperty with our proposed co-counsel, Young Conaway.

77
00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:10,000
The committee has also selected FTI Consulting as its financial advisor and Jeffries as its investment banker.

78
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:17,000
Your Honor, the committee worked very hard behind the scenes with the debtors and the United States trustee to try to make this hearing as consensual as it could be,

79
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:23,000
and we appreciate the willingness of both parties to approach the motions on for today in a constructive manner.

80
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:27,000
With this being the committee's first formal appearance before the court since its formation,

81
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:34,000
I wanted to just take a moment to share a little bit of information about the committee and provide the court with the committee's perspective on the cases at this time, if that would be okay.

82
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:35,000
That's fine. Thank you.

83
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:36,000
Thank you, Your Honor.

84
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:45,000
Your Honor, first, the committee is comprised of nine members, including three individuals and six entities from eight different jurisdictions spanning from Singapore to California.

85
00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:54,000
The committee members have brought exposure across the FTX exchange platforms and sadly share the moniker of victim with the millions of other customers who were defrauded by FTX.

86
00:09:54,000 --> 00:10:00,000
The committee members understand the seriousness of their task to serve as fiduciaries for all creditors in these cases,

87
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:12,000
and to that end, they will check the debtors at every step of these cases and take independent actions and generate their own initiatives to recover assets and maximize the distribution to creditors as rapidly as they can.

88
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:19,000
To date, the committee members have been active, engaged, and hard at work with the committee professionals in helping to resolve near-term issues,

89
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:24,000
inserting itself in the investigation and asset tracing efforts that are underway by the debtors,

90
00:10:24,000 --> 00:10:36,000
and pushing the analysis of larger issues such as whether the exchanges can be restarted and a restructuring path can be pursued as a complement to the asset recovery, monetization, and distribution efforts.

91
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:42,000
And it's important to note that it's not too soon to start that exercise.

92
00:10:42,000 --> 00:10:49,000
The committee also believes strongly in the principles noted at the outset of our reservation of rights on the debtors' motion to approve the bidding procedures.

93
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:57,000
These cases need to be transparent, credibility needs to be restored, and creditors need to know that they can trust the Chapter 11 process.

94
00:10:57,000 --> 00:11:03,000
As part of this effort, the committee is preparing a multifaceted approach for communicating with the global creditor community in these cases,

95
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:11,000
which will include dissemination of information not only through the standard committee website, but through various forms of social media.

96
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:21,000
The committee is aware of the disappointment of customers and creditors with information sharing efforts in some of the other large crypto-related cases, and we're trying to learn from that to do better here.

97
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:29,000
The magnitude and complexity of the global fraud and the lack of the corporate controls and recordkeeping present significant challenges to the realization of the committee's objectives.

98
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:33,000
But the committee will work tirelessly to make its goals a reality.

99
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:43,000
We appreciate the few minutes, Your Honor, and the committee looks forward to working through these cases with you, the United States Trustee, the Department of Justice, the Bohemian Liquidators, and all the other parties in interest.

100
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:47,000
And you'll hear more from us as we go through each motion today. Do you have any questions for me, Your Honor?

101
00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:49,000
No, no questions. Thank you very much. Appreciate you.

102
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:50,000
Thank you.

103
00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:57,000
Introductions and the update.

104
00:11:57,000 --> 00:12:11,000
I may institute something that I did during the Malancrot bankruptcy when I have a dozen page agendas with a lot of items that are moved off.

105
00:12:11,000 --> 00:12:14,000
I know the local rule says you have to list everything in them.

106
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:26,000
What I did in Malancrot was say if an item has been adjourned or has been resolved, well, if it's been adjourned specifically, you don't have to list everything out.

107
00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:31,000
Just put in the motion and it's been adjourned to a different date.

108
00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:34,000
Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Adam Landis, I see that you're directing that at me.

109
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:40,000
And we will absolutely take our cues from what we were involved with in Malancrot.

110
00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:52,000
And I also would be remiss if I didn't extend some appreciation to chambers for the patience with which everyone has dealt with us as we've tried to get matters on the agenda.

111
00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:55,000
So thank you for that. And we will take that advice.

112
00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:57,000
Thank you.

113
00:12:57,000 --> 00:13:03,000
Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. For the record, Alexa Cranley from Sullivan and Cromwell, the House counsel for the debtors.

114
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:09,000
Your Honor, if acceptable to you, I will cover the matters that are listed on the agenda that have been resolved.

115
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:11,000
So I'll go slightly out of order.

116
00:13:11,000 --> 00:13:14,000
I'll start with item number 19 on the agenda.

117
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:21,000
Oh, let me interrupt you first, Ms. Cranley. I did. I did see the three additional C.O.C.s this morning and I did enter those right before I came on the bench.

118
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:40,000
Great. So then I think that I only have one agenda item to address with you, which is item number twenty five and twenty six, which is actually the motion of North American League of Legends to compel rejection or the alternative relief from the automatic state to terminate the sponsorship agreement.

119
00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:53,000
Your Honor, while this is a third party motion, the debtors have filed a motion to reject contracts on December 30th, a docket number three thirty three, which included the sponsorship agreement. That's the subject of this.

120
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:57,000
We have been working with the counterparties. We haven't agreed to stipulation.

121
00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:05,000
And I understand from counsel that there will they will be filing a certification of counsel with the stipulation later today.

122
00:14:05,000 --> 00:14:07,000
I remember that from the last year.

123
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:11,000
Yes. So I think with that, I'll hand the podium to Mr. Bucks.

124
00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:23,000
Okay, thank you.

125
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:24,000
Good morning, Your Honor.

126
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:25,000
Morning.

127
00:14:25,000 --> 00:14:47,000
Brian Bucks, the insolvent and problem well on behalf of the debtors. Your Honor, the first contested matter on the agenda today is listed at agenda item number twenty, which is the debtors motion for final relief, asking the court to authorize solidated credit

128
00:14:47,000 --> 00:15:05,000
matrix and to adapt certain customer and credit information. Your Honor, we filed a declaration at docket number four eleven declaration of Kevin Kofsky in support of the relief requested today.

129
00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:08,000
Mr. Kofsky is here in the courtroom and available.

130
00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:17,000
We would like to admit Mr. Kofsky's declaration to evidence in support of his motion at this time. Any objection.

131
00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:26,000
Step forward.

132
00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:40,000
Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning.

133
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:45,000
I'm not sure if he's testifying to the fact that I don't think he is, but it's extended.

134
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:56,000
There's no indication that he has firsthand knowledge of the matters about which he's testifying. And if he's testifying as an expert, he has not established his expertise.

135
00:15:56,000 --> 00:16:02,000
There's nothing in indicating that he has any experience in the cryptocurrency market.

136
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:17,000
He testifies a couple of paragraphs, paragraphs seven and eight of his understanding, I think, but does not identify the source of his understanding so that the court can determine the credibility of his understanding.

137
00:16:17,000 --> 00:16:32,000
He also testifies repeatedly and to his belief again, in quotes, as to certain conclusions, as in paragraphs eight, nine, eleven and thirteen. He does not offer any objective support for his subjective belief.

138
00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:47,000
U.S. Supreme Court. Hold on one second, Mr. Fingert. I don't know if the people in the back of the courtroom can hear those microphones.

139
00:16:47,000 --> 00:17:06,000
The Supreme Court in Daubert said to satisfy the requirement of specialized knowledge to qualify as an expert, there must be more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation. Mr. Kofsky did not provide support for his belief and understanding.

140
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:14,000
He does not meet the requirements for an expert and declarations to therefore be stripping.

141
00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:18,000
Mr. Kofsky. Your Honor, I have a similar objection.

142
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:28,000
Go ahead, Ms. Sarkisian.

143
00:17:28,000 --> 00:17:39,000
Thank you, Your Honor. This is the court, Julia Sarkisian, on behalf of the U.S. trustee. I thought it might make sense for me to give my objection now so the debtors council can address everything at the same time.

144
00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:54,000
So, first of all, the U.S. trustee does agree that some of the testimony and Mr. Kofsky's declaration appears to be of the nature of an expert witness and his expertise in this area has not been established.

145
00:17:54,000 --> 00:18:12,000
In particular, in paragraph, I have questions to ask Mr. Kofsky about the statements in paragraph seven of his declaration, depending as to whether that's based on personal knowledge.

146
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:16,000
So depending on his answers, I may object to that.

147
00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:33,000
But with respect to paragraph 11, he has statements like it is common knowledge and then later in paragraph, potential buyers of the debtors assets will likely ascribe material value to the debtors customers list.

148
00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:35,000
That's speculation.

149
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:49,000
And then I also object in paragraph 12, at the end he cites a valuation expert that is somebody other than himself and quotes out of, I guess it's a book.

150
00:18:49,000 --> 00:18:53,000
So we object to that as hearsay.

151
00:18:53,000 --> 00:19:07,000
And again, I do have some questions with respect to some of the information in paragraph seven to determine if that's based on his personal knowledge. And then I also have cross-examination for the witness as well.

152
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:10,000
Any other objections.

153
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:13,000
Mr. Gwakstein.

154
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:23,000
If I have an objection to the admissibility of a declaration, I usually just allow or require that the witness just testify.

155
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:26,000
And maybe we can resolve some of these issues by testimony.

156
00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:28,000
Go ahead.

157
00:19:28,000 --> 00:19:43,000
That's fine, your honor. Mr. Koski is the debtors proposed investment banker who's offering his opinions in the in the in the declaration with respect to matters that are raised by the motion today.

158
00:19:43,000 --> 00:19:46,000
We think it is admissible.

159
00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:51,000
Your honor's preference. I'm happy to call Mr. Koski and walk through the issues in his declaration.

160
00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:54,000
Let's do that. Let's call Mr. Koski to the stand.

161
00:19:54,000 --> 00:20:09,000
Do it live. Deal with any objections as they come.

162
00:20:09,000 --> 00:20:22,000
Koski, please take the stand and remain standing for the oath.

163
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:37,000
Kevin Michael Koski, C O F S K Y.

164
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:40,000
Your honor may approach the witness and give him a copy of his declaration.

165
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:44,000
Yes, could you hand me I can't seem to find that. I usually have these things electronically.

166
00:20:44,000 --> 00:21:06,000
But I have a copy of you.

167
00:21:06,000 --> 00:21:10,000
Good morning, Mr. Koski. Good morning.

168
00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:21,000
Can you provide a little bit of background about your experience for the court this morning?

169
00:21:21,000 --> 00:21:23,000
Yes.

170
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:39,000
Would you like me to go through education or a little bit about your work experience and qualifications in the in the area of scope in which you're performing services.

171
00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:45,000
Mr. Koski, can you please move the microphone closer to you? Yes, sir. Thank you.

172
00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:48,000
I studied finance at the Wharton School of Business as an undergraduate.

173
00:21:48,000 --> 00:21:58,000
I was a financial analyst at who had low key for two years from 1992 to 1994.

174
00:21:58,000 --> 00:22:08,000
After law school and practicing law for a period of time, I returned to investment banking in 2001.

175
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:20,000
I was with a firm called the Beacon Group as well as Evercore Partners, where I was managing director in the restructuring group.

176
00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:28,000
I joined a small firm that merged into Pirell Weinberg Partners upon its founding in 2006.

177
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:37,000
And I have been with the firm since that time. I've been a partner with the firm since 2015.

178
00:22:37,000 --> 00:22:53,000
And can you describe the report just generally the scope of work in which yourself and your colleagues at Pirell are proposed to assist the debtors with in these cases?

179
00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:58,000
Yes, we are the proposed investment banker for the debtors.

180
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:12,000
We've been working with the other professionals and with the management team and the board on a wide range of issues, including understanding the assets of the debtors,

181
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:20,000
evaluating potential for reorganization of some of the businesses as well as potential sales of the businesses.

182
00:23:20,000 --> 00:23:35,000
And in general, our mandate is to explore different potential avenues to maximize the value of the debtor's assets through this process.

183
00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:53,000
In your experience, Mr. Tarkovsky, prior to this case, have you been involved in situations where the monetization of businesses includes the monetization of things such as customer assets or customer list?

184
00:23:53,000 --> 00:23:56,000
Yes, I have been.

185
00:23:56,000 --> 00:24:02,000
Can you elaborate that at all in terms of the types of work you've done in that area?

186
00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:17,000
Yes, most recently we've been involved in the Celsius bankruptcy case pursuant to which the customer, the value and the potential value of the customers has been at issue.

187
00:24:17,000 --> 00:24:40,000
But we've also seen, while we are not running the sale process, we've been evaluating that and we appreciate the extent to which potential buyers of that business have evaluated the value of the customers and their various positions on that platform.

188
00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:59,000
Are there other examples that you can recall where the question of customer assets or customer lists have been at issue in transactions that you and your team have been involved in in the past?

189
00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:13,000
Yes, the identity and value of customers are often considered to be quite valuable in the context of retail businesses, consumer-facing businesses.

190
00:25:13,000 --> 00:25:16,000
I'm going to object.

191
00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:18,000
Basis?

192
00:25:18,000 --> 00:25:27,000
I think he's testifying about what potential buyers look for. He does not have personal knowledge about that.

193
00:25:27,000 --> 00:25:31,000
While he's an investment banker, he buys and sells companies, right?

194
00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:40,000
I think, Your Honor, if he could be more specific about the basis of that knowledge and exactly who he's talking about.

195
00:25:40,000 --> 00:25:44,000
I'm going to set a foundation for his knowledge, Mr. Kluck.

196
00:25:44,000 --> 00:26:02,000
Mr. Koski, can you can you back up a half step and explain to the court your role in transactions that you can recall that have involved customer assets in the past?

197
00:26:02,000 --> 00:26:28,000
Yes, I want to try to be specific because this is a unique situation and I would refer most specifically to in my declaration. I think the other exchanges, the other crypto companies and the extent to which they clearly have indicated that they value the identity of customers.

198
00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:43,000
And they have all of the other crypto companies that we have evaluated have programs in place to compensate for the provision of that information.

199
00:26:43,000 --> 00:27:10,000
We've also been a party to situations, as I indicated most recently in the Celsius case where we have seen that bids have explicitly provided incremental value for each customer that is acquired.

200
00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:24,000
Have you Mr. Koski considered as part of your work as proposed investment banker in this case?

201
00:27:24,000 --> 00:27:31,000
The debtors customer list that they have available to them here.

202
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:33,000
I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question?

203
00:27:33,000 --> 00:27:50,000
In the context of the context of the work that you've done that you're doing as the debtors proposed investment banker in this case, have you considered the debtors customer list as part of the strategic review that you've undertaken?

204
00:27:50,000 --> 00:27:54,000
Yes, we have.

205
00:27:54,000 --> 00:28:10,000
With respect to the ongoing strategic review, have you as the debtors investment banker formed a view as to whether there is value in the debtors customer list?

206
00:28:10,000 --> 00:28:15,000
Yes, we have and we do believe that there is value in those assets.

207
00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:22,000
Can you explain for the court the basis for that conclusion?

208
00:28:22,000 --> 00:28:25,000
Yes.

209
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:44,000
We believe that whether the exchanges are reorganized or whether they are sold in connection with our process, both the exchanges that we're currently marketing as well as the core business that we're currently evaluating,

210
00:28:44,000 --> 00:29:03,000
we believe that the value of the business is maintained and maximized by ensuring that competitors are not able to solicit those customers and onboard them onto their platforms in a manner which would result in a reduction in the value of the estate.

211
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:25,000
For example, if other businesses that compete with FTX had the identity and were able to locate these customers, solicit them, put them on their platform while FTX is in bankruptcy and not currently operating in the ordinary course,

212
00:29:25,000 --> 00:29:54,000
that would reduce the value of the estate, whether the estate ultimately is able to reorganize its core business or whether third parties are evaluating the acquisition of those exchanges, they will place, in our view, a greater value on those exchanges if all of the customers are maintained on that platform and have not found another exchange on which to transact.

213
00:29:54,000 --> 00:30:19,000
Mr. Tachovsky, with respect to when you talk about the customer information, do you view it important to maintain during your strategic review process the anonymity of both names in addition to contact information or are contact information alone sufficient?

214
00:30:19,000 --> 00:30:48,000
It's a very good question and we looked into that. We reviewed the customer lists. There are a number of customers whose names are unique and we were able to very quickly locate them through searches on social media

215
00:30:48,000 --> 00:31:16,000
as well as other professional relationship databases and we came to the conclusion that it would be quite easy to locate, identify and contact those customers even starting with only the customer names and that relates to individuals as well as businesses.

216
00:31:16,000 --> 00:31:25,000
Mr. Tachovsky, if you could look at the declaration that you submitted in this case, is it part of you?

217
00:31:25,000 --> 00:31:27,000
Yes, I have.

218
00:31:27,000 --> 00:31:47,000
It's filed at docket number 411 entitled Declaration of PempCost in support of the debtor's motion for entry of an order authorizing the debtors to redact or withhold certain customer information. Mr. Tachovsky, were you involved in preparing the declaration that was submitted to the court at docket number 411?

219
00:31:47,000 --> 00:31:52,000
I was.

220
00:31:52,000 --> 00:32:04,000
And do you believe to the best of your knowledge that the information presented in your declaration reflects your views, again to the best of your knowledge?

221
00:32:04,000 --> 00:32:07,000
Yes, I do.

222
00:32:07,000 --> 00:32:25,000
If you go to paragraph 12 of your declaration, you state in the first sentence there, additionally it is well established that customer information such as names and contact information are separately valued intangible assets of an entity.

223
00:32:25,000 --> 00:32:26,000
Do you see that?

224
00:32:26,000 --> 00:32:27,000
I do.

225
00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:37,000
Can you explain to the court the basis for the statements that you made there in paragraph 12 and beyond that sentence in paragraph 12?

226
00:32:37,000 --> 00:32:40,000
Yes.

227
00:32:40,000 --> 00:33:05,000
I'll try to answer that in a number of ways. First, as indicated further in this particular paragraph, in the context of a business combination as that's defined by Accounting Standard, codification 805, intangible assets are valued and allocated in a certain manner.

228
00:33:05,000 --> 00:33:14,000
And customer-related assets, customer lists are a component of that.

229
00:33:14,000 --> 00:33:18,000
We thought that that was significant.

230
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:35,000
I also indicated in the paragraph I've reviewed some academic literature, in particular the book by Jeffrey Cohen, Intangible Assets, Valuation, and Economic Benefit.

231
00:33:35,000 --> 00:33:56,000
Valuation is a value ascribed to customer lists, particularly the economic value that is indicated particularly by instances where companies choose to keep that information secret to the extent that they can.

232
00:33:56,000 --> 00:34:22,000
In addition, as I had indicated in the prior paragraphs, it was very relevant, in our view, significant as we evaluated this particular situation and the competitive landscape within which this company operates that all of its competitors value this information.

233
00:34:22,000 --> 00:34:36,000
This is a new and expanding field, and it's not entirely clear to businesses that are seeking to expand their asset base and their customer lists exactly who they should be targeting.

234
00:34:36,000 --> 00:34:56,000
And so all of the competitors that we looked at indicated that they provide economic, they ascribe economic value to these customers, and the indication, the evidence of that was, I won't read through the words on the page, but

235
00:34:56,000 --> 00:35:06,000
Binance and Coinbase and Kraken and Qcoin all provide financial incentives for the referral of customers and the retention of customers.

236
00:35:06,000 --> 00:35:35,000
We also reviewed the bids that had been submitted in the Voyager case and in the Celsius case and took note of the fact that not only were customer assets and lists being acquired in, and a value ascribed to the business itself, but that there were actually incremental elements of value which would be allocated to each customer that went onto the acquirer's platform.

237
00:35:35,000 --> 00:35:55,000
And in the initial case of the prior bid from FTX to Voyager, to the extent that customers maintained their accounts on the platform for a period of time, they would receive incremental value.

238
00:35:55,000 --> 00:36:14,000
And so there was specific value ascribed to each customer, the name, the identity, the assets as they moved onto the platform of the buyer.

239
00:36:14,000 --> 00:36:25,000
Thank you. With respect, Mr. Koski, if you look at paragraph 13 of your declaration, the last paragraph there.

240
00:36:25,000 --> 00:36:28,000
Yes.

241
00:36:28,000 --> 00:36:46,000
You write in the declaration in the last sentence, I believe an important component of that strategy is maintaining the confidentiality of customers' identities and personal identifying information, and then you end by saying disclosing those customer lists would therefore jeopardize the debtor's ability to maximize value.

242
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:48,000
You see that there? I do.

243
00:36:48,000 --> 00:36:51,000
Do you stand by that testimony this morning?

244
00:36:51,000 --> 00:36:52,000
I do.

245
00:36:52,000 --> 00:37:01,000
Thank you. Elaborate for the court review as to why disclosing the customer list would jeopardize the ability to maximize value.

246
00:37:01,000 --> 00:37:24,000
Yes, as I indicated, whether we reorganize or able to reorganize the businesses or whether there will be an acquisition of the court business and the other exchanges. We believe that the business itself is comprised of a number of components and a significant component of the business is the customers themselves.

247
00:37:24,000 --> 00:37:38,000
The customer assets are obviously important, but what the customers choose to do going forward will be a significant driver of value, and we think that third parties will play significant value on that in a sale process.

248
00:37:38,000 --> 00:38:05,000
So to the extent that those customer lists, the identity of the customers are able to be maintained without broad disclosure that will give buyers confidence that what they are buying is actually of value and that they alone will be able to maximize the value of putting those customers onto their platform.

249
00:38:05,000 --> 00:38:16,000
I think the same logic holds for reorganized entity to the extent that the exchange is able to be rehabilitated and reorganized.

250
00:38:16,000 --> 00:38:35,000
It will, in our view, have more value if those customers have not been poached and are by competitors and are therefore not transacting on another exchange.

251
00:38:35,000 --> 00:38:50,000
I see paragraph six of your declaration submitted to the court.

252
00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:56,000
Do you see that? Yes, I do.

253
00:38:56,000 --> 00:38:59,000
And that sentence is accurate.

254
00:38:59,000 --> 00:39:14,000
Do you have any sense at this time how long the process of outreach and monetization of assets in your organization is likely to take?

255
00:39:14,000 --> 00:39:29,000
We have filed the bidding procedures for the four exchanges, as you know, and have a time frame enumerated in the bidding procedures.

256
00:39:29,000 --> 00:39:33,000
We've had significant interest in those assets to date.

257
00:39:33,000 --> 00:39:52,000
We expect that we will be in a position to evaluate those potential, if the court approves the bidding procedures and if we move forward with that process, we would be in a position to evaluate those bids relative to a standalone reorganization of those exchanges in a matter of months.

258
00:39:52,000 --> 00:40:00,000
I don't want to be too specific because we're at the earlier stages of that process and there's a lot of work that needs to be done.

259
00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:20,000
Similarly, the court exchange, as the UCC counsel indicated earlier, it's not too soon and we have already initiated a review of a reorganization of the court exchange and that process is ongoing.

260
00:40:20,000 --> 00:40:35,000
We, as you know, have not launched a sale process with respect to the court exchange, but we expect to run a simultaneous reorganization as well as sale process for that exchange.

261
00:40:35,000 --> 00:40:52,000
It's difficult to say with too much specificity at this point given the work that will need to be done in the collaboration with the UCC on the broader exchange process, the sale as well as the reorganization efforts.

262
00:40:52,000 --> 00:41:04,000
But I would expect that we'll be talking a matter of months before that type of a sale and evaluation of a reorganization will be initiated robustly.

263
00:41:04,000 --> 00:41:20,000
Thank you, Mr. Koshy. No further director. Thank you. Cross.

264
00:41:20,000 --> 00:41:29,000
Thank you, Your Honor, for the record, Juliet Sarkeesian on behalf of the U.S. Trustee. Your Honor, I just have a question, a clarification.

265
00:41:29,000 --> 00:41:38,000
Debtors Council asked the witness, you know, did you participate in drafting the declaration? Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?

266
00:41:38,000 --> 00:41:47,000
I just want to be clear that the affidavit itself is not coming into evidence and it is only the witnesses testimony that is coming into evidence.

267
00:41:47,000 --> 00:41:56,000
That's correct. Thank you.

268
00:41:56,000 --> 00:42:11,000
Mr. Koshy, you spoke about doing a search using just the names of a number of the debtors customers to see if you could find other contact information based on their names, correct?

269
00:42:11,000 --> 00:42:12,000
Yes.

270
00:42:12,000 --> 00:42:19,000
By contact information, I assume you have an email address, a street address, something, telephone number, something of that nature?

271
00:42:19,000 --> 00:42:33,000
Yes, as well as information on social media platforms, ability to identify the individual. We believe identify the individuals and their interest in crypto.

272
00:42:33,000 --> 00:42:36,000
And identify them in a way that you could communicate with them?

273
00:42:36,000 --> 00:42:37,000
Yes.

274
00:42:37,000 --> 00:42:44,000
How many names did you do that search for?

275
00:42:44,000 --> 00:42:59,000
I directed my team to evaluate that. I believe of the nine million customers, it was not close to nine million.

276
00:42:59,000 --> 00:43:13,000
More than a dozen, dozens, I believe, enough that once we had a sufficiently high probability of hit rate, we believe that was indicative of our ability to identify these customers.

277
00:43:13,000 --> 00:43:20,000
Let me try to pinpoint this down. You're saying a dozen, a few dozen. What's the correct number?

278
00:43:20,000 --> 00:43:25,000
I don't have a specific number. I believe it was in the high teens.

279
00:43:25,000 --> 00:43:26,000
In the high teens?

280
00:43:26,000 --> 00:43:27,000
Yes.

281
00:43:27,000 --> 00:43:32,000
Okay, so less than 20 people.

282
00:43:32,000 --> 00:43:47,000
I believe that we chose to search for under 20 and our hit rate on those names was very high.

283
00:43:47,000 --> 00:44:08,000
In other words, we were able to, based on the names, locate information and be able to correspond with, we didn't correspond with, but we believe we would be able to correspond with customers over 50% of the names that we searched on.

284
00:44:08,000 --> 00:44:21,000
So you searched less than 20 and out of those 20 names, about 50%, you would have been able to get some type of contact information or some way to contact those individuals.

285
00:44:21,000 --> 00:44:29,000
It was over 50%. I don't know the specific probability, but yes, I think that generally characterizes my comments.

286
00:44:29,000 --> 00:44:34,000
You did not run any of these searches yourself?

287
00:44:34,000 --> 00:44:40,000
I actually did run one or two, but in general I asked my team to do that. Yes.

288
00:44:40,000 --> 00:44:49,000
And the names you picked, did you say that they were unusual names as compared to a Sue Brown or something?

289
00:44:49,000 --> 00:45:04,000
It's a good question because to the extent that they're generic names, John Smith, Mary Jones, yes, we agree that would be difficult to identify the specific person.

290
00:45:04,000 --> 00:45:27,000
We looked at names that were not of that type. And in general, I was also very interested, I reviewed the customer list myself to assure myself that this was an accurate assessment and to evaluate, to your point, whether I thought that these names in and of themselves were meaningful.

291
00:45:27,000 --> 00:45:46,000
And there were, again, I didn't do a search of the nine million customer names and I can't give you a specific probability or percentage, but a significant, the vast majority of the names were not of that type or not of the John Smith, Mary Jones type.

292
00:45:46,000 --> 00:45:52,000
The vast majority of the names that you searched or the vast majority of the nine million names?

293
00:45:52,000 --> 00:46:05,000
I can't say the nine million names. I looked through the database and scrolled through the first several hundred largest I went through in customer size order.

294
00:46:05,000 --> 00:46:21,000
And the vast majority of the names I saw were of a unique type that I believed were not of the John Smith, Mary Jones type, where it would not necessarily be useful to do a search for those.

295
00:46:21,000 --> 00:46:39,000
Were a good number of those names not, I guess I would say common, say, American names? Were they names that might be names of people living in other countries or names of, you know, not a Sue Brown, but Sue Brown's very American name?

296
00:46:39,000 --> 00:46:54,000
We have customers right all over the world, right? So a name that might sound a little unusual in the United States might not be that unusual in India or China, isn't that true?

297
00:46:54,000 --> 00:47:10,000
I think I understand your question. In my experience, there's a wide variety of names in the United States. We didn't place a lot of value in whether the name sounded Western or sounded Asian, for example.

298
00:47:10,000 --> 00:47:18,000
We did. We tried to have it just an unbiased perspective as we did the search.

299
00:47:18,000 --> 00:47:33,000
Are you are you personally familiar or knowledgeable about how common a particular name might be in China or India?

300
00:47:33,000 --> 00:47:59,000
I'm not sure how to answer that question. What I can tell you is that when we did the searches, to the extent that there was a, if there had been a large result set from a particular search, such that we didn't believe that we would actually be able to locate and contact and correspond with a customer,

301
00:47:59,000 --> 00:48:11,000
then that would have put that name, regardless of the reason, in the category of names that we did not believe we could actually contact or search.

302
00:48:11,000 --> 00:48:29,000
Again, regardless of whether it was a common name or for any other reason, they didn't have a social media presence. They protected their identification. I didn't speculate. Thank you.

303
00:48:29,000 --> 00:48:44,000
Now, with respect to non-individuals, institutional customers, and I understand that it would probably be pretty easy to locate contact information for an institutional customer. You agree with that, right?

304
00:48:44,000 --> 00:48:53,000
Depending on the institution, it may be easier. Yes, institutions generally have more of a footprint.

305
00:48:53,000 --> 00:49:07,000
Although, I guess there are some institutional customers that might not be that easy to find contact information for. You're saying smaller institutional customers? I shouldn't use institutional. Non-individuals.

306
00:49:07,000 --> 00:49:16,000
Are there some non-individual customers that might be harder to find contact information for with just the name and nothing else?

307
00:49:16,000 --> 00:49:36,000
Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. I'll move on to a different question. With respect to non-individual customers,

308
00:49:36,000 --> 00:49:50,000
companies that are looking for competitors of the data, the competitors you're concerned might coach customers, with respect to non-individual customers, institutional customers,

309
00:49:50,000 --> 00:50:14,000
aren't there sources that those competitors could go to define potential institutional customers that are interested in cryptocurrency or keeping accounts on cryptocurrency exchanges other than looking at a customer list of a particular of the debtors, for example?

310
00:50:14,000 --> 00:50:39,000
I'm sure if there are places where businesses that are seeking to acquire customers, I'm sure if there are indicators of interest in crypto, those businesses that are seeking customers have already utilized those external sources.

311
00:50:39,000 --> 00:51:01,000
I don't know how that—I guess I understand your question, but I'm trying to be careful about how I answer it only because I don't want to inadvertently share information about the customers, but there are a number of institutional customers that are unique,

312
00:51:01,000 --> 00:51:18,000
and the names of those institutions may not be widely known to the public or to the competitors in this industry.

313
00:51:18,000 --> 00:51:36,000
And so I don't believe that simply that the existence of other information sources materially changes my testimony here.

314
00:51:36,000 --> 00:52:03,000
I think the critical element here is that these institutions and individuals have indicated by their activity on the exchange that they participate in this particular activity, and that they would be valuable to a competitor or someone interested in acquiring this business in the future, precisely because they have participated in this activity.

315
00:52:03,000 --> 00:52:23,000
Now, Mr. Kofsky, is it your understanding that prior to the bankruptcy filing that all of the accounts of the debtors' customers were frozen?

316
00:52:23,000 --> 00:52:25,000
Yes, I believe that's correct.

317
00:52:25,000 --> 00:52:31,000
And they've been frozen since that time, correct?

318
00:52:31,000 --> 00:52:34,000
To the best of my knowledge, yes.

319
00:52:34,000 --> 00:52:45,000
Are you aware that there are allegations that billions of dollars of funds in customer accounts were effectively raided to make loans to Alameda?

320
00:52:45,000 --> 00:52:49,000
Are you aware of those allegations?

321
00:52:49,000 --> 00:52:56,000
Objection, Your Honor. I think that's for the outside of the scope of the testimony.

322
00:52:56,000 --> 00:53:00,000
What's the relevance to his testimony, Ms. Sarkisian?

323
00:53:00,000 --> 00:53:12,000
I believe that this witness's testimony is that these customer names should not be disclosed because they could be subject to coaching.

324
00:53:12,000 --> 00:53:41,000
My point is that I want to ask this witness to develop what the situation was coming into the bankruptcy with respect to these customers, and whether these customers might be interested in moving their funds out of the debtors' accounts for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with potentially being contacted.

325
00:53:41,000 --> 00:53:44,000
By some other competitor.

326
00:53:44,000 --> 00:53:50,000
I mean, this is not a regular case where, you know, a business is having some financial trouble.

327
00:53:50,000 --> 00:53:53,000
They file for bankruptcy. They might be able to reorganize.

328
00:53:53,000 --> 00:53:58,000
They could be able to keep the customers, or if they sell the business, the customers may want to go with it.

329
00:53:58,000 --> 00:54:11,000
I would suspect that these customers may be rather upset about the current situation, and therefore, I don't think coaching is the real problem here.

330
00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:20,000
If the concern is that these customers are going to leave the platform, I think they may be leaving the platform for reasons that don't have to do with coaching.

331
00:54:20,000 --> 00:54:30,000
So that was my, what I was trying to develop with the witness, but I guess I can say that for oral argument that we want to do it that way.

332
00:54:30,000 --> 00:54:39,000
Yeah, I think it is outside the scope of his direct testimony.

333
00:54:39,000 --> 00:54:45,000
Your Honor, I think that finishes my cross-examination.

334
00:54:45,000 --> 00:54:46,000
Thank you.

335
00:54:46,000 --> 00:54:51,000
On this particular motion, I will have a cross on one of the other motions.

336
00:54:51,000 --> 00:54:52,000
Understood. Thank you.

337
00:54:52,000 --> 00:54:57,000
Mr. Fenger.

338
00:54:57,000 --> 00:54:59,000
Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Mr. Cossie.

339
00:54:59,000 --> 00:55:00,000
Good morning.

340
00:55:00,000 --> 00:55:05,000
Just a couple of preliminary questions, if I may, before getting to heavier stuff.

341
00:55:05,000 --> 00:55:09,000
In your affidavit, you say you're a partner of Pirello Weinberg Partners, LG, correct?

342
00:55:09,000 --> 00:55:10,000
Correct.

343
00:55:10,000 --> 00:55:16,000
And that is the debtor's proposed investment banker.

344
00:55:16,000 --> 00:55:17,000
I'm sorry, could I have a question?

345
00:55:17,000 --> 00:55:20,000
We're having a hard time hearing you, Mr. Fenger. You're going to have to speak up and-

346
00:55:20,000 --> 00:55:26,000
I'm sorry, Your Honor, Aegis has done this number on my voice.

347
00:55:26,000 --> 00:55:30,000
Pirello is the proposed investment banker for the debtors, correct?

348
00:55:30,000 --> 00:55:31,000
Correct.

349
00:55:31,000 --> 00:55:48,000
When were you asked to make this declaration, to the best of your recollection?

350
00:55:48,000 --> 00:55:54,000
I don't recall if it was before the New Year or somewhere there abouts, over the holidays, I believe.

351
00:55:54,000 --> 00:55:58,000
So sometime in December, is that fair?

352
00:55:58,000 --> 00:56:06,000
Yes, I believe that's correct.

353
00:56:06,000 --> 00:56:12,000
At paragraph four of your affidavit, the declaration, you identify a number of matters you've worked on.

354
00:56:12,000 --> 00:56:14,000
Do you see that?

355
00:56:14,000 --> 00:56:15,000
I do.

356
00:56:15,000 --> 00:56:21,000
Which of those involves a cryptocurrency?

357
00:56:21,000 --> 00:56:31,000
None of those involve a cryptocurrency.

358
00:56:31,000 --> 00:56:37,000
At paragraph seven of your declaration, you say that the second sentence,

359
00:56:37,000 --> 00:56:42,000
a hallmark feature of cryptocurrency is a holder's ability to remain anonymous to the public.

360
00:56:42,000 --> 00:56:44,000
Do you see that?

361
00:56:44,000 --> 00:56:46,000
Yes, I do.

362
00:56:46,000 --> 00:56:51,000
Are you familiar with Bitcoin?

363
00:56:51,000 --> 00:56:52,000
I am.

364
00:56:52,000 --> 00:56:57,000
Do you know whether Bitcoin can be traced to the holder?

365
00:56:57,000 --> 00:57:00,000
I wouldn't put it in quite those terms.

366
00:57:00,000 --> 00:57:08,000
When you say traced to the holder, I know that Bitcoin can be traced on the blockchain,

367
00:57:08,000 --> 00:57:10,000
and it can be traced to the wallet.

368
00:57:10,000 --> 00:57:18,000
So to the extent that one is able to identify the owner of the wallet, one can trace to a particular user.

369
00:57:18,000 --> 00:57:27,000
But tracing to the wallet is not necessarily the same as tracing, identifying the owner of the wallet.

370
00:57:27,000 --> 00:57:42,000
Are you familiar with circumstances where authorities have recovered Bitcoin or other types of cryptocurrencies by tracing it to the holder?

371
00:57:42,000 --> 00:57:51,000
I'm generally aware of that, yes.

372
00:57:51,000 --> 00:57:57,000
I want to turn to the statement you made in paragraph nine.

373
00:57:57,000 --> 00:58:02,000
I do not believe that it would be difficult to look up, and in the case of debtor's competitors,

374
00:58:02,000 --> 00:58:06,000
poach the debtor's customers if their names were to remain public.

375
00:58:06,000 --> 00:58:11,000
Now, the U.S. trustee has asked you some questions on this, and I'll try not to duplicate.

376
00:58:11,000 --> 00:58:18,000
First, practically, the names you get, do they include a middle initial?

377
00:58:18,000 --> 00:58:20,000
In some cases, yes.

378
00:58:20,000 --> 00:58:31,000
Would you agree that it might be harder to trace someone, to find someone absent a middle initial?

379
00:58:31,000 --> 00:58:35,000
I think you say harder than what?

380
00:58:35,000 --> 00:58:53,000
I'm sorry, I called a few, two names, Joe Smith, that's it. And one says Joe Smith, and the other one says Joe Arsene. Would the R be an identifier that could make it easier to locate a trade crack down the owner?

381
00:58:53,000 --> 00:59:10,000
If your question is, if you don't mind, I'll try to be helpful here. The greater the level of the identifying information, as a logical matter, I would agree, the easier it would be to identify that particular user.

382
00:59:10,000 --> 00:59:21,000
In this case, we didn't look at the customer list and simply speculate about whether we would be able to locate and potentially correspond with users.

383
00:59:21,000 --> 00:59:26,000
We actually did the searches to determine whether that would be the case.

384
00:59:26,000 --> 00:59:37,000
So I don't disagree with the logic of incremental information being more useful than less information, but we didn't rely upon the logic alone.

385
00:59:37,000 --> 00:59:38,000
Thank you.

386
00:59:38,000 --> 00:59:53,000
Now, in response to questions from the US trustee, you discussed the methodology your team used and the results they covered, correct?

387
00:59:53,000 --> 00:59:59,000
Generally, yes, although I didn't go into too much detail about the methodology.

388
00:59:59,000 --> 01:00:19,000
Have you made any documentation developed during that process to the US trustee?

389
01:00:19,000 --> 01:00:30,000
You're asking, have we provided any documentation with respect to those searches and the results of those searches?

390
01:00:30,000 --> 01:00:42,000
In the course of that procedure, were there written notes or reports or results that were presented to you?

391
01:00:42,000 --> 01:00:49,000
I did not review any written reports. I don't know if they exist. I had conversations with my team.

392
01:00:49,000 --> 01:00:57,000
So you are reporting to us statements made by the chief, correct?

393
01:00:57,000 --> 01:01:00,000
That's correct.

394
01:01:00,000 --> 01:01:18,000
Do you know whether there was any documentation, be it email, be it written findings, regarding this process and the results?

395
01:01:18,000 --> 01:01:35,000
I don't know. As I said, I specifically recall that I spoke with the team and directed them to undertake these searches, and then we followed up with a physical conversation regarding the results.

396
01:01:35,000 --> 01:01:49,000
I don't know if there was any correspondence among the team members, but I don't recall having reviewed a report on this question.

397
01:01:49,000 --> 01:01:54,000
So the trustee, you can roll it. Did your team report back to you orally?

398
01:01:54,000 --> 01:01:57,000
Yes, that's correct.

399
01:01:57,000 --> 01:02:12,000
So there's no way, let's talk about that, there's no way anyone, the trustee or the court, can validate what your team did. Is that correct?

400
01:02:12,000 --> 01:02:14,000
Independently.

401
01:02:14,000 --> 01:02:23,000
I think it would be, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to independently validate.

402
01:02:23,000 --> 01:02:50,000
I think it would be, I don't think you need to have this customer list in order to undertake your own assessment of whether, given a particular set of individuals, contact information or names, you would be able to locate those individuals online and be able to find enough information to be able to contact them.

403
01:02:50,000 --> 01:03:03,000
But I think you agree in response to the question from the U.S. trustee that the degree of difficulty depends on the degree of commonality of the name, correct?

404
01:03:03,000 --> 01:03:06,000
I don't think that's exactly what I said.

405
01:03:06,000 --> 01:03:08,000
I paraphrased it, I agree.

406
01:03:08,000 --> 01:03:35,000
I want to be clear that to the extent that there are names of the John Smith, Mary Jones type, it would be very difficult to identify, it would be more difficult to ensure that identification of that particular individual would be the individual on the customer list, just given the common nature of the name.

407
01:03:35,000 --> 01:03:56,000
And so when we reviewed the customer lists, I personally reviewed the customer list to determine and evaluate the extent to which the predominance were of that type or not, and my conclusion was that they were substantially not of that type.

408
01:03:56,000 --> 01:04:06,000
But yes, I would agree that to the extent that there's a very common name, it would be more difficult to locate that particular individual.

409
01:04:06,000 --> 01:04:14,000
I'm not sure I understand. Did you review, how did you select them?

410
01:04:14,000 --> 01:04:40,000
I reviewed the customer list to ensure, to assure myself in the first instance that I wanted to understand the relative size, concentration, I wanted to understand the extent to which the names of the institutions or the individuals were unique or general in nature.

411
01:04:40,000 --> 01:05:00,000
I then asked my team, who's more technologically savvy than I am, to see if they would be able to locate these individuals or institutions by using generally available search technologies.

412
01:05:00,000 --> 01:05:12,000
And the response was relatively quick that there was a high hit rate being able to locate these individuals.

413
01:05:12,000 --> 01:05:30,000
And to be clear, the information that we were able to locate was of a type that gave us a relatively high degree of confidence that these were the right individuals. We didn't correspond with them, and so we can't say with absolute certainty.

414
01:05:30,000 --> 01:05:51,000
But their social media footprint indicated that they had a significant interest in crypto, and we evaluated their postings on various social media platforms, etc., which gave us a high level of confidence that the individual who we were searching for was actually the individual that we had located.

415
01:05:51,000 --> 01:06:06,000
Please, again, I'm going to try to answer a little bit. You said you reviewed the client list, correct? The customer list, that's correct, yes. How many customers are on that list?

416
01:06:06,000 --> 01:06:18,000
I'll make it really, at the opening day, the Council for the Dead is using the number 9 million. Does that seem about right?

417
01:06:18,000 --> 01:06:23,000
I have seen the number 9 million. I did not search through 9 million.

418
01:06:23,000 --> 01:06:25,000
How many did you search?

419
01:06:25,000 --> 01:06:42,000
Hundreds. So I had an Excel spreadsheet with that information, and it had the identifying information and the entitlement amount.

420
01:06:42,000 --> 01:07:04,000
And I scrolled down, I can't say specifically, but several hundred, because I was interested to know exactly, again, as I indicated. I don't want to take up too much time repeating myself, but I wanted to make sure that, again, these would be unique names and identifiers, or not.

421
01:07:04,000 --> 01:07:19,000
And what methodology did you use to determine that the 100 or 200 that you looked at were in terms of commonalities and names, were representative of the list as a whole?

422
01:07:19,000 --> 01:07:26,000
Your Honor, I'm just going to object to this a bit. This was all asked and answered by the United States Trust.

423
01:07:26,000 --> 01:07:29,000
I think we did go through this already, Mr. Hanger.

424
01:07:29,000 --> 01:07:45,000
We did, but I don't think there was a testimony that, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any specific question regarding how the determination was made as to whether this sampling is a representative thing.

425
01:07:45,000 --> 01:07:53,000
I'll give you some leeway. Go ahead. Let's not retread the ground we've already been through.

426
01:07:53,000 --> 01:08:11,000
I didn't have a sophisticated methodology. I used my judgment that after having gone through page after page after page, and seen relatively the same type of information, that that would be consistent.

427
01:08:11,000 --> 01:08:25,000
I knew I wasn't going to search through millions. And so after I scrolled through, I believe that I also asked my team to do a sampling.

428
01:08:25,000 --> 01:08:43,000
I didn't want to just focus on the largest 20 customers, for example. But to be clear, I just exercised my judgment and I didn't have a specific rubric or algorithm.

429
01:08:43,000 --> 01:09:00,000
And did you have any guidelines in determining how common or uncommon a given would be, other than your own instinct?

430
01:09:00,000 --> 01:09:09,000
Yeah, again, I did not have anything other than my own judgment and my team's judgment to base that decision on.

431
01:09:09,000 --> 01:09:16,000
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else across.

432
01:09:16,000 --> 01:09:27,000
Read.

433
01:09:27,000 --> 01:09:41,000
Cost is very briefly. Council just pointed you to paragraph for the declaration that reflects certain experience. You see that. Yes.

434
01:09:41,000 --> 01:09:57,000
Outside of what's listed there in paragraph for can you just stay for the court. I believe you addressed this in your overview at the beginning, but can you stay for the court experience you have, specifically the area of cryptocurrency related company.

435
01:09:57,000 --> 01:10:11,000
Yes, I have been involved in a number of other crypto related situations, including several capital raises for Bitcoin miners and.

436
01:10:11,000 --> 01:10:37,000
Other crypto companies, not specifically in focused on Bitcoin, but other crypto currencies and other business models as well, including IPO advisory and liability management, both representing the company as well as representing creditors.

437
01:10:37,000 --> 01:10:41,000
No further questions. Thank you.

438
01:10:41,000 --> 01:10:54,000
Thank you, sir. You may step down.

439
01:10:54,000 --> 01:10:56,000
Any further evidence.

440
01:10:56,000 --> 01:11:08,000
No, your honor.

441
01:11:08,000 --> 01:11:19,000
No, your honor. Thank you.

442
01:11:19,000 --> 01:11:25,000
Thank you, your honor again Brian blessing for the debtors.

443
01:11:25,000 --> 01:11:28,000
Your honor.

444
01:11:28,000 --> 01:11:31,000
With respect to this motion, most, but not all.

445
01:11:31,000 --> 01:11:43,000
As we just heard of the relief requested in the motion to protect the debtors customer list and their predators into streamline disclosures is uncontested.

446
01:11:43,000 --> 01:12:02,000
The purpose of the debtors request to redact sensitive personal information of customers and other stakeholders is to protect the value of the debtors customer list as an asset, and to protect sensitive personal identifying information of predators.

447
01:12:02,000 --> 01:12:10,000
There is no objection to redacting the addresses of individual customers and other individual creditors.

448
01:12:10,000 --> 01:12:17,000
That information subject to the court's approval today would remain redacted.

449
01:12:17,000 --> 01:12:25,000
The US trustee in the media objectors do object to the debtors redacting customer creditor names.

450
01:12:25,000 --> 01:12:32,000
With respect to the US trustees objection the addresses of non individuals.

451
01:12:32,000 --> 01:12:42,000
The objectors site the general principles of the right public access to records and bankruptcy disclosure requirements.

452
01:12:42,000 --> 01:12:55,000
Not articulate any specific harm being suffered that requires disclosure today of the names and institutional addresses on an immediate basis.

453
01:12:55,000 --> 01:13:04,000
Nor do the objectives recognize in our view, the court's role in modifying those requirements for cost shown.

454
01:13:04,000 --> 01:13:18,000
Your honor, the debtors have been working hard to strike the correct balance on this difficult issue, particularly in the still early stages of these Chapter 11 case.

455
01:13:18,000 --> 01:13:28,000
To ensure the protection of their assets and customer information, but understanding the need for disclosure and transparency.

456
01:13:28,000 --> 01:13:35,000
Your honor, these Chapter 11 cases as we've been hearing from when we first stood in front of you are unprecedented.

457
01:13:35,000 --> 01:13:40,000
And the debtors recognize that they have generated significant public interest.

458
01:13:40,000 --> 01:13:45,000
These cases also present unprecedented challenges.

459
01:13:45,000 --> 01:13:54,000
But the relief requested, including the redaction of customer names, has present in this court.

460
01:13:54,000 --> 01:14:06,000
In your honor's well reasoned opinion in cred, where redaction of both names and identifying information of a cryptocurrency platform's customers was permitted.

461
01:14:06,000 --> 01:14:15,000
The court's reasoning applies here, but we submit the facts and the evidence before the court.

462
01:14:15,000 --> 01:14:25,000
Here are overwhelming against immediate disclosure, given the debtors customer lists have more than nine million names and addresses on them.

463
01:14:25,000 --> 01:14:40,000
The US trustee invites the court to rip up precedent in this district and instead to simply adopt the conclusions reached in the Celsius case by Judge Glenn in New York.

464
01:14:40,000 --> 01:14:47,000
We submit your honor that decision is an outlier and certainly should not be wholesale adopted here.

465
01:14:47,000 --> 01:14:50,000
But it doesn't need to be.

466
01:14:50,000 --> 01:15:08,000
In order to strike an appropriate balance as to the disclosure, while providing the debtors and other parties more time to evaluate options and ensure all restructuring options for the debtors, assets, the debtors and their assets remain available.

467
01:15:08,000 --> 01:15:15,000
We are limiting our request today, as reflected in our reply papers, with the support of the creditors committee.

468
01:15:15,000 --> 01:15:34,000
To the redaction of names of the debtors, customers and addresses of institutional customers for an additional six months, subject to the right to request further extensions of the redaction authority.

469
01:15:34,000 --> 01:15:43,000
These redactions are appropriate and necessary to protect the debtors commercial information pursuant to Section 107B of the Bankers and Co.

470
01:15:43,000 --> 01:15:52,000
Section 107B, as the court is aware, of course, permits the court to protect for cause the debtors confidential information.

471
01:15:52,000 --> 01:16:06,000
Mr. Kofsky's testimony before the court makes clear that the debtors customer list, in his opinion, as the debtors proposed investment banker charged with maximizing the value of assets in such a process,

472
01:16:06,000 --> 01:16:17,000
including both names and contact information, are a key asset and a source of value, potential source of value at a minimum for the debtors.

473
01:16:17,000 --> 01:16:37,000
Mr. Kofsky's testimony this morning explained that companies that operate crypto asset management platforms work to identify new customers, attract and enroll them, and establish them as customers.

474
01:16:37,000 --> 01:16:47,000
Mr. Kofsky concluded that the debtors would be harmed by the disclosure of customer names, even with the redaction of addresses.

475
01:16:47,000 --> 01:16:59,000
We heard on cross-examination questions about exactly how hard it would be, is it easier or harder with the middle initial to identify these customers and contact them.

476
01:16:59,000 --> 01:17:17,000
And we would submit, Your Honor, that level, the question before the court today is not whether every one of the debtors' customers could be or even would be immediately contacted by competitors.

477
01:17:17,000 --> 01:17:43,000
Mr. Kofsky's testimony and the position of the debtors is that we believe there is significant evidence that that is likely to happen, at least with respect to significant customers, with respect to customers that are not known, as Mr. Kofsky testified this morning, in his view, are not widely known to be customers in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space.

478
01:17:43,000 --> 01:17:53,000
We would submit, Your Honor, that the conclusion of the debtors' proposed investment bank is highly probative of the limited question that's before the court.

479
01:17:53,000 --> 01:18:01,000
The court's conclusion in cred overruled a similar objection from the U.S. trustee on similar grounds.

480
01:18:01,000 --> 01:18:07,000
The court concluded there that the debtors' customer list had some, quote, intrinsic value.

481
01:18:07,000 --> 01:18:18,000
We believe here that is clear, where we're talking about more than nine million customers compared to the 6,500 or so that we're issuing in the bank.

482
01:18:18,000 --> 01:18:39,000
Importantly, as I noted, while the case to keep customer names confidential is, in our view, compelling, the debtors are seeking this relief today only for a limited period of six months with the right reserve to seek extensions.

483
01:18:39,000 --> 01:18:50,000
Your Honor, I also want to briefly address the U.S. trustee's arguments that granting this relief for any period of additional time would somehow hinder the administration of these cases.

484
01:18:50,000 --> 01:18:53,000
We believe that's not true at all.

485
01:18:53,000 --> 01:19:03,000
All of the necessary information, Your Honor, is being served, will continue to be served, and provided to parties of interest as required.

486
01:19:03,000 --> 01:19:21,000
The debtors have worked when other parties have needed to sort documents to take on that responsibility and to sort documents on the debtors' credit of this where that, as I say, where that is necessary.

487
01:19:21,000 --> 01:19:38,000
As in the interim order, the proposed final order that we've submitted includes the court's language that was developed in Fred, making clear that all parties of interest retain the right to seek copies of any redacted documents from the debtors or, if necessary, from the court.

488
01:19:38,000 --> 01:19:44,000
Your Honor, importantly, we believe that this balance is appropriate for today.

489
01:19:44,000 --> 01:20:13,000
If the redactions are granted on this basis to preserve the debtor's asset, to allow the strategic review process that's discussed, that's an issue, I'm sorry, before the court in connection with the bidding procedures today, the discussions that are underway that Mr. Deeder referred to in his opening remarks, to allow all of that work to continue and to mature to hopefully a plan or self-process that benefits all stakeholders.

490
01:20:13,000 --> 01:20:20,000
We're asking for the limited relief to maintain that customer listing confidence for a period of six months.

491
01:20:20,000 --> 01:20:36,000
If redactions are granted today on that basis, the debtors are not asking the court, and we submit the court doesn't need to reach the issue at this time, of the propriety of redacting customer names more permanently on the basis of Section 107C1.

492
01:20:36,000 --> 01:20:43,000
We reserve the rights on that issue, of course, to come back to the court, but we don't believe that that issue needs to be adjudicated.

493
01:20:43,000 --> 01:20:53,000
We understand that that question presents some difficult issues for not only the court, but for the debtors and other parties of interest.

494
01:20:53,000 --> 01:21:06,000
Lastly, Your Honor, the debtors do request that the court authorize the redaction of individual non-customer creditors and equity holder names to comply with the GDPR. It's briefed in our papers.

495
01:21:06,000 --> 01:21:14,000
That relief has historically, from what we see, been relatively routinely granted by courts in this district.

496
01:21:14,000 --> 01:21:24,000
The U.S. Trustee did not object to that relief with respect to the interim order, but has objected to it now on a final basis.

497
01:21:24,000 --> 01:21:34,000
And we believe that the U.S. Trustee is taking that position, which seems to be a significant departure based on the court's reasoning in Celsius.

498
01:21:34,000 --> 01:21:39,000
We submit, Your Honor, that that position is somewhat short-sighted.

499
01:21:39,000 --> 01:21:45,000
Citizens of the covered countries have a heightened expectation of privacy as a result of local law.

500
01:21:45,000 --> 01:21:53,000
And as detailed in our reply papers, we do not believe there's a basis for the court to conclude that the GDPR does not apply to the debtors.

501
01:21:53,000 --> 01:22:03,000
And regardless, there's really no need to subject the debtors to potential fines or violations, which would only harm all stakeholders.

502
01:22:03,000 --> 01:22:17,000
So with that additional relatively modest piece, we are limiting the relief today to the question around maintaining the redactions with respect to the debtors' customer list in its entirety,

503
01:22:17,000 --> 01:22:25,000
including names and addresses of institutional customers for a period of six months for entry to the order with all parties' rights reserved.

504
01:22:25,000 --> 01:22:26,000
Thank you.

505
01:22:26,000 --> 01:22:37,000
I have a question. Does it matter that the customers here are not the exclusive customers of the debtors?

506
01:22:37,000 --> 01:22:45,000
I don't think so, Your Honor, because from our perspective, of course, there are customers that probably, and I assume with diagonal people,

507
01:22:45,000 --> 01:22:51,000
these are people who are active in the crypto, have investments on different platforms.

508
01:22:51,000 --> 01:22:59,000
And to the extent that those customers are accessible to other sources, of course, they can be contacted.

509
01:22:59,000 --> 01:23:09,000
The question, though, before the court and that Mr. Costner was testifying about this matter is whether or not we should put on the docket of this court

510
01:23:09,000 --> 01:23:23,000
effectively nine million names that allow the debtors' competitors and potential acquirers of the debtors' assets and businesses, giving them the roadmap to say,

511
01:23:23,000 --> 01:23:31,000
oh, these are the folks, here are the significant customers, they see claim entitlement amounts, let me try to contact those people.

512
01:23:31,000 --> 01:23:43,000
And so it's not a question of exclusivity. It's a question of exclusivity with respect to the list that the debtors have compiled over time with, you know,

513
01:23:43,000 --> 01:23:52,000
spending its own resources to put this together, whether that asset should be preserved. And we submit that it is. That it should.

514
01:23:52,000 --> 01:23:56,000
And why six months? What's the significance of asking for six months?

515
01:23:56,000 --> 01:24:01,000
There isn't a significance, Your Honor, other than I would say a couple of things.

516
01:24:01,000 --> 01:24:06,000
First, we want to try to be reasonable here and take this incrementally.

517
01:24:06,000 --> 01:24:18,000
We're not, you know, based on this, we're not asking for a permanent authority to redact on the basis of preservation of the assets, again, with rights on 107C reserve.

518
01:24:18,000 --> 01:24:34,000
We look at how long we think it will take to move forward with a process to make at least the determination as to whether the customer lists are part of a sale process, are integral to a reorganization plan.

519
01:24:34,000 --> 01:24:41,000
Are we going to be standing here in six months and be able to, can I say definitively that in six months all of these issues will be worked through? I can't.

520
01:24:41,000 --> 01:24:48,000
But we think it's a reasonable period of time where our thinking will be substantially advanced from where it is today.

521
01:24:48,000 --> 01:24:53,000
Is there a magic to six versus eight or five? No. But we thought it was a reasonable period of time.

522
01:24:53,000 --> 01:25:09,000
The other piece, Your Honor, there are some complications. We know we discussed them at the first day hearing with Your Honor around claims and once we set a bar date and how the claim reconciliation process is affected by these redactions.

523
01:25:09,000 --> 01:25:24,000
Those are issues we're still working through. We don't believe for a number of reasons, including because of the SOFAs and schedules extension that's before Your Honor today, that we're going to be in a position to set an early bar date in this case.

524
01:25:24,000 --> 01:25:38,000
But at some point, and so the six-month period factors into that too, we don't think we're going to be up against having to address some of the issues that we discussed back in November around what happens after we file a bar date and all those claims remain.

525
01:25:38,000 --> 01:25:43,000
Well, the bid procedure motion that you have on, that's for purposes of seeking to sell.

526
01:25:43,000 --> 01:25:54,000
I think Mr. Krosky actually testified that the entities that are sought to be sold pursuant to those procedures are exchanges, correct?

527
01:25:54,000 --> 01:25:55,000
They are.

528
01:25:55,000 --> 01:26:08,000
So, and that, what's the, remind me, the proposed timeline for the sale of those assets, or at least the bidding is supposedly done by the end of the month, right?

529
01:26:08,000 --> 01:26:15,000
I believe it's, I believe the process and the bidding procedure is contemplated to progress the Deidrick and the schedule.

530
01:26:15,000 --> 01:26:25,000
It's a, Your Honor, Andy Deidrick, Sullivan and Cromwell, it's a staggered schedule for the different businesses, but it will take a couple months at least to get done.

531
01:26:25,000 --> 01:26:26,000
Okay.

532
01:26:26,000 --> 01:26:37,000
And by then we'll know, we'll have some understanding at least from that process as to whether or not the creditor lists are going to be important to potential purchasers.

533
01:26:37,000 --> 01:26:49,000
We will have some indication, Your Honor, as Mr. Krosky testified this morning, though, the main, what I would call the main exchanges, right, so FTX.com, FTX US, the main exchanges are not subject to the current process.

534
01:26:49,000 --> 01:26:56,000
We will be informed by the localized exchange in Japan, for example, as to the relevance there.

535
01:26:56,000 --> 01:27:09,000
But I think Mr. Krosky testified this morning that the process for the main exchanges will take longer, right, because that process is not yet formally underway as far as bidding procedures, you know, there are lots of discussions that are ongoing.

536
01:27:09,000 --> 01:27:12,000
So, but I do think it is a good observation.

537
01:27:12,000 --> 01:27:24,000
We are going to start to be able to be informed by the different data points, the work that the professionals are doing, the strategic review that's underway, and the sale process of these other exchanges to have an understanding as to the customer list.

538
01:27:24,000 --> 01:27:32,000
So for all those reasons, Your Honor, we developed six months as your proposal because we thought it was a very reasonable next step.

539
01:27:32,000 --> 01:27:33,000
Thank you.

540
01:27:33,000 --> 01:27:38,000
Your Honor, may I give you, sorry to speak out of order, but Mr. Dedeerich again, may I give you the actual proposed dates.

541
01:27:38,000 --> 01:27:46,000
Now, these are kind of the earliest possible sale hearing dates for the various businesses, but they range from February 27th to March 27th.

542
01:27:46,000 --> 01:28:05,000
The other point that may be factually relevant for your consideration is we did in the cooperation agreement with the JPL and the Bahamas commit to them that we would work during a six-month period on our project to consider a potential reorganization of the international platform.

543
01:28:05,000 --> 01:28:13,000
And this customer information and data would, of course, be important in connection with that work with them.

544
01:28:13,000 --> 01:28:16,000
Thank you.

545
01:28:16,000 --> 01:28:17,000
Anything else?

546
01:28:17,000 --> 01:28:18,000
Anything further?

547
01:28:18,000 --> 01:28:23,000
No, I have no other questions for Your Honor.

548
01:28:23,000 --> 01:28:26,000
Mr. Hanson.

549
01:28:26,000 --> 01:28:27,000
Good morning, Your Honor.

550
01:28:27,000 --> 01:28:31,000
Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings, proposed counsel for the official committee once again, Your Honor.

551
01:28:31,000 --> 01:28:34,000
So Your Honor, the official committee joins in the debtors' arguments.

552
01:28:34,000 --> 01:28:37,000
We finally joined in with that effect on the doctrine as well.

553
01:28:37,000 --> 01:28:41,000
I wanted to add a couple of points for the court with respect to this issue.

554
01:28:41,000 --> 01:28:44,000
Regarding the six months, we collaborated on that.

555
01:28:44,000 --> 01:28:51,000
We talked about how you create value associated with the assets that the debtors are thinking about selling or reorganizing.

556
01:28:51,000 --> 01:28:57,000
And as you heard from Mr. Kofsky's testimony, there is inherent value within the customer list associated with these businesses.

557
01:28:57,000 --> 01:29:04,000
And as the court is obviously well aware in connection with non-crypto businesses, sometimes parties will pay for the customer list alone.

558
01:29:04,000 --> 01:29:06,000
Sometimes the customer list goes with those assets.

559
01:29:06,000 --> 01:29:14,000
So the purchasing sale of customer information is a vital component to any type of retail-oriented entity and business.

560
01:29:14,000 --> 01:29:20,000
And obviously, from an exchange perspective, there were an awful lot of retail investors here.

561
01:29:20,000 --> 01:29:23,000
And so there is inherent value within those lists.

562
01:29:23,000 --> 01:29:24,000
I think that's uncontroversial.

563
01:29:24,000 --> 01:29:26,000
I think everyone here agrees with that.

564
01:29:26,000 --> 01:29:30,000
So in balancing that, we looked at it and said we've got two major tasks here.

565
01:29:30,000 --> 01:29:35,000
One is to assess the value associated with these assets from a sale perspective.

566
01:29:35,000 --> 01:29:42,000
And the second task, too, is to assess the value associated with these assets from a potential reboot, is how we've been referring to it on our side.

567
01:29:42,000 --> 01:29:43,000
The reboot is complicated.

568
01:29:43,000 --> 01:29:48,000
There are global regulatory issues associated with rebooting the exchanges.

569
01:29:48,000 --> 01:29:54,000
Everywhere that the exchanges operate, there are regulatory requirements that have to be met, including the United States and globally.

570
01:29:54,000 --> 01:29:57,000
So it takes time to think through how that works.

571
01:29:57,000 --> 01:30:06,000
And obviously, it can't just simply be restarted in its current and its existing or prior form because there were issues associated with it, which in some ways we're here dealing with.

572
01:30:06,000 --> 01:30:16,000
And so it's a complicated exercise among many professionals on all sides to be able to figure out exactly what the steps are that are necessary to be able to think about the reboot.

573
01:30:16,000 --> 01:30:26,000
But that reboot may unlock incredible value for creditors and customers in connection with these cases because it may open the ability to have something that is a going concern,

574
01:30:26,000 --> 01:30:33,000
that could be sold or could be distributed from an acquisition standpoint in connection with a more fundamental plan of reorganization.

575
01:30:33,000 --> 01:30:38,000
And then obviously, with respect to the sales, you have the four assets that the debtor is seeking to sell at the moment.

576
01:30:38,000 --> 01:30:41,000
We have more to say about that later when we come to the bidding procedures.

577
01:30:41,000 --> 01:30:53,000
But with respect to Embed, LedgerX, FTX Europe, and FTX Japan, as your honor noted, two of them are – so LedgerX and Embed are non-debtors, and those are currently operating.

578
01:30:53,000 --> 01:31:02,000
So the customers of those entities and the information associated with those entities, to the extent that they overlap with the information that debtors are seeking to protect here,

579
01:31:02,000 --> 01:31:05,000
like those are ongoing businesses which are interacting every day.

580
01:31:05,000 --> 01:31:10,000
There could be damage done to the value of those businesses by disclosure of those customers.

581
01:31:10,000 --> 01:31:16,000
Similarly, with respect to FTX Europe and FTX Japan, from the committee's perspective, we're just rolling up our sleeves.

582
01:31:16,000 --> 01:31:26,000
We're trying to understand what it is that's being sold here and what the value is, and tracking back to Mr. Kossie's testimony on the point I made a moment ago, there's inherent value on the customer list.

583
01:31:26,000 --> 01:31:36,000
And so when we look at it and say, if that information was disclosed today without the opportunity to do more diligence to determine the inherent value in them, that could do damage,

584
01:31:36,000 --> 01:31:41,000
and it could seriously reduce the amount of distributable assets to creditors in connection with the cases.

585
01:31:41,000 --> 01:31:43,000
That would be a bad thing.

586
01:31:43,000 --> 01:31:55,000
And from our perspective, Your Honor, in a situation where there has been a global fraud and no one yet knows what the recoveries in these cases are going to be, we need to make sure that we preserve the assets as best as we possibly can.

587
01:31:55,000 --> 01:32:01,000
We understand the competing interests that the media and the United States trustee have noted with respect to transparency,

588
01:32:01,000 --> 01:32:12,000
but we just don't believe that there is a true interest in the media or in the broader universe of parties' potential parties' interest in cases of understanding who the customers were.

589
01:32:12,000 --> 01:32:19,000
We have to think about, like, what is the purpose behind that versus the very clear and articulated purpose of trying to preserve value?

590
01:32:19,000 --> 01:32:25,000
So when we come back to it, we look at that six-month window, and we ourselves on the committee side with our professionals have said,

591
01:32:25,000 --> 01:32:31,000
it's going to take a significant period of time to really understand the re-route and really understand the asset sales.

592
01:32:31,000 --> 01:32:40,000
And to Your Honor's point, the earliest dates, which we think are too early, come up on February 27 and March 27 with respect to the assets that are currently being sold.

593
01:32:40,000 --> 01:32:46,000
We'll get a better look at the real interest of parties associated with customer lists within that window,

594
01:32:46,000 --> 01:32:51,000
but we probably won't even have the best look because we think those are coming on too quickly.

595
01:32:51,000 --> 01:32:56,000
So again, Your Honor, and I would echo Mr. Gluckstein's point with respect to 107C.

596
01:32:56,000 --> 01:33:07,000
On 107C, we do believe that, and at a further hearing we can get into it with the court, the extent that the court wants us to, that there are real risks to customers in connection with the disclosure of identities.

597
01:33:07,000 --> 01:33:13,000
There are new stories and information that demonstrates that there have been kidnappings, there have been thefts,

598
01:33:13,000 --> 01:33:21,000
there have been other types of violent acts committed against people within the crypto community, and that's a very real risk and a very real concern.

599
01:33:21,000 --> 01:33:31,000
With respect to the information that we're talking about today and the reason to protect it under 107B, it's absolutely crystal clear that this is commercial information of the debtors and that it has value,

600
01:33:31,000 --> 01:33:40,000
and that it's a very clear case to be made that Your Honor can protect that information for the temporal period that we've asked under 107B.

601
01:33:40,000 --> 01:33:46,000
We reserve rights on 107C, and if the court would like further briefing on that and testimony on that, we can do that,

602
01:33:46,000 --> 01:33:51,000
but we think you have enough of a record to cover it from a 107B perspective today.

603
01:33:51,000 --> 01:33:54,000
So Your Honor, if you have questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them.

604
01:33:54,000 --> 01:33:55,000
No questions, thank you.

605
01:33:55,000 --> 01:34:03,000
Can we turn up the microphones on the stand? It's at high as it'll go. Everybody's got to keep your voices up a lot.

606
01:34:03,000 --> 01:34:12,000
I mean, I can barely hear some of it, and I'm sure the people in the back probably can't hear it very well.

607
01:34:12,000 --> 01:34:31,000
Okay, anyone else want to speak in support before we go to the objectors?

608
01:34:31,000 --> 01:34:34,000
Excuse me, Your Honor. Good morning and may it please the court.

609
01:34:34,000 --> 01:34:42,000
Matthew Harvey from Morris Nichols Arstin Tunnel on behalf of an ad hoc committee of non-U.S. customers of FTX.com,

610
01:34:42,000 --> 01:34:49,000
and we filed a jointer in this motion of the debtors, Your Honor, and we support the debtors and their efforts to seal this.

611
01:34:49,000 --> 01:34:55,000
I think from the customer's perspective, they have the 107C issue, which is not going forward today,

612
01:34:55,000 --> 01:35:02,000
in terms of their own interest in protecting their own information, but also the debtors and the committee have identified, I think,

613
01:35:02,000 --> 01:35:13,000
rightly, the customer list and the potential value in either a sale or restart of the platform as an avenue for recovery for members of our ad hoc group

614
01:35:13,000 --> 01:35:18,000
and similarly situated creditors in this case. We do think it's important, particularly for the preliminary matter,

615
01:35:18,000 --> 01:35:24,000
that debtors are requested for six months to protect this information, to allow the process to play out,

616
01:35:24,000 --> 01:35:34,000
and allow the debtors to determine the best path forward with this customer list. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.

617
01:35:34,000 --> 01:35:39,000
Mr. Kirshen? Your Honor, would it be possible to have a five-minute break before we continue?

618
01:35:39,000 --> 01:35:47,000
Certainly. Well, let's make it ten minutes. So everybody has, well, we got a lot of people here.

619
01:35:47,000 --> 01:35:53,000
Let's make it 15 minutes. Everybody has time to use the facility. So we'll recess for 15 minutes.

620
01:35:53,000 --> 01:35:55,000
Thank you.

621
01:36:23,000 --> 01:36:26,000
I don't know if I can say that.

622
01:36:26,000 --> 01:36:28,000
I will.

623
01:36:37,000 --> 01:36:39,000
All right.

624
01:36:39,000 --> 01:36:41,000
Please be seated.

625
01:36:51,000 --> 01:36:53,000
Ms. Sartegi?

626
01:36:58,000 --> 01:37:02,000
Your Honor, Mr. Finger asked if he could go first. Please, support.

627
01:37:02,000 --> 01:37:16,000
Your Honor, at the outset of my comment, I moved to strike the debtors' reply because it introduces new material

628
01:37:16,000 --> 01:37:22,000
that should have been included in its opening brief and erased for the first time.

629
01:37:22,000 --> 01:37:26,000
For example, paragraph 17, debtors invoke Japanese law.

630
01:37:26,000 --> 01:37:34,000
Two, well, it's the Act on Protection of Personal Information and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.

631
01:37:34,000 --> 01:37:41,000
It is the first time that they should be waived. However, because they have raised the money and protected my client,

632
01:37:41,000 --> 01:37:44,000
they answer them.

633
01:37:44,000 --> 01:37:54,000
The first one, the APPI, section 17.3, allows the use of such information when doing so is necessary to cooperate

634
01:37:54,000 --> 01:37:59,000
with a, quote, national government organ, close to the close of a foreign company.

635
01:37:59,000 --> 01:38:03,000
Now, there can be debate back and forth as to what that means.

636
01:38:03,000 --> 01:38:10,000
Usually when courts deal with foreign nations' law, extra testimony is required.

637
01:38:10,000 --> 01:38:12,000
But the point here is that—

638
01:38:12,000 --> 01:38:13,000
Not always.

639
01:38:13,000 --> 01:38:14,000
Not always.

640
01:38:14,000 --> 01:38:20,000
It's not required. I can look it up in Martindale-Hubble and that's sufficient.

641
01:38:20,000 --> 01:38:24,000
I never mean to speak in absolutes.

642
01:38:24,000 --> 01:38:33,000
But there has been nothing provided to this court showing that this second article section does not apply.

643
01:38:33,000 --> 01:38:40,000
And as for the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, that law applies to securities trading.

644
01:38:40,000 --> 01:38:47,000
Most crypto is not deemed a security, and so is outside the IEA's jurisdiction.

645
01:38:47,000 --> 01:38:55,000
Some tokens are, but debtors have not established that their crypto falls within the jurisdiction of the FIEA.

646
01:38:55,000 --> 01:38:58,000
Similarly, for the same reasons—

647
01:38:58,000 --> 01:39:01,000
Well, this isn't just their crypto, right?

648
01:39:01,000 --> 01:39:11,000
Well, I understand, yes, Your Honor, but the crypto involved in this matter.

649
01:39:11,000 --> 01:39:15,000
I mean, the debtors in this case have more than just their own crypto on the exchange.

650
01:39:15,000 --> 01:39:17,000
They weren't exchanged for all types of crypto.

651
01:39:17,000 --> 01:39:31,000
Right. But the point being that if the crypto involved with their own or their customers is not within that limited category,

652
01:39:31,000 --> 01:39:37,000
then it is outside the jurisdiction of the FIEA, and this is a great error.

653
01:39:37,000 --> 01:39:45,000
And for similar reasons, Your Honor, we will strike the testimony of Mr. Koski.

654
01:39:45,000 --> 01:39:55,000
His testimony, or his first affidavit was provided three days ago with no real opportunity to test it.

655
01:39:55,000 --> 01:40:02,000
Not even in this court would have had the opportunity to depose Mr. Koski or his staff who worked on this thing.

656
01:40:02,000 --> 01:40:06,000
His testimony was very general. They looked through social media.

657
01:40:06,000 --> 01:40:11,000
They picked certain names. We had no opportunity to test that.

658
01:40:11,000 --> 01:40:24,000
They were obligated to provide this information in their opening motion.

659
01:40:24,000 --> 01:40:28,000
Now let's return to the justifications given for FIEA.

660
01:40:28,000 --> 01:40:33,000
Just to close the loop on this, Mr. Fringham, I'll deny both of those motions.

661
01:40:33,000 --> 01:40:37,000
Thank you. Let's look at the justifications for sealing.

662
01:40:37,000 --> 01:40:43,000
One, they claim the risk of identity theft and cyber scams.

663
01:40:43,000 --> 01:40:53,000
Think about all of the creditors' lists that have been publicly identified in bankruptcies over the decades.

664
01:40:53,000 --> 01:40:58,000
Well, this is even limited to when Pacer came along.

665
01:40:58,000 --> 01:41:10,000
With all that, there is absolutely no evidence presented to this court that any identity theft or scams occurred as a result of those creditors' lists being made public.

666
01:41:10,000 --> 01:41:15,000
It's no coincidence that this case is different because it involves cryptocurrency.

667
01:41:15,000 --> 01:41:26,000
I think they're not pursuing the 107C basis for sealing the customer list at this point.

668
01:41:26,000 --> 01:41:30,000
Not as customer lists, but this is also a list of creditors.

669
01:41:30,000 --> 01:41:35,000
Well, I guess there's a question. Are they creditors or are they customers or are they both?

670
01:41:35,000 --> 01:41:40,000
It could be both. I don't know. At this point in the case, I don't know.

671
01:41:40,000 --> 01:41:45,000
The fact that that's not established. Well, I'll withdraw that.

672
01:41:45,000 --> 01:41:57,000
But the fact is, identity thieves don't care what the nature of the business is. They just want names to use.

673
01:41:57,000 --> 01:42:03,000
Again, Your Honor, I heard some testimony about commonality of names.

674
01:42:03,000 --> 01:42:09,000
In fact, Your Honor, I did an experiment last night on a website called truthfinder.com.

675
01:42:09,000 --> 01:42:17,000
I put in Your Honor's name and came back with 58 people who shared a name. 57, so there's one year old and one year old with 58.

676
01:42:17,000 --> 01:42:25,000
Now, in candor, that list created differentiation because it included middle names and middle initials.

677
01:42:25,000 --> 01:42:29,000
We have no objection to redaction of middle names and middle initials,

678
01:42:29,000 --> 01:42:47,000
but there's nothing before the court that tells the court how many of the names that have been on the list do not have multiple people with those names.

679
01:42:47,000 --> 01:43:00,000
I think it's a stretch to say, well, we're able to go through five or six people and come up with the same name.

680
01:43:00,000 --> 01:43:08,000
Even Mr. Koski testified that it becomes harder if it's a common name.

681
01:43:08,000 --> 01:43:17,000
And to extrapolate from that, it's harder when there are numerous people sharing the same name.

682
01:43:17,000 --> 01:43:22,000
But that is shooting in the dark, and that is not enough for the correct.

683
01:43:22,000 --> 01:43:34,000
And of course, using identity theft as a justification for sealing leads to the conclusion that all the creditors or customers in every bankruptcy can be sealed to protect the creditors.

684
01:43:34,000 --> 01:43:38,000
I will be creating a per se rule.

685
01:43:38,000 --> 01:43:50,000
Debtors have not provided any polling or random sampling of their customers to assess their fears of disclosure for cyber bullying or cyber scamming and identity theft.

686
01:43:50,000 --> 01:43:56,000
None of the debtors' customers is here claiming concerns.

687
01:43:56,000 --> 01:44:01,000
I think you had one ad hoc group that came forward and was supportive of the debtors.

688
01:44:01,000 --> 01:44:16,000
The ad hoc group, as I understand it, were claiming their concern is not under cyber scamming, but the lights under foreign law to cut the confidentiality.

689
01:44:16,000 --> 01:44:25,000
Turning to the poaching and reducing the commercial value of the list, again, this goes back to how common the names are.

690
01:44:25,000 --> 01:44:30,000
And there's been no effort to try to segregate the baby in the bath floor.

691
01:44:30,000 --> 01:44:36,000
William Smith, Maria Garcia, James Johnson, Daniel Brown, Thomas Miller.

692
01:44:36,000 --> 01:44:46,000
Again, the Google search said that these are examples of common names, the most common name combinations in the United States.

693
01:44:46,000 --> 01:44:53,000
So the potential for poaching, I think, to respectfully submit, is not enough.

694
01:44:53,000 --> 01:45:06,000
It's a high evidentiary standard that has to be, and in fact, you provided cases to your list of responses on it, which says that a statement that something could happen,

695
01:45:06,000 --> 01:45:18,000
and in the absence of evidence showing it is likely to happen or will happen, does not satisfy the First Amendment evidentiary standard.

696
01:45:18,000 --> 01:45:28,000
As for the GDPR, I would draw the Court's attention to a case in Ray of Andean marketing, sales practices, and product liability.

697
01:45:28,000 --> 01:45:36,000
The Eastern District Pennsylvania case, in 2020, 484F subsection 249.

698
01:45:36,000 --> 01:45:49,000
The Court ruled that applying principles of comity, denial of public access, based upon a foreign law, would be contrary or prejudicial to the interests of the United States.

699
01:45:49,000 --> 01:46:07,000
But even apart from that, section 49.1 of the DPA says there's an exception to the requirements of that law for, quote, the establishment, exercise, or defense of legal claims.

700
01:46:07,000 --> 01:46:16,000
And defendants have not even mentioned this, but certainly have not established that the exception is at the United States.

701
01:46:16,000 --> 01:46:25,000
The dentists argue in paragraph three of their reply that the objectors did not articulate any bona fide reason for disclosure at this time.

702
01:46:25,000 --> 01:46:28,000
However, this confuses the burden.

703
01:46:28,000 --> 01:46:37,000
Judicial documents are presumptively public, and the public is entitled to see them assume their files, and they become part of a judicial record.

704
01:46:37,000 --> 01:46:43,000
The purpose of public access is to ensure public confidence in our courts and their rulings.

705
01:46:43,000 --> 01:46:50,000
And the burden is on the debtor to explain why stealing is appropriate and not vice versa.

706
01:46:50,000 --> 01:47:03,000
We also believe it's inappropriate to ask for a six-month stay or delay with no assurances, certainly no assurances that that will be the end of it.

707
01:47:03,000 --> 01:47:12,000
But even in the event there are assurances, I quote from the Supreme Court case Elmiron versus Burns, quote,

708
01:47:12,000 --> 01:47:21,000
The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

709
01:47:21,000 --> 01:47:28,000
And public access is derived from the First Amendment, as does section 107.

710
01:47:28,000 --> 01:47:41,000
At Paris, in paragraph 16 of their reply, debtors reiterate that if the customers are identified, the value of the business, quote, could be materially harmed, the minister being disputed, close quote.

711
01:47:41,000 --> 01:48:02,000
As I mentioned earlier, we cited cases on briefers they did not respond to in their reply, our brief in opposition, stating that speculating as to what could happen, as opposed to showing with evidence what will happen, is insufficient to meet their evidentiary burden.

712
01:48:02,000 --> 01:48:11,000
The cases out of California, we cited on briefers, but also the Celsius case out of New York state, the same thing.

713
01:48:11,000 --> 01:48:23,000
As to the In rey Craig case, I was not involved, Your Honor was, and I am not presumed to imagine Your Honor's considerations in those cases.

714
01:48:23,000 --> 01:48:37,000
But an objective reading of Your Honor's opinion seems to think the court was not necessarily focusing on evidentiary requirements, or the argument that there was no evidence of court of feeling.

715
01:48:37,000 --> 01:48:55,000
Since then, the Celsius cases come out, and while it's another court and is not finding on Your Honor, Your Honor is free to consider it as persuasive presence in re-assessing the Craig case.

716
01:48:55,000 --> 01:49:05,000
At paragraph 28 of their reply, the debtors say to a number of cases where this court has allowed the client, rejecting the name pursuant to GDPR.

717
01:49:05,000 --> 01:49:17,000
However, the defendants fail to point out that, with the exception of the last one of those cases listed, those motions were granted unopposed, because there was no opposition.

718
01:49:17,000 --> 01:49:35,000
And unopposed, rule of conduct, orders based on unopposed motions have no precedential value. The last one was opposed by the trustee, and there was no legal analysis, so it lacked persuasive force.

719
01:49:35,000 --> 01:49:53,000
So in sum, there is no competent evidence that any of the evils asserted by the debtors, identity theft, evaluation of the customer with live poaching, violations of international law, present a genuine or substantial risk.

720
01:49:53,000 --> 01:50:11,000
All the debtors have presented to the court are speculation unsupported by competent evidence. However, to the extent that redaction is required, it must be limited, as limited as possible, to meet the goals.

721
01:50:11,000 --> 01:50:20,000
Redacting the addresses allows this, and we are throwing redacting middle names and initials.

722
01:50:20,000 --> 01:50:27,000
This is sufficient, and if the court is inclined to reject, that should be the way it goes.

723
01:50:27,000 --> 01:50:30,000
Unless you have any questions, I yield the floor.

724
01:50:30,000 --> 01:50:53,000
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

725
01:50:53,000 --> 01:51:00,000
Thank you, Your Honor. Again, for the record, Juliet Sarkisian on behalf of the U.S. Trustee.

726
01:51:00,000 --> 01:51:19,000
Your Honor, the bankruptcy process operates like the rest of the court system on the bedrock principle of American jurisprudence, that the public has a right to access of judicial records, and only under very limited circumstances may a federal court restrict or deny that access.

727
01:51:19,000 --> 01:51:29,000
Here, the debtors are seeking a very wholesale redaction of a lot of information on any papers to be filed.

728
01:51:29,000 --> 01:51:36,000
That is what they say, any papers to be filed in this court or made otherwise made publicly available in the Chapter 11 cases.

729
01:51:36,000 --> 01:51:58,000
They are looking to redact names, addresses, email addresses of all customers, whether they be individuals or entities, the names, addresses, and email addresses of all non-customer individual creditors or equity holders if they are citizens of the U.K. or member nations of the EU, and maybe now Japan.

730
01:51:58,000 --> 01:52:09,000
I'm not quite clear about that. And then also the addresses and email addresses of all other credit or equity holders who are individuals regardless of their citizenship.

731
01:52:09,000 --> 01:52:27,000
And of course, the U.S. Trustee has said we do not object to the redaction of address, residential or any addresses with respect to individuals, whether they be citizens of the EU or the United States or anywhere else.

732
01:52:27,000 --> 01:52:33,000
Now, the debtors' counsel started out stating that bankruptcy is a fishball.

733
01:52:33,000 --> 01:52:41,000
We've heard this many times. And in fact, that the debtors welcome that. And the committee said the cases need to be transparent.

734
01:52:41,000 --> 01:52:46,000
We agree with that. However, that is not what has happened in this case.

735
01:52:46,000 --> 01:52:58,000
In the interim order entered on this motion, the debtors, excuse me, the court allowed the debtors to file a creditor matrix under seal with a redacted version then to be filed.

736
01:52:58,000 --> 01:53:06,000
It's been two months. There is no creditor matrix on file, not under seal, not redacted, nothing.

737
01:53:06,000 --> 01:53:18,000
I double checked last night. I sent an inquiry to debtors' counsel to make sure I had not missed it. It's my understanding and they can correct me if I'm wrong. That is still not on file.

738
01:53:18,000 --> 01:53:28,000
So we don't know who any of the creditors are in this case, be they customers or anybody else. We don't know who the top 50 creditors are because that was all redacted.

739
01:53:28,000 --> 01:53:39,000
We don't have any monthly operating reports. The first ones were due December the 21st. I don't know when we're going to see any actual monthly operating reports.

740
01:53:39,000 --> 01:53:46,000
The debtors have proposed to file some type of aggregated report of some kind that's not a monthly operating report.

741
01:53:46,000 --> 01:53:53,000
And then later at some point in time, we don't know when, we'll start filing proper monthly operating reports.

742
01:53:53,000 --> 01:53:59,000
We don't have schedules. We don't have Statement of Financial Affairs. We don't have Rule 2015.3 reports.

743
01:53:59,000 --> 01:54:07,000
Yes, we've now come to an agreement about when those are going to be filed, but the majority of them will not be filed until March the 15th.

744
01:54:07,000 --> 01:54:15,000
And the debtors have reserved the right to ask for further extensions. So we have very little information here.

745
01:54:15,000 --> 01:54:32,000
This is the opposite of a fishbowl. And redacting customer and other creditor information to the extent that the debtors are seeking is only going to add to that lack of transparency.

746
01:54:32,000 --> 01:54:41,000
And here what we're talking about is we're talking about redactions of very essential documents that are part of the bankruptcy case.

747
01:54:41,000 --> 01:54:47,000
The creditor matrix, the schedules, the Statement of Financial Affairs, professional disclosures.

748
01:54:47,000 --> 01:54:54,000
They have been redacted as well to the extent that there was a reference to a customer name or an individual creditor.

749
01:54:54,000 --> 01:55:01,000
Those were redacted. So these are all really critical documents that are part of the bankruptcy process.

750
01:55:01,000 --> 01:55:12,000
And there needs to be, the case law says that we've cited, there needs to be a showing of extraordinary circumstances and compelling need for these types of redactions,

751
01:55:12,000 --> 01:55:21,000
for any type of redactions, but especially on such fundamental documents that are part of the core of the bankruptcy case.

752
01:55:21,000 --> 01:55:40,000
And here the debtor has really nothing more than some vague statements, and I'll get into in a minute Mr. Kofsky's testimony, but very, very limited testimony or evidence about something that requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

753
01:55:40,000 --> 01:56:04,000
We do not believe that they have met their burden and it is the debtor's burden here to establish that the information can be sealed under either 107B or 107C.

754
01:56:04,000 --> 01:56:15,000
Veronica, bear with me for a moment please. So 107B-1 talks about confidential commercial information.

755
01:56:15,000 --> 01:56:26,000
Now the debtors and the committee keep referring to a customer list. It's not a customer list. It's a list of creditors.

756
01:56:26,000 --> 01:56:35,000
It's the creditor matrix. It's the list of creditors and the schedules in a professional disclosure. It's a reference to somebody who is a creditor.

757
01:56:35,000 --> 01:56:41,000
They may also be a customer. But we're not talking about a separate document that is a customer list.

758
01:56:41,000 --> 01:56:51,000
I suppose what the debtors would say was, well, we have so many customers who are creditors, if you looked at the creditor matrix, whenever it may be filed,

759
01:56:51,000 --> 01:57:00,000
that one could assume that most of the people on there are customers and not other kinds of creditors.

760
01:57:00,000 --> 01:57:06,000
There's not going to be any distinction. There's not going to be a separate section that these are customer creditors and these are other creditors.

761
01:57:06,000 --> 01:57:10,000
It's a creditor matrix. Same thing with the schedules. There's no distinction.

762
01:57:10,000 --> 01:57:21,000
There's a distinction of national priority, the general honest to your claim, but there's not a distinction between creditor customers and creditors who are some other kind of creditor.

763
01:57:21,000 --> 01:57:34,000
With respect to even assuming that the debtors would be correct in making that argument that competitors would just assume that everybody on that list is a customer.

764
01:57:34,000 --> 01:57:44,000
Your Honor made the point that many of these customers may not be exclusive customers. They may already be dealing with competitors.

765
01:57:44,000 --> 01:57:55,000
With respect to, I think the point is very important in terms of poaching. Again, all we are talking about for individuals are their names and no other information.

766
01:57:55,000 --> 01:58:08,000
Yes, for institutional or non-individual creditors, the U.S. trustee believes that it is appropriate to include their addresses as well as their names, but for the individuals, it would just be their names.

767
01:58:08,000 --> 01:58:19,000
Mr. Kravsky testimony that, well, just a name alone, just a customer name alone would give you an ability to find information to contact them.

768
01:58:19,000 --> 01:58:33,000
That was based on not even any work he personally did. He had his staff look at less than 20 names. Out of the 9 million names, less than 20.

769
01:58:33,000 --> 01:58:43,000
There was no methodology that was explained as to how they picked the names, although he indicated, I believe he indicated they looked for names that were not extremely common.

770
01:58:43,000 --> 01:58:56,000
Again, I would make the point that there are names that might be uncommon in the U.S. that look uncommon to us because we are not familiar with them that might be very common in other parts of the world.

771
01:58:56,000 --> 01:59:05,000
I am always surprised I see names and I think, oh, that is an unusual name, and I look for, oh, no, that is actually very common in Japan or China or whatever the country might be.

772
01:59:05,000 --> 01:59:17,000
So we do not have any methodology, but there was less than 20. That is nothing. And out of the less than 20, he said, well, more than 50 percent we could get information on.

773
01:59:17,000 --> 01:59:28,000
So it was not even out of the 20 or less than 20 we were able to get information on all of them. That is a very, very slender thread based on, here is say, evidence.

774
01:59:28,000 --> 01:59:40,000
But even if it was not, a very slender thread to say, all right, because less than 20, 50 percent of those you were able to find some contact information, whether that is the same person or not, who knows?

775
01:59:40,000 --> 01:59:54,000
But potentially it could be the same customer. It is a very, very slender thread to say, therefore, you may redact all customer names from every single document that is going to be filed in the case.

776
01:59:54,000 --> 02:00:05,000
Now let us talk a moment about this six month restriction. Six months is a really long time in the bankruptcy world, as your honor is aware. A lot happens.

777
02:00:05,000 --> 02:00:14,000
In this case, during these six months, we are hopefully going to have schedules and statements filed. This information is relevant to that.

778
02:00:14,000 --> 02:00:27,000
Sales will be taking place. Hopefully, a creditor matrix will be filed at some point. A lot happens in six months. And then, of course, at six months they are going to come back and they may still ask for another extension.

779
02:00:27,000 --> 02:00:42,000
But even if it is only six months, that information is important information to be out there. And again, we are going to be getting schedules and statements that have so much redacted, they are probably going to be next to worthless.

780
02:00:42,000 --> 02:00:47,000
For anybody who does not see the unredacted version.

781
02:00:47,000 --> 02:00:59,000
And your honor, I would also like to make the point that I was trying very ineffectively to make with Mr. Kofsky.

782
02:00:59,000 --> 02:01:14,000
This is not a situation where you are coming in where the customers of the debtor are likely to be happy with the situation. Maybe that is true in all bankruptcy cases. But you have a very extraordinary situation here.

783
02:01:14,000 --> 02:01:30,000
You have a situation where the customer accounts were frozen prior to the bankruptcy filing and have been frozen since then. These customers, nine million customers, cannot get access to cash, coin, whatever might be in those accounts. No access.

784
02:01:30,000 --> 02:01:45,000
At the same time, they learned that there are allegations of a massive fraud, that customer accounts were raided and the funds were transferred to Alameda in the amount of $10 billion of customer funds.

785
02:01:45,000 --> 02:02:05,000
So it is probably reasonable to think that these individuals, these customers, with all of this happening, if they are going to other platforms, well they cannot have access to the funds yet, but when the time comes when they have access to their accounts, they may be looking for competitors.

786
02:02:05,000 --> 02:02:22,000
They may be looking to transfer this to traditional banks. So it is not a situation where you have a customer base that might be relatively happy, the debtor falls for bankruptcy, and now you are worried they will be happy, but now you have competitors coming and poaching them.

787
02:02:22,000 --> 02:02:36,000
So I would say, I think it is reasonable to assume that these customers, many of them, are very unhappy with the current situation and are probably very well on their own, looking to transfer whenever they can.

788
02:02:36,000 --> 02:02:52,000
So it may be ripe for the poaching if any competitor came along. So I think the situation is different than other types of cases.

789
02:02:52,000 --> 02:03:11,000
Then I want to talk a minute about the 107C argument. So if I understand correctly, the debtors are now saying that they want to hold off that argument until another time.

790
02:03:11,000 --> 02:03:26,000
Their motion made an argument under 107C. They cited that statute. We responded. Our objection was filed on December 12th. They have had a month, they have had plenty of time.

791
02:03:26,000 --> 02:03:51,000
The committee addressed it. I don't understand this. They had any evidence to put on that point? Today was the day to put on the evidence. And there was no evidence that a name alone could subject an individual to any type of harm, be it, I don't know if it was the Ad Hoc Committee's counsel, somebody talked about kidnapping with a name?

792
02:03:51,000 --> 02:04:03,000
We don't even know what country these people live in. There's no evidence of that. There's no evidence of identity theft based on a name and nothing else.

793
02:04:03,000 --> 02:04:14,000
There's no evidence presented that a customer's accounts could be hacked with just a name. No evidence on that. Or that the person's safety could be compromised.

794
02:04:14,000 --> 02:04:29,000
And the Ad Hoc Committee, of course, cited to Your Honor's ruling in CRED, also cited to Judge Owens' ruling in Clover. Clover had to do with residential addresses, not names alone.

795
02:04:29,000 --> 02:04:40,000
I think there were 10 members of the European Union in there and there wasn't much discussion of that. But apart from those 10, they were talking about residential addresses. Again, we are not objecting to that.

796
02:04:40,000 --> 02:05:03,000
And frankly, Your Honor, if you get to the point where you are redacting individual creditors' names, not the addresses, but their names as well, with the idea that otherwise there could be identity theft, the amount of sealed filings in this court would be enormous.

797
02:05:03,000 --> 02:05:18,000
I mean, every single, including Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases, debtor's name, they have individual creditors, all those names, proofs of claims filed by individual creditors, is all this going to be filed under seal?

798
02:05:18,000 --> 02:05:39,000
It's not workable and there's nothing under 107C that would support redacting names based on the idea that otherwise there could be identity theft. But again, there's been no evidence, and this was the day to put on the evidence on that point.

799
02:05:48,000 --> 02:06:13,000
So we've cited, on the issue of the burden of proof, we cited the 3rd Circuit Case Sending Court, that the debtors have the burden of proof on 107B as well as 107C.

800
02:06:13,000 --> 02:06:33,000
And under 107B, the debtors must establish and demonstrate an extraordinary circumstance and compelling need to obtain protection, that's from food management, which I believe is actually from the Southern District.

801
02:06:33,000 --> 02:06:49,000
I also mentioned that in Mr. Mosley's declaration, which came with, that was filed in support of the initial motion, he used the term, he said public dissemination of customer risk could give the debtors competitors unfair advantage.

802
02:06:49,000 --> 02:07:04,000
And he didn't say would, he said could. So that's a very low level of argument to meet an extraordinary circumstances test.

803
02:07:04,000 --> 02:07:14,000
So let's speak a little bit about foreign law.

804
02:07:14,000 --> 02:07:27,000
First of all, as we stated in our objection, we're in the United States federal court, United States federal law controls over foreign law.

805
02:07:27,000 --> 02:07:40,000
We cited a Supreme Court case on that point, not in this exact connection, but with regard to a French blocking statute.

806
02:07:40,000 --> 02:07:57,000
Beyond that, as Mr. Finger made the point, and we made the point in our objection, that this does fall within the exception of the GDPR, because this is a legal proceeding.

807
02:07:57,000 --> 02:08:01,000
And there's a legal claims exception for that.

808
02:08:01,000 --> 02:08:14,000
Now, the debtors in their initial motion, the debtors discussion of the GDPR was in one paragraph, paragraph 20.

809
02:08:14,000 --> 02:08:23,000
It references the GDPR. It doesn't even provide a citation as to where to find it. It doesn't quote from it.

810
02:08:23,000 --> 02:08:39,000
It says the GDPR may apply to the debtors, may. And it doesn't even say what it is that the GDPR protects, other than it says home addresses of individuals, which again, not an issue.

811
02:08:39,000 --> 02:08:41,000
We're not objecting to that.

812
02:08:41,000 --> 02:09:01,000
We obviously spent a lot of our objection going into the details of the GDPR. And I want to look at in the reply, the debtors did make two arguments with respect to the GDPR that I would like to address.

813
02:09:01,000 --> 02:09:20,000
So the first one, in paragraph 25 of their reply, the debtors argue that while the U.S. trustee notes that processing of personal data is lawful if it is, quote, necessary for compliance with the legal obligation to which the controller is subject, close quote,

814
02:09:20,000 --> 02:09:38,000
the U.S. trustee ignores in any such legal obligation, quote, should have a basis in union or member state law, close quote, not in U.S. law. And they cite article 40, excuse me, recital 45 of the GDPR.

815
02:09:38,000 --> 02:09:57,000
Recital 45 of the GDPR says that for the debtors to process information, meaning to collect information, code it, transform it to a usable format, the processing has to be legal under the laws of the EU or its individual member states.

816
02:09:57,000 --> 02:10:09,000
The recital does not say anything about compliance with laws outside of the EU. And recital 45 is not relevant to what we're talking about. It's a different issue.

817
02:10:09,000 --> 02:10:25,000
It's not talking about an exception for when this information can be disclosed. It's talking about the way in which the information is processed. It must be processed under the law of the applicable EU state.

818
02:10:25,000 --> 02:10:41,000
The second argument that the debtors make in paragraph 26 of their reply says that the U.S. trustee is conflating transferring of information with processing of information.

819
02:10:41,000 --> 02:11:00,000
So I believe the argument is that the exception in article 45 that allows the disclosure in connection with legal proceedings applies only to the transfer of personal data, not the processing of personal data.

820
02:11:00,000 --> 02:11:18,000
And that the disclosure would be processing, not transfer. There's no authority cited for this position. I can't say that I can cite any authority for the contrary position, but they cite no authority to say that there's some distinction here.

821
02:11:18,000 --> 02:11:33,000
And that the exception in article 49 only applies to some processing and not actually disclosing in connection with a legal proceeding.

822
02:11:33,000 --> 02:11:49,000
With respect to Japanese law, I mean that was not raised, it was not mentioned in their motion. We saw it for the first time Sunday at 4 p.m. I have not been able to reach an expert in Japanese law since Sunday.

823
02:11:49,000 --> 02:12:04,000
There was not any official translation of these Japanese statutes that were provided. The debtor does not quote the operative provisions. There's obviously no expert witness that is testified about Japanese law.

824
02:12:04,000 --> 02:12:31,000
They just put in their reply, this law, these two statutes apply and these statutes do not have any exception for legal proceedings. So I really, again, I'm not in a position to say anything about Japanese law other than the fact that this was something that should have been brought up in the initial motion and that would have given us more time to respond to that.

825
02:12:34,000 --> 02:13:03,000
So, Your Honor, another point that I want to bring up that we mentioned in our objection that is significant is that if Your Honor determines that to whatever degree Your Honor would grant the motion to file information under seal, I'm sorry,

826
02:13:03,000 --> 02:13:15,000
to whatever degree Your Honor would allow the debtors to redact information from their court filings, the unredacted versions of those documents must be filed under seal with the court.

827
02:13:15,000 --> 02:13:25,000
Now the debtors in the reply said, well, of course we'll do that, but the proposed order only states that the creditor matrix must be filed under seal.

828
02:13:25,000 --> 02:13:42,000
That was a compromise when we were discussing it at the interim stage. The order I would request to the degree that anything is allowed to be redacted, that the order provide that the unredacted version must be filed with the court.

829
02:13:42,000 --> 02:13:57,000
And I would also ask, yes it is, Your Honor, but I don't want anybody to say, well, the order doesn't say it has to be done, the order only talks about redaction, it doesn't talk about sealing, and therefore the order somehow trumps the rules.

830
02:13:57,000 --> 02:14:16,000
So I just want that to be clear that those filings will be made. It would also be nice to know when the creditor matrix is going to be filed, both in a, if it is to be sealed in a sealed version and in a redacted version as well.

831
02:14:16,000 --> 02:14:30,000
Your Honor could just give me a moment to make sure that I've covered everything.

832
02:14:30,000 --> 02:14:52,000
Your Honor, unless Your Honor has any questions for me, my argument is concluded.

833
02:14:52,000 --> 02:15:18,000
Your Honor, for the record, Brian Glexey for the debtors, just a couple of points very briefly. Just to take the last point first. The debtors, of course, will file any documents in this case that need to be filed under seal, under seal, in accordance with local rules, and I'll make that representation, that Mr. Arcasian has asked for. That's not an issue.

834
02:15:18,000 --> 02:15:19,000
With respect-

835
02:15:19,000 --> 02:15:20,000
The creditor matrix?

836
02:15:20,000 --> 02:15:38,000
With respect to the creditor matrix, Your Honor. The creditor matrix, we're complaining a couple of issues. As has been well documented and we have disclosed to the court, there's significant issues with us filing the entirety of the customer list from a timing perspective, access to data and information.

837
02:15:38,000 --> 02:15:54,000
The court may recall we required additional time and we had to come up with a creative process to get our top 50 list done in order to view information that we couldn't fully access in terms of informational databases.

838
02:15:54,000 --> 02:16:05,000
Those lists are on file in redacted form. The unredacted forms have been filed under seal in the top 50 lists. Mr. Arcasian, the U.S. President's Office, of course, has them.

839
02:16:05,000 --> 02:16:23,000
With respect to timing of the full creditor matrix, that issue, Your Honor, we're trying to get kind of clarity on the timing. It's the volume of the nine million plus names and contact information accessing the systems is taking time.

840
02:16:23,000 --> 02:16:44,000
We are working as hard as we can to get that on file and we will file that if we're authorized to redact the information we've asked for today for the six month period. That, of course, will be filed until nine plus million names under seal as soon as we're in a position to do so, which we hope is very soon.

841
02:16:44,000 --> 02:17:03,000
What we will do and what we can undertake to do, Your Honor, is file what we have now and what we've been using for service, file that, and then update it as we get the full nine million plus names into the information. So we're happy to do that.

842
02:17:03,000 --> 02:17:21,000
So let me ask you this, too. You're not proposing that you would redact from filings. One of the things Mr. Arcasian raises is you want to redact not just the creditor matrix or the customer list, but also any reference to a customer or creditor in any other filing in the court.

843
02:17:21,000 --> 02:17:28,000
And I'm assuming you are not proposing to do that if that particular customer has already self-identified.

844
02:17:28,000 --> 02:17:40,000
We have not, Your Honor, and that's another issue that Mr. Arcasian raised, right? This idea that there are customers who want to go to competitors or want to move their accounts, which, of course, we understand.

845
02:17:40,000 --> 02:17:54,000
And they're not in a position, certainly, to take their account at FTX at this point because of the Chapter 11 process, but they're certainly free to go to a competitor, self-identify themselves to a competitor, and open an account somewhere else if they haven't already.

846
02:17:54,000 --> 02:18:09,000
And, of course, when we did address this issue some at the first day hearing, any creditor or customer is free to come vote and participate in this case, identify themselves publicly, identify themselves in the document of this court.

847
02:18:09,000 --> 02:18:30,000
The documents, and we have, of course, no issue with that and wouldn't seek to restrict that, from the perspective of the documents that Mr. Arcasian is commenting on this morning, the creditor images, top 50 lists, the sofas, the schedules, these are all documents that we are required to file.

848
02:18:30,000 --> 02:18:48,000
Those are documents that debtors are required to compile and provide and would result in us affirmatively, without the consent, as part of the bankruptcy process, and we understand our obligations to the bankruptcy process, to identify the names of those customers.

849
02:18:48,000 --> 02:18:56,000
Mr. Arcasian referenced the idea, well, nobody would know we have all these names. It's a creditor list, it's not a customer list.

850
02:18:56,000 --> 02:19:10,000
Our top 50 lists, even the redacted versions that are on public, filed publicly, do delineate between customers and non-customer creditors, trade creditors and customers.

851
02:19:10,000 --> 02:19:24,000
And so that information, if it were to be on redacted today, people can see very easily of the top 50 creditors which of those are customers, meaning customers who hold accounts on the various exchanges in FTX.

852
02:19:24,000 --> 02:19:38,000
So the distinction that Your Honor references, we agree with. Obviously there's nothing in what Your Honor would be ordering that would prevent any party from self-identifying if they so choose.

853
02:19:38,000 --> 02:19:51,000
So, Zoe, excuse me, a way to delineate between, you referred to the top 50 creditor lists. That's been sealed in its entirety or redacted in its entirety.

854
02:19:51,000 --> 02:20:04,000
It has not been redacted in its entirety, Your Honor. It has been filed in a redacted form that redacts the information that we asked and that the court authorized pursuant to the interim order.

855
02:20:04,000 --> 02:20:21,000
So we have redacted names and addresses of individuals and of institutions who are customers pursuant to the court's interim order. And it's reflected as such, but those documents are on file in redacted form.

856
02:20:21,000 --> 02:20:49,000
So what I'm trying to get at is, is there a way to delineate on the creditor lists between who is a creditor, who is a customer, and who is both, and be able to disclose those who are solely creditors publicly without disclosing those who are customers and creditors?

857
02:20:49,000 --> 02:21:05,000
It goes to the question, it's a question of what information for the full nine million, whether that's a meaningful field that exists or that would have to be kind of independently reviewed and populated.

858
02:21:05,000 --> 02:21:24,000
I'm not sure of the answer to that, Your Honor. We'd have to look into that. I think the number, from a volume perspective, is very small in relative comparison to the customers.

859
02:21:24,000 --> 02:21:43,000
What we've been talking about here by and large, and why we've been seeking to protect, we'll talk about the customer list. The customers at the main debtors at the exchange are where the volume is, and that's where we believe value is.

860
02:21:43,000 --> 02:21:56,000
And that's what Mr. Kofsky testified about this morning. So, you know, that does implicate, of course, the 107C issues, which we are not pressing today.

861
02:21:56,000 --> 02:22:15,000
But I think, you know, we would have to see, I honestly, Your Honor, we'd have to see whether we could make that delineation for all kind of non-customer creditors. I suspect that we could, but I think that would take some more time. I suspect that we could.

862
02:22:15,000 --> 02:22:17,000
Well, in the top 50 lists.

863
02:22:17,000 --> 02:22:18,000
Certainly the top 50 lists would have to.

864
02:22:18,000 --> 02:22:26,000
Are there those who now have been disclosed who are solely creditors, not customers?

865
02:22:26,000 --> 02:22:33,000
Not by name, Your Honor, because the interim order had the 107C relief in it.

866
02:22:33,000 --> 02:22:52,000
So at this point, all of the names are redacted from that customer list that are that are that are subject to the interim order. So the relief that we asked for in the interim order, because it did include the 107C relief is broader than what we're talking about now.

867
02:22:52,000 --> 02:23:03,000
Okay.

868
02:23:03,000 --> 02:23:23,000
I think on the on the GDPR issues, Your Honor, those are certainly secondary here. We do think it's relevant. We did brief the appropriate sections, you know, asking questions. We're happy to stand on the briefing on that issue. And otherwise, happy to answer any questions.

869
02:23:23,000 --> 02:23:30,000
Thank you. No questions.

870
02:23:30,000 --> 02:23:40,000
Your Honor, Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings on behalf of the committee. Just quickly to address the one point Ms. Artesian raised regarding 107C. We do believe those issues are real.

871
02:23:40,000 --> 02:23:50,000
And to the extent that the court wanted to hear further evidence with respect to 107C, we would ask for a continuance of the hearing on that basis so that we could come back and provide more robust information to you.

872
02:23:50,000 --> 02:24:10,000
It would consist of information that's available from a public perspective. So newspaper articles, etc. that you can take traditional notice of. But we also would probably seek to put witnesses on as well to talk about what has happened with respect to criminal and other type of activity within the crypto space.

873
02:24:10,000 --> 02:24:21,000
I don't know today whether we would be able to link that to the disclosure of the name from a bankruptcy case, but I think we could link it to disclosure of names otherwise that people were able to find out through social media and other avenues.

874
02:24:21,000 --> 02:24:31,000
But I wanted to make sure the court understood procedurally from where the committee stands. If you need information and more information on 107C, we would like to have a continuance on that basis.

875
02:24:31,000 --> 02:24:40,000
We think the record is very clear on 107B that you have what you need in order to grant the relief that the debtors and the committee are jointly seeking.

876
02:24:40,000 --> 02:24:41,000
Thank you.

877
02:24:41,000 --> 02:24:44,000
Your Honor, if I could just clarify one point.

878
02:24:44,000 --> 02:24:45,000
Go ahead.

879
02:24:45,000 --> 02:25:05,000
So just to be clear, your honor pointed out to me in answer to your honor's question. Currently, on our top 50 lists, we have disclosed non-customer names. So for example, there are certain vendors at the non-exchange entities because we have siloed top 50 lists.

880
02:25:05,000 --> 02:25:16,000
So if there was, for example, a vendor providing services who is a non-customer, that information has already been disclosed and would be under the livery passport today.

881
02:25:16,000 --> 02:25:20,000
Is that for all creditors, solely creditors or just some?

882
02:25:20,000 --> 02:25:21,000
Yes.

883
02:25:21,000 --> 02:25:22,000
For Paul?

884
02:25:22,000 --> 02:25:23,000
Paul.

885
02:25:23,000 --> 02:25:25,000
Okay. Thank you.

886
02:25:25,000 --> 02:25:27,000
Your Honor, could I?

887
02:25:27,000 --> 02:25:29,000
Go ahead.

888
02:25:29,000 --> 02:25:39,000
Your Honor, with the record, Juliet Sarkisian on behalf of the U.S. Trustee, your honor's questions made me think of something with respect to the top 50 list.

889
02:25:39,000 --> 02:25:48,000
Of course, we formed a committee and I believe all of the members of the committee were on that top 50 list.

890
02:25:48,000 --> 02:25:53,000
Their names were redacted because at the time it was subject to your honor's order.

891
02:25:53,000 --> 02:26:01,000
Your honor, it indicated at the first, well, one of the hearings that somebody's going to be on the committee, they have to be willing to have their name disclosed.

892
02:26:01,000 --> 02:26:06,000
And we did file the notice of the appointment with their names.

893
02:26:06,000 --> 02:26:12,000
Since that is now, I understood that that was, we discussed it with all the committee members, nobody had an issue with that.

894
02:26:12,000 --> 02:26:14,000
That's been disclosed.

895
02:26:14,000 --> 02:26:29,000
Can the top 50 list be revised in terms of redaction to now unredact the information with respect to those particular creditors whose names have been disclosed?

896
02:26:29,000 --> 02:26:31,000
That certainly makes sense to me.

897
02:26:31,000 --> 02:26:33,000
I don't see why it can't be done.

898
02:26:33,000 --> 02:26:34,000
That can't be done, your honor.

899
02:26:34,000 --> 02:26:41,000
Frankly, once we have clarity around the scope of what's staying or not being redacted, we'll update the documents as appropriate.

900
02:26:41,000 --> 02:26:44,000
But we're sure they understand that point.

901
02:26:44,000 --> 02:26:45,000
Thank you.

902
02:26:45,000 --> 02:26:53,000
Your honor, the only other thing I again wanted to emphasize, I am confused about why there would be another hearing about 107C.

903
02:26:53,000 --> 02:26:55,000
That was in the initial motion.

904
02:26:55,000 --> 02:26:59,000
Everybody knew today was the day of the hearing on these issues.

905
02:26:59,000 --> 02:27:01,000
They had evidence to present.

906
02:27:01,000 --> 02:27:03,000
They should have presented it.

907
02:27:03,000 --> 02:27:08,000
So I would object to a continuance on that basis.

908
02:27:08,000 --> 02:27:14,000
You were already willing and able to go forward today, nobody told us in advance that they wanted a continuance.

909
02:27:14,000 --> 02:27:16,000
I understand that.

910
02:27:16,000 --> 02:27:19,000
And ordinarily I would say yes, today was the day.

911
02:27:19,000 --> 02:27:20,000
You defined your evidence.

912
02:27:20,000 --> 02:27:24,000
I'm not going to grant any continuances.

913
02:27:24,000 --> 02:27:30,000
But we're talking about individuals here who are not present.

914
02:27:30,000 --> 02:27:37,000
Individuals who may be at risk if their name and information is disclosed.

915
02:27:37,000 --> 02:27:44,000
And if that is the case, I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing by those people.

916
02:27:44,000 --> 02:27:45,000
I understand, your honor.

917
02:27:45,000 --> 02:27:55,000
And I would stress we are not objecting to their addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers being redacted while we're talking about names.

918
02:27:55,000 --> 02:27:56,000
I understand.

919
02:27:56,000 --> 02:27:57,000
Thank you, your honor.

920
02:27:57,000 --> 02:27:58,000
Okay.

921
02:27:58,000 --> 02:28:02,000
Mr. Hanson.

922
02:28:02,000 --> 02:28:05,000
Yes, your honor, again, Chris Hanson with the Paul Hastings on behalf of the committee.

923
02:28:05,000 --> 02:28:10,000
Your honor, with respect to the individual creditor names that are on the committee, the notice that the U.S.

924
02:28:10,000 --> 02:28:15,000
Trustee filed for individuals does not include their addresses or other information.

925
02:28:15,000 --> 02:28:19,000
It just has their names for the institution that obviously includes their addresses.

926
02:28:19,000 --> 02:28:28,000
So when the debtors make their disclosure with respect to the top 50 for those parties, we would ask consistent with the notice that was filed from the U.S.

927
02:28:28,000 --> 02:28:33,000
Trustee with respect to their appointment that we do maintain that information under seal.

928
02:28:33,000 --> 02:28:35,000
That has no objection.

929
02:28:35,000 --> 02:28:36,000
We're in complete agreement.

930
02:28:36,000 --> 02:28:37,000
Okay.

931
02:28:37,000 --> 02:28:39,000
Thank you.

932
02:28:39,000 --> 02:28:42,000
Anyone else?

933
02:28:42,000 --> 02:28:44,000
All right.

934
02:28:44,000 --> 02:28:52,000
Well, this case certainly presents extraordinary circumstances just by nature of the case itself.

935
02:28:52,000 --> 02:29:03,000
The fact that we have a list of people who may be customers, may be creditors, may be both, and I don't know which is which.

936
02:29:03,000 --> 02:29:10,000
And they are there are nine million of them.

937
02:29:10,000 --> 02:29:14,000
I'm reluctant at this point to say I'm going to require the disclosure.

938
02:29:14,000 --> 02:29:28,000
I think the debtor did put on sufficient evidence to show that customer list and I think it goes without saying that a customer list in any bankruptcy case is something that is protected by 107B.

939
02:29:28,000 --> 02:29:30,000
It's a trade secret.

940
02:29:30,000 --> 02:29:35,000
Companies hold those things very closely but want them disclosed.

941
02:29:35,000 --> 02:29:38,000
The difficulty here is I don't know who's a customer and who's not.

942
02:29:38,000 --> 02:29:43,000
Who's just a regular creditor?

943
02:29:43,000 --> 02:29:50,000
So at this point, I'm going to overrule the objections and allow them to remain sealed at this point.

944
02:29:50,000 --> 02:29:54,000
But I'm not going to leave it open for six months.

945
02:29:54,000 --> 02:30:01,000
I'm going to I would approve an order that extended it for three months.

946
02:30:01,000 --> 02:30:18,000
By then, I think based on the testimony and the arguments of counsel, we'll have a better sense of whether or not the customer list is something that purchasers of these assets find value in

947
02:30:18,000 --> 02:30:28,000
and whether they are interested in making sure that they remain anonymous at this point.

948
02:30:28,000 --> 02:30:40,000
On the 107C issue, as I already indicated, I do want more on that because I do want to make sure I'm protecting the interests of these individuals.

949
02:30:40,000 --> 02:31:09,000
It's interesting because if you look at 107A or excuse me, 107C, it refers to protecting information and in defining what identification means, it refers to the criminal code.

950
02:31:09,000 --> 02:31:13,000
Title 18, Section 128D.

951
02:31:13,000 --> 02:31:26,000
And if you look at 128D, it says that information includes names, numbers, or any combination of those two that would allow the identification of an individual.

952
02:31:26,000 --> 02:31:36,000
So certainly the criminal code recognizes that disclosure of a name could result in the identification of an individual.

953
02:31:36,000 --> 02:31:41,000
And if that individual needs protecting, we need to make sure that that is happening.

954
02:31:41,000 --> 02:31:50,000
I don't have enough on the record today to say that 107C applies, but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

955
02:31:50,000 --> 02:32:02,000
So I will, in connection with any further, I guess the question then is do I hold that hearing before the three months is up?

956
02:32:02,000 --> 02:32:15,000
I think in order to make sure that we have a fulsome record and that the parties have the opportunity to engage in discovery if necessary to identify people who might come in and testify, I want to make sure that they have the opportunity.

957
02:32:15,000 --> 02:32:25,000
So we'll schedule a further hearing on the 107C in connection with the 107B follow-up in three months.

958
02:32:25,000 --> 02:32:48,000
I do want to make sure that the debtors are, in compiling the nine million names, if there is a way to identify them, if they are just a creditor and not a customer, I expect that to be done.

959
02:32:48,000 --> 02:33:00,000
And I would like to have a status conference on that question alone within the next, I think we have another hearing scheduled on the 20th.

960
02:33:00,000 --> 02:33:16,000
So let's have a status conference on the 20th on the question of how difficult it would be for the debtors to provide a list of creditors and or customers and distinguish between creditors and customers.

961
02:33:16,000 --> 02:33:24,000
And if you can identify just customers on the list, or excuse me, just creditors on the list, I would expect that those names would be disclosed.

962
02:33:24,000 --> 02:33:34,000
Again, not disclosing for individuals names, excuse me, addresses or telephone numbers or other identifying information.

963
02:33:34,000 --> 02:34:03,000
But if there is, if there are customers who are, I keep confusing these two, if there are creditors on that list of nine million who are institutionals or corporations, and they are only creditors, then their full identifying information should be disclosed as required by the code.

964
02:34:03,000 --> 02:34:15,000
So with that, I would ask the parties to meet and confer come up with a form of order that reflects what my ruling today.

965
02:34:15,000 --> 02:34:24,000
Are there any questions or did I miss anything that parties want me to make sure I've addressed?

966
02:34:24,000 --> 02:34:28,000
The debtors perspective. No, your honor. That's very clear.

967
02:34:28,000 --> 02:34:33,000
Miss occasion or finger any concerns.

968
02:34:33,000 --> 02:34:40,000
Other than the fact that I will.

969
02:34:40,000 --> 02:35:02,000
Your honor, I apologize if I missed it. Did you make a particular ruling regarding individual creditors who are not customers, but are members of the UK or European Union or Japan.

970
02:35:02,000 --> 02:35:10,000
I did not address that. That's another question. And that's what that's a that's a difficult one. I don't think I don't have any evidence on that.

971
02:35:10,000 --> 02:35:19,000
All I have is the arguments of counsel.

972
02:35:19,000 --> 02:35:21,000
Let's include that.

973
02:35:21,000 --> 02:35:25,000
When we talk in three months.

974
02:35:25,000 --> 02:35:35,000
I would like further evidence on that. Maybe have some someone come in and testify about the foreign law and how it affects because I think.

975
02:35:35,000 --> 02:35:44,000
I understand Mr. Finger Miss Sarkisian have pointed out that they don't believe that the European code would apply here.

976
02:35:44,000 --> 02:35:48,000
But I think even Mr. Finger recognized that could be argued either way.

977
02:35:48,000 --> 02:35:55,000
So it's a question. So I'd like to know what the answer to that question is. Would this actually prejudice the debtors somehow.

978
02:35:55,000 --> 02:36:06,000
If it would subject the debtors to large fines and you've seen all this in the press where companies in Europe have been had large fines imposed against them.

979
02:36:06,000 --> 02:36:10,000
Certainly not something I want to have happen to the debtors here.

980
02:36:10,000 --> 02:36:21,000
And it raises questions about whether I could even stop that. Does the automatic stay apply to the European Union seeking to impose a fine against the debtors for violating disclosures.

981
02:36:21,000 --> 02:36:31,000
I don't know. So those are all open issues. I need to have further might might be further briefing to.

982
02:36:31,000 --> 02:36:35,000
And just for clarity. So between now and the three months.

983
02:36:35,000 --> 02:36:44,000
Do those names remain sealed. Yes. Until we when we get to the status conference next Friday.

984
02:36:44,000 --> 02:36:52,000
If the debtors can come in and say we can provide a list of the nine million names and identify those that are solely creditors.

985
02:36:52,000 --> 02:37:03,000
Then I might revise my order to say that those people's names and identifying information should be disclosed except for individuals at least with the institutional creditors.

986
02:37:03,000 --> 02:37:20,000
And your honor maybe another thing that could be discussed at that status conference would be to the degree that the debtors are able to call out which individuals are in fact citizens of the UK the EU and potentially Japan.

987
02:37:20,000 --> 02:37:26,000
If that's possible then that would be helpful if we know how many people from my end.

988
02:37:26,000 --> 02:37:38,000
I think from the first day hearing I think recollect there was some testimony in the declaration about how many of these people are not US citizens.

989
02:37:38,000 --> 02:37:48,000
It may be most if not all of them. I don't think all of them would be but at least most of them might be foreign citizens.

990
02:37:48,000 --> 02:38:04,000
Your honor they may be foreign citizens but they might be citizens of India or someplace that's not controlled. I just I'm not sure that we've heard testimony about the debtors ability to determine citizenship of its customers.

991
02:38:04,000 --> 02:38:08,000
So again maybe that's something that could be discussed at the status conference.

992
02:38:08,000 --> 02:38:19,000
They have the ability to determine what the citizenship is so that they can know whether or not to redact the name right. I think that's right. Yes. Thank you.

993
02:38:19,000 --> 02:38:24,000
That's fine. You're on it.

994
02:38:24,000 --> 02:38:27,000
Okay. Well thank you. Anything else.

995
02:38:27,000 --> 02:38:34,000
I'll look forward to the certification of council with the order so far.

996
02:38:34,000 --> 02:38:38,000
No I think on that issue that is it.

997
02:38:38,000 --> 02:38:44,000
I'm happy to move forward with the agenda unless your honor would like to address any other issue.

998
02:38:44,000 --> 02:38:46,000
Mr. Finger.

999
02:38:46,000 --> 02:38:51,000
Yes. Thank you.

1000
02:38:51,000 --> 02:38:53,000
All right. Let's go forward.

1001
02:38:53,000 --> 02:39:03,000
All right. Thank you your honor. I'm going to take one item if I may if it pleases the court. Just agenda item 22 slightly out of order and then I will turn things over to Mr. Peter.

1002
02:39:03,000 --> 02:39:05,000
Okay.

1003
02:39:05,000 --> 02:39:27,000
Agenda item 22 your honor is debtors motion to authorize providing indemnification and exculpation on a final basis to certain individuals taking actions to secure at risk cryptocurrency and cash. The motion was filed under seal prior to the first date hearing at docket number 95.

1004
02:39:27,000 --> 02:39:38,000
Interim order was entered at docket 140 and subsequently unsealed after discussion with the court recently at docket number 23 your honor.

1005
02:39:38,000 --> 02:40:01,000
Your honor there have been no objections filed with respect to the motion. The debtors have received informal comments and have had discussions at length with United States trustee and the official committee in response to those comments received the debtors did file revised proposed order last night.

1006
02:40:01,000 --> 02:40:20,000
The motion your honor was filed as the court will recall on an emergency basis when it became clear in the initial days of these cases that certain of the debtors cryptocurrency and cash assets were at significant risk of being hacked stolen lost or compromised if not immediately moved and secured.

1007
02:40:20,000 --> 02:40:41,000
This required individuals to act quickly on behalf of the debtors to take action in a difficult environment. Those assets included crypto and other digital assets that were held or maintained on third party exchanges or in so called hot wallets that are not maintained on third party exchanges.

1008
02:40:41,000 --> 02:40:54,000
There were cash assets held in bank accounts around the world and in certain cases on third party brokerages where securities and other assets were being held.

1009
02:40:54,000 --> 02:41:15,000
I am pleased to report to the court that very significant progress Mr. Deedra has been made on the work that was done and necessary for which this motion interim order has been integral to work to locate and secure assets remains ongoing.

1010
02:41:15,000 --> 02:41:32,000
Transfers of cryptocurrency are subject to certain inherent risks. Some of those risks are very amplified here in these cases due to the inadequacy of prior control before the debtors current management team got in and put them in place.

1011
02:41:32,000 --> 02:41:39,000
As a result, the protection of a limited number of individuals on the front line of this work remains critically important.

1012
02:41:39,000 --> 02:41:57,000
I do want to note for the record based on discussions with the committee that the debtors are okay with the request from them to be sure that to the extent there are indemnification payments that ultimately need to be made under the order.

1013
02:41:57,000 --> 02:42:09,000
The debtors will see payment for any applicable insurance policies and the debtors retain all rights of subrogation with respect to obligations that might arise under this order.

1014
02:42:09,000 --> 02:42:16,000
I think the committee is going to want to be heard on this as well but from the debtors' perspective, Your Honor, we would ask that the order be entered.

1015
02:42:16,000 --> 02:42:18,000
Okay, thank you.

1016
02:42:18,000 --> 02:42:21,000
Mr. Hanson.

1017
02:42:21,000 --> 02:42:24,000
Yes, Your Honor. Again, Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings on behalf of the committee.

1018
02:42:24,000 --> 02:42:39,000
Your Honor, that was really our main point with respect to the indemnification motion, which is that if indemnification payments are going to be made, that the debtor use its best efforts first to look to applicable insurance, which is not only D&O insurance, it's other professional liability insurance as well.

1019
02:42:39,000 --> 02:42:47,000
As the motion makes clear, they look to include parties in connection with that who may be covered by their own insurance.

1020
02:42:47,000 --> 02:42:56,000
And so we want to make sure that insurance assets are used to make those payments if at all possible and if the debtor needs to advance payments first, that it has subrogation rights to move against that insurance.

1021
02:42:56,000 --> 02:42:59,000
Ideally, we would include that in the order so that it's clear.

1022
02:42:59,000 --> 02:43:02,000
Obviously, we've all stated it here on the record.

1023
02:43:02,000 --> 02:43:07,000
So if we could include it in the order, that would be the committee's favorite approach.

1024
02:43:07,000 --> 02:43:08,000
Okay.

1025
02:43:08,000 --> 02:43:11,000
Is there any objection to revising the order?

1026
02:43:11,000 --> 02:43:12,000
Mr. Plexy.

1027
02:43:12,000 --> 02:43:19,000
No, Your Honor. We're happy to sit back down with the committee and discuss the order further and submit an agreed upon formal form.

1028
02:43:19,000 --> 02:43:20,000
Okay. Thank you.

1029
02:43:20,000 --> 02:43:24,000
Was the committee the only objection?

1030
02:43:24,000 --> 02:43:28,000
Yeah, I don't know if the U.S. Trustee has anything further on this motion.

1031
02:43:28,000 --> 02:43:36,000
Mr. Chairman, again for the record, Julia Sarcuse on behalf of the U.S. Trustee, I believe we have worked out all of our issues with the debtors on this.

1032
02:43:36,000 --> 02:43:44,000
I think the only thing I just want to make clear on the record is that the proposed final order will have an exhibit.

1033
02:43:44,000 --> 02:43:48,000
The exhibit needs to be filed under seal.

1034
02:43:48,000 --> 02:43:54,000
But the order itself, once it gets entered, should the order itself should not be under seal.

1035
02:43:54,000 --> 02:44:02,000
The exhibit is a list of people's names that are going to be covered by the order, getting the indemnification exculpation.

1036
02:44:02,000 --> 02:44:08,000
We've had some trouble with a seal order in the past that entered under seal.

1037
02:44:08,000 --> 02:44:14,000
So I just want to make sure it's clear that the order itself is not under seal, but the exhibit will be.

1038
02:44:14,000 --> 02:44:19,000
That's correct, Your Honor.

1039
02:44:19,000 --> 02:44:21,000
We're not looking to seal the order.

1040
02:44:21,000 --> 02:44:25,000
We've unsealed now the inter-order.

1041
02:44:25,000 --> 02:44:26,000
Mr. Arcasian is correct.

1042
02:44:26,000 --> 02:44:36,000
We will, and we have in fact filed under seal already the list of names that's contemplated, that is contemplated to be attached to the order.

1043
02:44:36,000 --> 02:44:42,000
And so when we submit the final order for Your Honor's review and signature the order then will be on the docket.

1044
02:44:42,000 --> 02:44:45,000
But the exhibit to that order will remain filed under seal.

1045
02:44:45,000 --> 02:44:46,000
Okay.

1046
02:44:46,000 --> 02:44:47,000
I did see that list already.

1047
02:44:47,000 --> 02:44:49,000
I saw it this morning.

1048
02:44:49,000 --> 02:44:51,000
Thank you, Your Honor.

1049
02:44:51,000 --> 02:44:52,000
All right.

1050
02:44:52,000 --> 02:44:54,000
So that one again will be submitted under seal, see?

1051
02:44:54,000 --> 02:44:58,000
Yes, once we agree on the additional language of the committee, we'll submit that under seal.

1052
02:44:58,000 --> 02:44:59,000
Okay.

1053
02:44:59,000 --> 02:45:00,000
Thank you.

1054
02:45:00,000 --> 02:45:01,000
All right.

1055
02:45:01,000 --> 02:45:04,000
With that, Your Honor, I will seek the podium to this deeter to address cash management.

1056
02:45:04,000 --> 02:45:09,000
Okay.

1057
02:45:09,000 --> 02:45:13,000
Hello, and Your Honor, for the record, Andy Biederich, Sullivan and Kreml for the debtors.

1058
02:45:13,000 --> 02:45:18,000
I have docket 21, the cash management order.

1059
02:45:18,000 --> 02:45:24,000
Your Honor, on this one, all objections have been resolved in our view other than one objection from the U.S.

1060
02:45:24,000 --> 02:45:26,000
Trustee.

1061
02:45:26,000 --> 02:45:34,000
Before addressing that objection, I wanted to, I have a sentence to read into the record and a couple general points for the court.

1062
02:45:34,000 --> 02:45:39,000
I also want to talk about the evidentiary record here for just a moment.

1063
02:45:39,000 --> 02:45:42,000
From the debtor's perspective, we believe the U.S.

1064
02:45:42,000 --> 02:45:54,000
Trustee has an objection that's a pure point of law, which is about whether or not the court has authority to grant super priority status to claims against the cash management system.

1065
02:45:54,000 --> 02:45:58,000
I do not believe her objection goes to the reasonableness of that decision.

1066
02:45:58,000 --> 02:46:03,000
And we do have a record, of course, for the reasonableness of the cash management system from Mr.

1067
02:46:03,000 --> 02:46:09,000
Moseley's prior declaration, which is on the docket from the interim hearing.

1068
02:46:09,000 --> 02:46:13,000
So I'd like to go ahead and proceed on that assumption.

1069
02:46:13,000 --> 02:46:14,000
But to the extent that Ms.

1070
02:46:14,000 --> 02:46:19,000
Arcasian does an objection to the reasonableness of the cash management procedure, we do reserve the right to call Mr.

1071
02:46:19,000 --> 02:46:22,000
Moseley, put him on the stand and ask him a few questions.

1072
02:46:22,000 --> 02:46:25,000
Why don't we find out before we go?

1073
02:46:25,000 --> 02:46:27,000
Your Honor, it's a pure legal argument.

1074
02:46:27,000 --> 02:46:35,000
I am not making any argument about the reasonableness of any decision that the debtors have made in this regard, just whether it's permissible under the code.

1075
02:46:35,000 --> 02:46:37,000
Okay. Thank you.

1076
02:46:37,000 --> 02:46:38,000
Thank you, Ms. Arcasian.

1077
02:46:38,000 --> 02:46:44,000
On that basis, Your Honor, the evidentiary record here is we're relying on is the declaration of Mr.

1078
02:46:44,000 --> 02:46:52,000
Moseley in support of first day relief docket number 57, the supplemental declaration docket 93.

1079
02:46:52,000 --> 02:46:59,000
And although we're not relying on it for evidence for the court's information, there is a second supplemental declaration of Mr.

1080
02:46:59,000 --> 02:47:04,000
Moseley last evening, which is generally applicable with the 13-week cash forecast.

1081
02:47:04,000 --> 02:47:07,000
And that's at docket 460.

1082
02:47:07,000 --> 02:47:21,000
So, Your Honor, we have in order to resolve the objection from Evolve Bank, which is one of the banks where we have accounts that are nominally recorded as FBO accounts.

1083
02:47:21,000 --> 02:47:24,000
We have a little bit of language to read into the record.

1084
02:47:24,000 --> 02:47:33,000
So in paragraph 13 of the form of order, where it speaks about the rules for closing FBO accounts,

1085
02:47:33,000 --> 02:47:41,000
we have committed with Evolve that we will not close the accounts at their bank without notice in a farther order of the court.

1086
02:47:41,000 --> 02:47:46,000
And so we will be submitting a revised form of order, but the language will make that clear.

1087
02:47:46,000 --> 02:47:53,000
And we have text that we've worked out with counsel to evolve.

1088
02:47:53,000 --> 02:47:57,000
Second, Your Honor, we have some objections from shareholders.

1089
02:47:57,000 --> 02:48:01,000
So a couple shareholders have surfaced represented by our friends at Denver Boys.

1090
02:48:01,000 --> 02:48:03,000
And they reviewed this order.

1091
02:48:03,000 --> 02:48:08,000
They have, I believe, an objection or a reservation of rights, one or the other, on file.

1092
02:48:08,000 --> 02:48:15,000
And we've worked out with them that we've made some commitments to them to share information informally that they've accepted.

1093
02:48:15,000 --> 02:48:19,000
And on that basis, I believe their objection is resolved.

1094
02:48:19,000 --> 02:48:26,000
With respect to the overall motion, Your Honor, this is really the same cash management system that we proposed earlier.

1095
02:48:26,000 --> 02:48:32,000
There's been no substantial change in the management system we're proposing going forward, with one exception.

1096
02:48:32,000 --> 02:48:40,000
During the interim period, we had some gates on the ability to move, to make advances from silo to silo.

1097
02:48:40,000 --> 02:48:44,000
There was a hard cap on the movement of money from silo to silo.

1098
02:48:44,000 --> 02:48:54,000
We've had a number of discussions with the committee about what the right approach is to this case in terms of movement of money in the cash management system across silos.

1099
02:48:54,000 --> 02:49:03,000
We agreed with them on a flexible procedure where we will use a budgeting and projection process and involve them periodically in that process.

1100
02:49:03,000 --> 02:49:14,000
And to the extent that we agree that it's appropriate and proven to move money from the silos, we're permitted to do that under the cash management system and our business judgment with the committee's involvement.

1101
02:49:14,000 --> 02:49:26,000
However, to the extent that the committee disagrees, either with the projections about amount of silo movement or we have variances from time to time that are larger than beyond a certain cap.

1102
02:49:26,000 --> 02:49:32,000
In that circumstance, the committee can come back to Your Honor on an accelerated schedule with an objection.

1103
02:49:32,000 --> 02:49:34,000
We think that's an appropriate basis.

1104
02:49:34,000 --> 02:49:43,000
We will be moving money between the silos only to the extent we think it obviously creates a reliable administrative claim.

1105
02:49:43,000 --> 02:49:48,000
We have substantial unencumbered asset value at all of the silos.

1106
02:49:48,000 --> 02:49:58,000
The question might just be really a question of working capital until we're able to monetize some of the assets and some of the pockets of the assets.

1107
02:49:58,000 --> 02:50:02,000
There's been no objection, Your Honor, that goes to that mechanism.

1108
02:50:02,000 --> 02:50:09,000
The objections that we've resolved went to more of the question, should we charge interest and how should the mechanics and the details work?

1109
02:50:09,000 --> 02:50:24,000
So with that, Your Honor, I'll turn to the remaining objection we have, which is the objection of the U.S. Trustee on the legal question of whether or not Your Honor has the authority to grant super priority status to advances under a cash management system.

1110
02:50:24,000 --> 02:50:28,000
There's not a lot of case law that will be helpful to us on this point.

1111
02:50:28,000 --> 02:50:36,000
I think we have a reading of the bankruptcy code that says that which is not prohibited by the bankruptcy code, and we have an evidentiary basis of reason on this floor.

1112
02:50:36,000 --> 02:50:39,000
Your Honor can award under 105.

1113
02:50:39,000 --> 02:50:56,000
We also think for the reasons that we put in the papers, which I don't need to rehearse, that the proper allocation of risk in a system with many debtors between administrative creditors, because it's really a question of allocation of risk among different administrative creditors in the common system,

1114
02:50:56,000 --> 02:51:21,000
that if the advances by the cash management pool are given super priority status, the consequence of doing so is that the first loss, if there was a problem, and heaven forbid we don't expect there to be a problem, but if there ever was a problem anywhere in part of our system, the super priority protects the cash management system and the other debtors against a localized problem.

1115
02:51:21,000 --> 02:51:27,000
And it allocates first administrative loss to the administrative creditors of that particular debtor.

1116
02:51:27,000 --> 02:51:42,000
The converse rule, a rule that says it was an ordinary administrative advance, the problem with that rule in our mind is that it then socializes any loss, any administrative loss, among administrative creditors, in our case, all over the world.

1117
02:51:42,000 --> 02:51:55,000
And so this super priority status for administrative advances we believe is consistent with the approach that has been taken by the debtors that have really thought it through in the complicated cases, in particular complicated cross border cases.

1118
02:51:55,000 --> 02:52:12,000
It's consistent with the way, and again without evidence on this, Your Honor, but from most speeches, informally from personal experience, it's the way international companies think about cash management, making sure the system is protected as opposed to any particular arm of the organization.

1119
02:52:12,000 --> 02:52:16,000
And we believe it's the reasonable approach, you know, in the facts of our particular case.

1120
02:52:16,000 --> 02:52:29,000
In terms of the pure legal issue, we see nothing in the code that prohibits, Your Honor, from doing it. The U.S. trustee only respects the argument, says there's only two circumstances where super priority expense can be awarded by a debtor.

1121
02:52:29,000 --> 02:52:36,000
And we think those are two circumstances, excuse me, where the code contemplates it, but it is not otherwise permitted.

1122
02:52:36,000 --> 02:52:46,000
And to the extent we do so on the record, so that all of our administrative predators know that the advances have super priority status, we think there's adequate notice to do it.

1123
02:52:46,000 --> 02:52:59,000
In some ways the greater power implies the lesser. We should be able to incur administrative debt that one of our subsidiaries on the understanding that the person we're dealing with knows that advances against the cash management system do have a priority.

1124
02:52:59,000 --> 02:53:13,000
Now, the last thing I'll say, Your Honor, is this doesn't come up super often because of dip financing and the arrangements of dip financing often supersede this and it's embedded in the cash management system that's somewhat connected at least to the dip loan.

1125
02:53:13,000 --> 02:53:22,000
Here we don't have a dip loan, so there's a little bit more attention on the question. But those are my remarks on it and I'm happy to see the voting on this occasion and she can give you the contrary view.

1126
02:53:22,000 --> 02:53:23,000
Thank you.

1127
02:53:23,000 --> 02:53:24,000
Thank you.

1128
02:53:24,000 --> 02:53:29,000
Like the committee wants to weigh in.

1129
02:53:29,000 --> 02:53:45,000
Hold on one second.

1130
02:53:45,000 --> 02:54:05,000
The zoom video.

1131
02:54:05,000 --> 02:54:30,000
That means everybody else has the dial back in.

1132
02:54:30,000 --> 02:54:38,000
Technical glitch.

1133
02:54:38,000 --> 02:55:02,000
I hope it's nothing I said.

1134
02:55:02,000 --> 02:55:23,000
Unfortunately.

1135
02:55:23,000 --> 02:55:25,000
We have to have it come up.

1136
02:55:25,000 --> 02:55:28,000
Take a look at what's happening.

1137
02:55:28,000 --> 02:55:32,000
So let's take take a recess until we can get this resolved.

1138
02:55:32,000 --> 02:55:34,000
Hopefully, pretty quickly.

1139
02:55:34,000 --> 02:55:37,000
Just let me know when we're ready.

1140
02:55:37,000 --> 02:56:05,000
All right.

1141
02:56:05,000 --> 02:56:29,000
We're going back.

1142
02:56:35,000 --> 02:57:00,000
All right.

1143
02:57:00,000 --> 02:57:07,000
Right.

1144
02:57:07,000 --> 02:57:27,000
Your honor, I rise only to make some comments with respect to the cash management motion. We as a committee support the cash management motion and want to describe to the court that we have spent a fair amount of time negotiating and improving the terms of the cash management order.

1145
02:57:27,000 --> 02:57:40,000
Our approach to the cash management system and the proposed from a border was to facilitate the use of a centralized cash management system, which all else been equal is rather common to complex corporations of this size.

1146
02:57:40,000 --> 02:57:54,000
But at the same time, reflecting the realities of the case, preserving parties rights with respect to assets of the debtors, offering visibility into movement of cash and enacting appropriate safeguards for the benefit of the debtors of states.

1147
02:57:54,000 --> 02:58:10,000
To that end, as counsel indicated earlier, we did negotiate an extensive regime of reporting that is weekly and monthly reporting delivery of monthly budgets, a variance test, intercompany reconciliation reports as well.

1148
02:58:10,000 --> 02:58:23,000
Consultation rights and opportunities for the committee to step in and seek relief before the court if there are certain objections to either to the budget or any disbursements that sought in excess of a 10% variance.

1149
02:58:23,000 --> 02:58:29,000
There's also a negotiated result with respect to imposing a cap on transfers to non debtors.

1150
02:58:29,000 --> 02:58:45,000
We think all in these provisions strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the proper movement of cash and the efficient administration of the case, which frankly benefits all constituents, but also affords appropriate protection to the debtors of states.

1151
02:58:45,000 --> 02:59:14,000
And it's important to note that as part of the negotiated result, we did incorporate language into the cash management order, which provides a fulsome reservation of rights for the benefit of parties with respect to entitlements regarding customer funds and also a fulsome reservation of rights with respect to the rights to assert whatever rights and remedies they have notwithstanding the silo creation and notwithstanding the movement of cash between accounts and between silos.

1152
02:59:14,000 --> 02:59:22,000
So we thought that that was similarly important for the benefit of constituents in the case, both customers and creditors alike.

1153
02:59:22,000 --> 02:59:37,000
From the perspective of the legal issue that's been presented in terms of the admin priority or super priority, obviously, the debtors intent here is to ensure that to the extent there is movement of cash, that the appropriate estates are protected.

1154
02:59:37,000 --> 02:59:49,000
In terms of the super priority status are again perspective there is that the debtors view is that it's simply additive protection for the benefit of the transfer or estate.

1155
02:59:49,000 --> 03:00:03,000
It's my understanding that from a process and notice perspective, at least, I believe that the interim form of order included the establishment of a super priority claim with respect to the transfer or estate.

1156
03:00:03,000 --> 03:00:10,000
So you from that perspective, I think it's been on notice now purposes of the second day hearing that that relief would be requested.

1157
03:00:10,000 --> 03:00:19,000
So I think that notice coupled with the comments made by counsel that we don't believe that there's any prohibition against the court for super priority status.

1158
03:00:19,000 --> 03:00:22,000
We support the relief requested by the debtors.

1159
03:00:22,000 --> 03:00:25,000
Unless your honor has any questions of me.

1160
03:00:25,000 --> 03:00:26,000
That's why I said thank you.

1161
03:00:26,000 --> 03:00:27,000
No questions.

1162
03:00:27,000 --> 03:00:29,000
Thank you.

1163
03:00:29,000 --> 03:00:33,000
We have another speaking in support of support.

1164
03:00:33,000 --> 03:00:34,000
Yes.

1165
03:00:34,000 --> 03:00:35,000
Good morning.

1166
03:00:35,000 --> 03:00:51,000
Cindy Levinson, Deb Boyce and Clinton for paradigm operations paradigm to substantial stakeholder in these bankruptcy cases, including about 280 million of inequity investments in two of the silos.

1167
03:00:51,000 --> 03:00:54,000
West realm Shires and FDX trading limited.

1168
03:00:54,000 --> 03:01:14,000
We've heard Mr. Ray and others take aim at the poor record keeping of the debtors prior to bankruptcy filing and we recognize that the process of identifying the assets and liabilities of each debtor as well as the pre petition into company claims and relationships that exist among them is very much a work in progress.

1169
03:01:14,000 --> 03:01:43,000
Miss Ferris say none of us really know at this point how all that's going to shake out. But given that state of affairs, it's absolutely vital for all stakeholders to be able to preserve the status quo as of the petition date to the fullest extent possible and to maintain the separateness of the various debtor entities to the fullest extent possible so that each of the individual debtors and their respective stakeholders aren't prejudiced by anything that's going to be happening during the bankruptcy cases.

1170
03:01:43,000 --> 03:01:52,000
The cash management or obviously has some impact on that status quo and accordingly they need to be protections implemented to minimize that threat.

1171
03:01:52,000 --> 03:02:12,000
We engaged in informal discussions we did also file limited objection but those informal discussions have been ongoing with the debtors for several weeks to address our concerns and in fact the revised form of order includes many of the suggestions that we have made with respect to the form of order and given that as well as the commitments

1172
03:02:12,000 --> 03:02:39,000
that Mr. Peter referred to in his comments paradigm is is withdrawing its remaining objections. I would if I may your honor just be like like to be heard briefly on the United States trustees limited legal objection because the inclusion of super priority claims is fundamental to our support of the current cash management order in its current form.

1173
03:02:39,000 --> 03:03:08,000
And contrary to their position I was meant that the bankruptcy court does in fact authorize expressly authorize the grant of the super priority claim and I think that express authority can be found in section three sixty three E which governs the use of property in which an entity has an interest if I can indulge your honor just to read from three sixty three E not withstanding any other provision of this section at any time on

1174
03:03:08,000 --> 03:03:27,000
request of an entity that has an interest in property used sold or leased or proposed to be used sold or leased by the trustee the court with or without a hearing shall prohibit or condition such use sale or lease as necessary to provide adequate protection of such interest.

1175
03:03:27,000 --> 03:03:55,000
Now here the debtors and non debtors whose funds are being used have an interest in these proceeds and are entitled to request a grant of adequate protection from the debtors that are in fact receiving those proceeds or the benefit of those proceeds section three sixty one authorizes the grant of adequate protection in many forms including the realization of the indubitable equivalent of an interest in such funds.

1176
03:03:55,000 --> 03:04:24,000
And one thing that three sixty one makes clear is that a mayor administrative expense priority is not sufficient by itself to provide adequate protection thus we would submit a super priority claim as the bare minimum that would be required to provide adequate protection and indeed if it turns out that any form of adequate protection turns out to be insufficient the entity advancing such funds would be entitled to a super priority claim under sections five oh seventy.

1177
03:04:24,000 --> 03:04:47,000
So we think the United States trustees limited objection is misplaced not only for all the reasons outlined by the debtors in their paper and by Mr Dietrich today but also by by that provision as well and that this court does in fact have the authority to grant super priority claims and we respectfully request that your honor approved that provision unless your honor has any questions.

1178
03:04:47,000 --> 03:04:55,000
No questions thank you.

1179
03:04:55,000 --> 03:05:06,000
Good afternoon your honor Ellie Warren point that was a separate depth of voice and from the team on behalf of certain likes to be funds here together with our co council call shots.

1180
03:05:06,000 --> 03:05:20,000
I'll be very grateful your honor because I don't want to repeat a lot of the points that were made by paradigm as well as the committee our interest on concerns that paradigm that likes to be had for very similar to the concerns of the committee as well as the concerns of paradigm.

1181
03:05:20,000 --> 03:05:41,000
But very briefly as noted in our reservation of rights which is document number three nine like the funds are substantial equity holders in several of the debtor entities based on the debtors public filings and statements thus far in the case the debtors have acknowledged that certain FTC entities in the WRS silo as well as certain other entities are solvent.

1182
03:05:41,000 --> 03:06:01,000
So as noted in our brief lights be the lights be fun concerns were that it's imperative in this case to preserve the status quo for all the reasons noted by paradigms council just a moment ago that it's imperative to maintain corporate formalities and preserve the status quo especially at this early stage of the chapter 11 case.

1183
03:06:01,000 --> 03:06:19,000
And we must do that for the greatest extent possible in order to ensure that the rights of legitimate stakeholders are preserved like these conserved that the original motion and proposed order as originally drafted the debtors were able to transfer funds from better entities to non better entities and vice versa.

1184
03:06:19,000 --> 03:06:34,000
And that's how they were intending to fund these chapter 11 cases the concern of lights be was that those initial proposals didn't have a sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of those solvent entities as well as the various stakeholders of those entities.

1185
03:06:34,000 --> 03:06:46,000
And therefore the original proposed order left a substantial risk that solvent FTC entities will be funding seeing their case their cash being used to the benefit of other debtor entities.

1186
03:06:46,000 --> 03:07:10,000
And this wasn't only a concern of the lights be funds. This is a concern that all stakeholders as you know the committee noted as well that it's important that different stakeholders obviously have different claims against different legal entities so it's imperative to preserve and maintain corporate formalities in order to ensure that each stakeholder against the individual debtor entity could preserve the status quo of whatever cash or rights or assets they have.

1187
03:07:10,000 --> 03:07:25,000
And as noted earlier we're happy to report we have received we have in light of the revisions to the proposed order. Most importantly the grant of the super priority claim as discussed earlier and I won't repeat those legal arguments that were already mentioned.

1188
03:07:25,000 --> 03:07:42,000
We believe that they will satisfy like lights be concerned at this time and we're going to withdraw our reservation of rights and any outstanding concerns in light of the extensive back and forth arm blade discussions we've had with the council over the last few weeks.

1189
03:07:42,000 --> 03:07:59,000
However we will note just for the record that will continue to monitor these cases carefully especially in light of the reservation of rights for the various issues in the proposed order namely interest allocation of expenses and some of the other points which are all issues that are reserved for later in the chapter 11 case.

1190
03:07:59,000 --> 03:08:22,000
But the light be fun will maintain careful monitoring of the case just to ensure that the better entities are maintaining corporate formalities transparency as we heard earlier in the hearing the key of tracing and monitoring all the cash flows during the chapter 11 case just to ensure that no specific debtor entities and their various stakeholders are prejudiced at the expense of other debtor entities.

1191
03:08:22,000 --> 03:08:27,000
So unless the court has any questions.

1192
03:08:27,000 --> 03:08:30,000
Okay. Thank you. No questions.

1193
03:08:30,000 --> 03:08:47,000
Anyone else in support.

1194
03:08:47,000 --> 03:09:02,000
Thank you.

1195
03:09:02,000 --> 03:09:19,000
There are only two grounds in the code where super what we call it super priority in its price is an administrative claim and has priority over all other administrative claims there's only two places in the code that provide for that.

1196
03:09:19,000 --> 03:09:32,000
One is under three sixty four C in connection with the financing and the other is under five oh seven B for adequate protection of pre petition means.

1197
03:09:32,000 --> 03:09:41,000
So now, counsel for paradigm had just argued that super priority could be granted under.

1198
03:09:41,000 --> 03:09:42,000
You might need to lower the mic.

1199
03:09:42,000 --> 03:09:53,000
I'm sorry. Thank you. On the super priority could be allowed under three sixty three.

1200
03:09:53,000 --> 03:09:56,000
But if you and it does talk about adequate protection there.

1201
03:09:56,000 --> 03:10:20,000
But if you turn back to five oh seven B and five oh seven B does reference three sixty three. It says it under three sixty two three sixty three or three sixty four this title that the trustee provides for course that on possession provides adequate protection of an interest of a holder of a claim secured by a lien on property of the debtor.

1202
03:10:20,000 --> 03:10:47,000
So it is limited to that. There must be a lien. So I don't think that it's my understanding that the transfers we're talking about here between debtors or between non debtor affiliates to debtors are not going to be secured by a lien and certainly not on a pre petition.

1203
03:10:47,000 --> 03:11:04,000
So the debtors argument and other parties have argued that well just because the code points out two places that allow for super priority claims does not mean that super priority claims are otherwise prohibited.

1204
03:11:04,000 --> 03:11:22,000
Again the priority the priority of claims under the bankruptcy code is a key portion of the code. And so when the code says there's two places where you get a super priority claim and there's no other provision where you could say all right well this may be under this one.

1205
03:11:22,000 --> 03:11:40,000
Then that's it. That is it. Otherwise what you come up with is well then what's the standard for super priority claims. I mean we know it would of course have to be a post petition claim. But then what's the standard. Is it just whatever the debtor thinks should be a super priority claim.

1206
03:11:40,000 --> 03:11:58,000
I per talks about what there is plenty of notice if there's no statutory authority to grant something under the code then giving people notice about it doesn't doesn't resolve that problem. It's great to get parties notice but you have to have a statutory provision to hang your hat on.

1207
03:11:58,000 --> 03:12:25,000
Again what what are the parameters who decides and what are the parameters of other super priority claims that are not referenced in the code. You know here what the debtor is saying is it's basically elevating claims between themselves and non debtor affiliates into the debtor that those claims are being elevated over claims of ordinary post petition vendors and service providers.

1208
03:12:25,000 --> 03:12:52,000
They're the ones that are being effectively they're having their claims subordinated effectively without again there being anything in the code to provide for that. And when you the other problem is when you start expanding super priority to cover other things that are not specified in the code eventually it becomes meaningless because you know everybody's going to get super priority.

1209
03:12:52,000 --> 03:13:04,000
I mean for example if you say well maybe you view these transfers between the debtors as post petition financing in which case please file a motion to get that approved.

1210
03:13:04,000 --> 03:13:22,000
But well then one could say that a vendor the vendor is selling goods on 30 day terms that's giving the debtors post petition credit. They get a super priority claim. Where does it stop because if everybody gets super priority then super priority is completely meaningless.

1211
03:13:22,000 --> 03:13:37,000
And you know somebody had said this is usually not an issue because usually there's dip financing under the code they get super priority and that's the end of it. They're not going to share super priority with with you know inner debtor transfers.

1212
03:13:37,000 --> 03:14:00,000
You know we don't have that here but that doesn't mean just because we don't have a defiance or it does not mean super priority status can be given with without without authority under the code just because it's convenient for the debtors or because they gave notice to parties.

1213
03:14:00,000 --> 03:14:22,000
And you know as we mentioned in our objection I mean here there is I guess I would say it's somewhat ironic that I've been told by debtors council that the majority of these transfers between debtors are going to be loans from the Alameda silo to the dot com silo.

1214
03:14:22,000 --> 03:14:32,000
That is not an emotion emotion actually has very little information about what these transfers are and why they're needed or the amounts or anything. That's what I was told I assume that's true.

1215
03:14:32,000 --> 03:14:43,000
And of course we have no pre petition allegations of money from customer accounts in the dot com silo being raided and sent to Alameda.

1216
03:14:43,000 --> 03:14:57,000
Now Alameda is going to be lending money to the dot com silo and getting super priority status. There's something that's I'd say troubling about that.

1217
03:14:57,000 --> 03:15:13,000
And I understand that there's reservation of rights put in the order so that if later on it's determined that money that's that Alameda has really belongs to customers of other debtors know that those rights are reserved.

1218
03:15:13,000 --> 03:15:35,000
But again elevating those types of transfers from Alameda silo to dot com silo over ordinary course professionals not professionals. Well actually they are elevated over ordinary course professionals as well and professionals are here and if they want to voluntarily subordinate their claims.

1219
03:15:35,000 --> 03:15:58,000
Then that's fine. They can do that. Somebody can consent to that but there's certainly no evidence that the new I'm assuming numerous vendors and service providers to these debtors post petition have agreed to have their claims subordinated to claims between the debtors or claims from non debtor affiliates to the debtors that take place after the petition date.

1220
03:15:58,000 --> 03:16:12,000
Isn't there protections built in to avoid the issue of Alameda loaning money to the dot coms. The question being well is the money that Alameda is loaning belong to somebody else.

1221
03:16:12,000 --> 03:16:19,000
And that's being preserved. Right. I mean the only thing that the super priority claim will do is make sure that any money loan goes back to Alameda.

1222
03:16:19,000 --> 03:16:29,000
So the question of whether that money actually belongs to Alameda or some of the other debtors or customers or whatever the case may be is something that can be decided at a later time.

1223
03:16:29,000 --> 03:16:36,000
Yes. It is my understanding that that is being preserved but it does not.

1224
03:16:36,000 --> 03:16:47,000
It doesn't address the issue of not having statutory authority to expand super priority claims beyond what is specified under the code.

1225
03:16:47,000 --> 03:17:01,000
Mr. Rana has any further questions. Thank you.

1226
03:17:01,000 --> 03:17:07,000
Thank you Mr. Key and very briefly your honor. I need to raise the microphones back up. I get this. Sure. Sorry.

1227
03:17:07,000 --> 03:17:11,000
Understood. Understood. We should leave one low and one high.

1228
03:17:11,000 --> 03:17:26,000
Your honor just very very briefly one factual correction is we're talking about liabilities to the cash management system under no circumstances are we granting super priority status to a claim by a non debtor.

1229
03:17:26,000 --> 03:17:31,000
So even a non debtor subsidiary would have super priority status under the cash management system.

1230
03:17:31,000 --> 03:17:40,000
This is for inter debtor advances. The only other thing I'd say is that there's lots of practical arguments about this.

1231
03:17:40,000 --> 03:17:48,000
I think the question before the court is whether your honor has authority to grant super priority status.

1232
03:17:48,000 --> 03:17:56,000
And again I submit that with respect for Mr. Casey's position there's no case cited that you don't have the authority.

1233
03:17:56,000 --> 03:18:08,000
There's no case cited for the reading of the bankruptcy code that says that in the absence of a specific reference to super priority you can't grant super priority status.

1234
03:18:08,000 --> 03:18:25,000
And there's no case cited for her particular reading of 105 despite lots of jurisprudence about how 105 is applied to circumstances where the code is as it is in so many things in our practice silent on a particular practical issue.

1235
03:18:25,000 --> 03:18:34,000
Congress did not think about the question of how to run inter company cash management systems in a multi jurisdictional debtor.

1236
03:18:34,000 --> 03:18:40,000
I can assure you without having looked to it we're not going to find that in the legislative history of the bankruptcy code.

1237
03:18:40,000 --> 03:18:58,000
But what it did do is it gave debtors discretion, put a creditors committee in charge to oversee us, and gave your honor the authority where something is not prohibited by the code under 105 and consistent with what needs to be done in the case to issue the relief on that basis.

1238
03:18:58,000 --> 03:19:14,000
I think there is an interesting argument whether you would have authority under 363 need to do it as adequate protection for a use of property of one debtor by another debtor, and whether a debtor is an entity within the meaning of 363.

1239
03:19:14,000 --> 03:19:21,000
We didn't make that argument I think it's an interesting argument. I think we're just standing under a basic one or five authority.

1240
03:19:21,000 --> 03:19:23,000
Thank you.

1241
03:19:23,000 --> 03:19:27,000
If I could just

1242
03:19:27,000 --> 03:19:51,000
I'm looking at the proposed final order that was given to me last night that I'm not sure if it's been filed yet, but the language says that post petition liabilities at any time from any debtor to any other debtor, and then they go silo pooling account, and then they have and from any non debtor affiliate to any debtor under the

1243
03:19:51,000 --> 03:20:07,000
post petition cash management system shall be entitled to super priority that's paragraph five. So if that's if that's wrong, we can change that I'm reading that to say transfers from a non debtor affiliate to a debtor gets super priority.

1244
03:20:07,000 --> 03:20:19,000
Mr. Casey, thank you.

1245
03:20:19,000 --> 03:20:38,000
I think that's correct I think that is wrong. That speaks to an obligation, nonsensically from a non debtor to the system, having super priority status, which is an overdraft. Obviously, you can't award super priority status to the obligations of a non debtor, because you don't have authority over them.

1246
03:20:38,000 --> 03:20:44,000
So that can be called back that's an excellent catch, and we can we can fix that in the form of the order.

1247
03:20:44,000 --> 03:20:51,000
Thank you very much for that.

1248
03:20:51,000 --> 03:20:56,000
And that's not your one for the record, that is, by far, not in this occasion is only very good.

1249
03:20:56,000 --> 03:21:03,000
I know she catches a lot of stuff.

1250
03:21:03,000 --> 03:21:25,000
Okay. Well, the only question is whether I have the authority to grant super priority status under 105. And I think that I do. It's not an issue that has obviously come up in the past, because there is no case law, but a number of courts have entered them in situations such as this and again we have an unusual situation here there's no dip financing.

1251
03:21:25,000 --> 03:21:33,000
That is, are operating on their cash they have available and some might not have the cash to do it.

1252
03:21:33,000 --> 03:21:55,000
So I think this is consistent with 105 to the extent that 105 is intended to provide the court with the ability to fashion resolutions, where the code might not provide a specific resolution, but it's necessary to protect the interests of the constituencies involved in the case.

1253
03:21:55,000 --> 03:22:11,000
We have all of the constituencies agreeing that this is good for the case and good for their individual constituencies so I will overrule the objection and enter the order subject to the revisions and work with Mr.

1254
03:22:11,000 --> 03:22:28,000
Sarkisian and again submit this under CoC once you have a revised form of order.

1255
03:22:28,000 --> 03:22:45,000
The last motion for your honor to consider today is the bidding procedures motion, docket 24. I was going to say last, but we also of course have the status conference on schedule or the scheduling conference.

1256
03:22:45,000 --> 03:23:01,000
So you're under the bidding procedures motion. Before we start here we do have an evidence record on bidding procedures today. There are two declarations to move into evidence. The first is a declaration of my partner Brian Bluckstein at Docket 412.

1257
03:23:01,000 --> 03:23:16,000
This is simply putting in front of the court the privacy policies for the various debtors. And again the Sarkisian can confirm but I do not believe we have an objection on anything that goes to consumer ombudsman issue if I'm saying that correctly.

1258
03:23:16,000 --> 03:23:21,000
Ombudsman, I believe.

1259
03:23:21,000 --> 03:23:35,000
I believe that the consensus is that no ombudsman is required in the case when the Sarkisian can confirm. And so if I just ask to move the declaration of Mr. Bluckstein into evidence. Any objection?

1260
03:23:35,000 --> 03:23:49,000
Submit without objection. The second is the declaration of Kevin Koski who we heard from earlier at Docket 413 and I'd like to move that into evidence at this time as well. I think Mark Sarkisian may have a comment about that declaration.

1261
03:23:49,000 --> 03:24:10,000
For the record, Julian Sarkisian on behalf of the U.S. Trustee, I object to the provisions, the statements in paragraph 17 of Mr. Koski's declaration concerning bid protections.

1262
03:24:10,000 --> 03:24:25,000
He addresses, you know, he gives an opinion that certain bid protections are common, etc. No, the court's not, nobody's asking the court to approve bid protections at this time. This is not relevant.

1263
03:24:25,000 --> 03:24:44,000
We would ask that this, there may be something else in paragraph 17 that doesn't relate to bid protections and I don't object to that, but anything relating to his opinion or his testimony about bid protections, we would ask that it be stricken at this time, you know, without prejudice.

1264
03:24:44,000 --> 03:25:05,000
They want to submit that if later on the debtors are requesting bid protections and there is a procedure within the proposed bid procedures or there is a procedure whereby they can do that if they find a stalking horse at that time if they want to put in, and in fact we would say they would need to put in evidence to support it, they can do that at that time.

1265
03:25:05,000 --> 03:25:08,000
Okay. Deeter?

1266
03:25:08,000 --> 03:25:22,000
Your Honor, Andy Deeter, we disagree. We think Mr. Koski's paragraph has actually been drafted with respect to the basic situation, which is that we are neither approving a sale, nor the grant of stocking today.

1267
03:25:22,000 --> 03:25:29,000
However, we are publicly announcing to the world that bidding protection, stocking horse protections are available.

1268
03:25:29,000 --> 03:25:47,000
And in addition, we're shortening the notice period for people to object to those stocking horse projections. So Mr. Koski's declaration is not intended to prejudice anybody's ability to argue that bidding protections given to a particular bidder in any circumstance are unreasonable or inappropriate.

1269
03:25:47,000 --> 03:26:04,000
What they say is that based on his experience with bidding procedures generally, bidding protections as reflected in what we're doing publicly are appropriately and customary for sale transactions of this type in an amount that are reasonably and generally consistent with such amounts and comparable circumstances.

1270
03:26:04,000 --> 03:26:13,000
He's not saying that as applied to the facts of any particular bidder or situation that they will be reasonable, but they're reasonable generally.

1271
03:26:13,000 --> 03:26:23,000
In addition, he's saying that having this publicly helps, quote, the ability to attract a prospective stocking horse bidder by offering the bidding protections.

1272
03:26:23,000 --> 03:26:39,000
So it helps us as the debtor to have a banker who has expertise in this area be able to say to anybody who might be interested in putting forth a stocking horse bid that generically, this kind of stocking horse protection is reasonable and customary for the circumstances.

1273
03:26:39,000 --> 03:26:57,000
We will not be making any assurances to a bidder that bidding protections will be threatened to them in the particular facts of their circumstances, nor do we mean to prejudice in any way the ability of the sarcasm or the committee or any other stakeholder to argue that the bidding protections are applied to a particular bidder or unreasonable.

1274
03:26:57,000 --> 03:27:02,000
On that basis, we'd like to have the evidentiary record that we will propose.

1275
03:27:02,000 --> 03:27:10,000
All right. I'll overrule the objection and take the testimony for what it is, Ms. Sarkeesian.

1276
03:27:10,000 --> 03:27:26,000
It certainly is not intended to indicate that these bid protections will, in fact, be granted and everyone's rights are reserved to object in the future once we have potential bidders lined up and are asking for bid protections.

1277
03:27:26,000 --> 03:27:35,000
Your Honor, will my ability to cross examine the witness later, if there are bid protections being sought, will that be preserved or do I need to cross examine him now?

1278
03:27:35,000 --> 03:27:41,000
Oh, no, absolutely preserved. You can, you'll be able to cross him on anything when we get to that point.

1279
03:27:41,000 --> 03:27:46,000
Thank you, Your Honor.

1280
03:27:46,000 --> 03:27:58,000
Your Honor, the other concerns. So as we move now to the merits of the bidding procedures order, Your Honor, I believe that all concerns have been addressed and objections resolved other than the objections of the U.S.

1281
03:27:58,000 --> 03:28:03,000
Trustee and Mr. Malin, the Malin objection that's on the docket.

1282
03:28:03,000 --> 03:28:09,000
Before I address the specifics of those, I'd like to make a few general points for the court and for the record.

1283
03:28:09,000 --> 03:28:17,000
The first is by far the most important. We have not made a decision to sell anything and we're not asking you permission to sell anything today.

1284
03:28:17,000 --> 03:28:25,000
This effort is part of a process to look at all of our options across the very complicated set of assets.

1285
03:28:25,000 --> 03:28:35,000
These particular businesses have been identified early because they are less integrated and sometimes not integrated at all in the operations of FTX.

1286
03:28:35,000 --> 03:28:45,000
Ledger X is a separately regulated exchange, a derivative exchange with a different business model regulated by the CFTC.

1287
03:28:45,000 --> 03:28:50,000
It has regulatory capital requirements, a relationship with its regulators, etc.

1288
03:28:50,000 --> 03:28:56,000
MBED is not regulated in the same way, but is separate.

1289
03:28:56,000 --> 03:29:01,000
Japan is in Japan, subject to pretty intense regulation by the Japanese authorities.

1290
03:29:01,000 --> 03:29:05,000
The Japanese rules for cryptocurrency are totally different than our rules.

1291
03:29:05,000 --> 03:29:15,000
Japan requires for a cryptocurrency business the segregation in cold wallets of all of the cryptocurrency responding to customer entitlements.

1292
03:29:15,000 --> 03:29:25,000
It's very strict rules about and trust relationships that are established under law and segregation rules that are established under law for cryptocurrency and cash.

1293
03:29:25,000 --> 03:29:29,000
Completely different profile from what's happening in any of our other exchange transactions.

1294
03:29:29,000 --> 03:29:35,000
Europe, of course, as a Cyprus exchange that has been run independently with a different customer base.

1295
03:29:35,000 --> 03:29:40,000
All of these businesses were actually recently acquired by FTX.

1296
03:29:40,000 --> 03:29:44,000
They weren't originally developed as part of the development of the international platform.

1297
03:29:44,000 --> 03:29:55,000
They're all recent acquisitions that have not been fully folded in to FTX's operations, which is one of the primary reasons that we believe there may be independent value.

1298
03:29:55,000 --> 03:30:04,000
But again, this is price discovery. This is the ability to create an option to sell if the debtors and the consulting professionals believe it's appropriate under the circumstances.

1299
03:30:04,000 --> 03:30:08,000
And I just want to assure everyone that there has been no decision.

1300
03:30:08,000 --> 03:30:10,000
Our board hasn't decided to sell anything.

1301
03:30:10,000 --> 03:30:15,000
And we would need to present the business case to our board based on the facts and circumstances.

1302
03:30:15,000 --> 03:30:21,000
The second is related that we don't know if we're going to sell the businesses and how we're going to sell the businesses.

1303
03:30:21,000 --> 03:30:25,000
So there's a comment from the U.S. trustee that we should have a form of asset purchase agreement.

1304
03:30:25,000 --> 03:30:29,000
We don't have a form of asset purchase agreement because we don't know if it's an asset purchase.

1305
03:30:29,000 --> 03:30:32,000
It might be a stock sale. It might be a merger.

1306
03:30:32,000 --> 03:30:36,000
We might sell one of the businesses in combination with one of the other businesses.

1307
03:30:36,000 --> 03:30:49,000
What will determine this will be indications of interest that we have not received in our sense, again, working with the consulting professionals, on how to make the most money to return to creditors and customers.

1308
03:30:49,000 --> 03:30:57,000
There is a question whether some of these businesses have synergies with businesses that we are looking at retaining or possibly reorganize or selling separately.

1309
03:30:57,000 --> 03:31:01,000
For example, the international platform or even the U.S. exchange.

1310
03:31:01,000 --> 03:31:12,000
The question on synergies, of course, is not that you wouldn't sell something because there's synergies, but on whether or not the buyer is paying you enough to compensate for the loss of those synergies if you kept the asset.

1311
03:31:12,000 --> 03:31:16,000
These are synergistic to other buyers just as they might be synergistic to us.

1312
03:31:16,000 --> 03:31:22,000
We're going to look at the price that determines out of the marketing process in order to make decisions.

1313
03:31:22,000 --> 03:31:28,000
We do have substantial interest so far in all of these assets.

1314
03:31:28,000 --> 03:31:38,000
The other thing I'd note is just that, and I mentioned this in my preliminary remarks about this motion, that we do have a shortened procedure for relief, a shortened objection period for stocking those protections.

1315
03:31:38,000 --> 03:31:42,000
You should just be aware of that.

1316
03:31:42,000 --> 03:31:47,000
I'd like to turn to the objection from the U.S. trustee.

1317
03:31:47,000 --> 03:31:51,000
As I mentioned, the first objection was that we should have a form of asset purchase agreement.

1318
03:31:51,000 --> 03:31:57,000
Again, we don't know that we're going to be using that particular form of a transaction.

1319
03:31:57,000 --> 03:32:00,000
We might, we're highly likely to for some of these assets.

1320
03:32:00,000 --> 03:32:09,000
And when we have a form of asset purchase agreement, we've committed to put that in front of people well in advance of any auction.

1321
03:32:09,000 --> 03:32:12,000
Obviously, we have a stocking horse.

1322
03:32:12,000 --> 03:32:16,000
The stocking horse will have an important role to play in the asset purchase agreement.

1323
03:32:16,000 --> 03:32:28,000
And there's many bidders and many auctions where we run the auction off the back of a specific asset purchase agreement or structure that our stocking horse believes is important to the stocking horse.

1324
03:32:28,000 --> 03:32:37,000
A related objection is a request that we commit to the U.S. trustee now to preserve, quote, all books and records, close quote.

1325
03:32:37,000 --> 03:32:47,000
We absolutely intend to retain copies of books and records for the businesses we're selling for a long list of reasons.

1326
03:32:47,000 --> 03:32:53,000
And in any standard form asset purchase agreement, there's a set of covenants about records retention.

1327
03:32:53,000 --> 03:32:57,000
We're not able to retain records in most circumstances for any purpose whatsoever.

1328
03:32:57,000 --> 03:33:01,000
Generally, there's a purpose limit on our ability to retain records when we sell the company.

1329
03:33:01,000 --> 03:33:09,000
One of those purposes is always our ability to investigate, our ability to relate to regulators, our ability to do our taxes.

1330
03:33:09,000 --> 03:33:18,000
And so the debtors are not going to lose access to anything that has to do with causes of action or investigations in connection with an asset purchase agreement.

1331
03:33:18,000 --> 03:33:28,000
But again, with respect, I think the objection is premature until we have an asset purchase agreement to show to stakeholders so they can review this provision and determine whether or not it's adequate.

1332
03:33:28,000 --> 03:33:37,000
We're not going to commit today. We're not willing to commit today to simply preserve all books and records with such simple language.

1333
03:33:37,000 --> 03:33:51,000
But other objection from the U.S. trustee is that we are not agreeing now that we will never release claims against employees.

1334
03:33:51,000 --> 03:34:05,000
So we have committed, because it's obvious and easy to do, that we are not releasing claims against Sam Bingman-Freed, Gary Wayne, Caroline Ellison, Nishant Singh, or I believe we have some language in their family related persons.

1335
03:34:05,000 --> 03:34:13,000
But releases of employees are sometimes an important part of the disposition of a business when you're the buyer.

1336
03:34:13,000 --> 03:34:20,000
Because the value of some of these businesses is in the people. And as the buyer, you want the people protected.

1337
03:34:20,000 --> 03:34:28,000
The last thing you want to do if you buy a business is to have rank and file employees sued by the person you just bought the business from.

1338
03:34:28,000 --> 03:34:42,000
Now, this raises a related point. And it's important to say, I think for the record, as something for your honor to understand, based on the review of Mr. Ray and his team so far,

1339
03:34:42,000 --> 03:34:50,000
we have no indication that rank and file employees of the debtors generally were complicit in fraudulent activity.

1340
03:34:50,000 --> 03:35:02,000
Neither the indictment of Mr. Bingman-Freed nor the pleas of Ms. Ellison or Mr. Wayne include criminal charges against the debtors as enterprises.

1341
03:35:02,000 --> 03:35:16,000
Indeed, from my initial remarks, your honor, I explained that at least a core part of the fraud could be implemented with a single number in the code for the platform put in by programmers.

1342
03:35:16,000 --> 03:35:36,000
The nature of this is still under investigation to be decided. But for the sake of all of the employees of FTX, we have no indication that this was the kind of problem that results in a criminal charge against an enterprise as opposed to against individuals at the top.

1343
03:35:36,000 --> 03:35:42,000
I have to object. I feel like there's factual testimony being given here.

1344
03:35:42,000 --> 03:35:48,000
I agree. And I take no note of it. It's not in evidence.

1345
03:35:48,000 --> 03:35:49,000
Thank you.

1346
03:35:49,000 --> 03:36:04,000
And that is exactly my point. And my point is that this is a sale objection. And that when we have a sale transaction, and if that sale transaction involves the release of employees, we will have to make an evidence-reason showing that we were business-judging for that release.

1347
03:36:04,000 --> 03:36:25,000
But right now, it's a sale objection. It's not before the court. And we would submit respectfully it's not appropriate to restrict our ability to solicit interest in these companies on a basis that we have to commit now for what's going to be in our sale order or in our asset purchase agreement.

1348
03:36:25,000 --> 03:36:27,000
Thank you.

1349
03:36:27,000 --> 03:36:45,000
One other thing, Your Honor, before I leave, sorry, Mr. Mallon, his objection alleges a security interest arising as best I can understand it under Swiss law. That objection obviously can be resolved by its sale objection, but in addition, we're able to attach a lien to the extent of security from the proceeds of the sale.

1350
03:36:45,000 --> 03:36:51,000
And that will of course result in connection with the sale. So we think that objection should be overruled and the matter reserved for the sale hearing.

1351
03:36:51,000 --> 03:36:57,000
Okay.

1352
03:36:57,000 --> 03:37:06,000
Your Honor, Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings on behalf of the committee. And just before Mr. Arquizian goes, I wanted to note our reservation of rights. I'll be brief. I realize we're running long today.

1353
03:37:06,000 --> 03:37:26,000
Your Honor, the committee is taking a very cautious approach to this bidding procedure of motion. It's early days in the case. And as I mentioned before, we have a lot of concerns about value preservation and value maximization. And so we support the debtors view that this is a wait and see process.

1354
03:37:26,000 --> 03:37:40,000
We have a number of issues that we've identified in our reservation of rights from timing to access to information to be able to make decisions for the debtors and the committee and for the court, but also for bidders to be able to make those decisions.

1355
03:37:40,000 --> 03:37:55,000
And I won't go through them all individually here. I would just again refer the court to our reservation of rights. But I did want to make sure that the court understood from the committee's perspective, we may be back to the extent that the debtor seeks to sell an asset and the committee disagrees with that.

1356
03:37:55,000 --> 03:38:11,000
We may raise an objection at that point in time. And it's about value maximization and it's about alternatives. One of the things that Mr. Diederich alluded to is the connectivity of these businesses or maybe the lack thereof to the broader platform.

1357
03:38:11,000 --> 03:38:27,000
And as I mentioned earlier to the court, the committee is hard at work with the debtors to try to understand what the parameters are for potentially restarting the exchanges and reorganizing this enterprise. And when we move quickly to sell off pieces of the business, we need to understand their connectedness.

1358
03:38:27,000 --> 03:38:46,000
And so, yes, LedgerX from a factual perspective and then others were purchased more recently, but we don't know if they're entirely severable, A. B. if that severance of them from the broader platform will have a deleterious effect on the value of the enterprise as a whole.

1359
03:38:46,000 --> 03:39:09,000
So that's something that we're keeping an eye on. We recognize this process is moving quite quickly. So we're doing our work quickly as well. But we just wanted to note our reservation for the court.

1360
03:39:09,000 --> 03:39:25,000
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and may it please the court, Matthew Harvey from Morris Nichols Archetone on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Non-U.S. Customers at FTX.com. I rise, Your Honor, only to say a couple of sentences on our resolution with the debtors.

1361
03:39:25,000 --> 03:39:49,000
Your Honor, we filed a limited objection to the sale. We discussed our limited objection with the debtors in connection with, excuse me, a larger role of the Ad Hoc Committee, where the larger role of the Ad Hoc Committee is serving and ensuring that FTX.com customers have access to information and an opportunity to be heard, where there may be conflicts and maybe conflicts isn't even the right word, with the debtors of the official committee.

1362
03:39:49,000 --> 03:40:01,000
We were pleased with the debtors' acknowledgement and discussion with us of the group's role in the cases and representations regarding further cooperation going forward, and accordingly we will withdraw in our objection. Thank you.

1363
03:40:19,000 --> 03:40:47,000
And for the record, Julia, it's Artishina from the U.S. Trustee. Your Honor, our objection set forth, I would say, four categories of objections. We have resolved two of them. So the first objection was going ahead with the sale without having adequate information, and that included both, yes, I may have used the form asset purchase agreement, asset, you know, any type of sale agreement, whether it be stock sale, asset sale.

1364
03:40:47,000 --> 03:41:16,000
There is no form of sale agreement, and of course there's no schedules and statements, or rule 2015-23 reports. We have resolved that. The debtors are going to be filing forms of whether it be asset purchase agreement, stock purchase agreement, whatever it is, at least two weeks before the sale date of any sale, they are also going to give the U.S. Trustee and the committee, even before that, before it's uploaded to the data room, they're going to give the purchase agreement.

1365
03:41:16,000 --> 03:41:44,000
They're going to give the forms to us. With respect to the schedules and statements, a quarter has been, a proposed order has been submitted, maybe Your Honor has already signed it, where the schedules statements will be filed for the asset sales at least two weeks prior to the sale, which will give my office enough time to take a 340 run, and then the same will be done for the rule 2015-23 reports.

1366
03:41:44,000 --> 03:41:58,000
So those debtors who are selling stock in non-debtor subsidiaries, they will be filing that report at least two weeks. So I'll still have to do two 340 run meetings on those, but at least I won't have to do three, so that's definitely an improvement.

1367
03:41:58,000 --> 03:42:14,000
So that has been resolved. The other thing was essentially a reservation of rights regarding the ombudsman because there was nothing in the record about the privacy policies for these particular businesses, and now they have put in that evidence.

1368
03:42:14,000 --> 03:42:31,000
They've attached all the privacy policies, I think there's even an official translation of the Japanese one, and based on our review of that, we believe that the debtor has established that a consumer privacy ombudsman would not be required with respect to these particular sales.

1369
03:42:31,000 --> 03:42:35,000
So we are not pursuing that objection.

1370
03:42:35,000 --> 03:42:44,000
So what remains, and so there's two issues that remain.

1371
03:42:44,000 --> 03:43:07,000
One is records retention. You know, we just want to make sure that nothing is lost, that the debtors are retaining all records that could potentially be relevant in any civil criminal proceeding, and we'll look to see what the wording is when we see if there's a sale agreement.

1372
03:43:07,000 --> 03:43:31,000
We're glad that they are willing to do that and we think that that's very important. We just want to make sure that everything is preserved and there's not some type of discretion, I guess I would say, from the debtor's viewpoint of, and we understand that the original records will be transferred, we're just talking about copies here, but we don't want to say, well we're not going to keep a copy of this because the debtor makes the determination that it doesn't think it's going to be relevant down the line in some proceeding.

1373
03:43:31,000 --> 03:43:44,000
Well, a regulator might have a different view of that. So we think the widest, and again we're talking about saving copies of documents, almost all of which I'm going to guess are electronic, so I don't think we're going for it on the debtor.

1374
03:43:44,000 --> 03:43:51,000
I don't think that needs to be addressed now. I agree with that. We just wanted to put it on the radar.

1375
03:43:51,000 --> 03:44:15,000
But the issue that does need to be addressed now is we are very concerned about the possibility that the debtor is going to be selling or welcoming offers to purchase causes of action against current or former, it's not just rank and file employees, it's directors, it's officers or employees.

1376
03:44:15,000 --> 03:44:28,000
And that's specifically mentioned in the bid procedures, that if someone is interested in purchasing, they have to indicate that. So I think they're welcoming that type of thing.

1377
03:44:28,000 --> 03:44:48,000
Yes, after we made our objection or after we conveyed our objection to the debtors on this regard, they put in a paragraph in the order that said, okay, with respect to Mr. Bankman Fried and three other top officers, we agree, we will not sell any causes of action against them or their family members.

1378
03:44:48,000 --> 03:45:12,000
And that's a good first step. But I think that it seems that the debtors have concluded at this very early stage of the case before there's been an investigation, an examination by an independent entity into possible causes of action arising out of the debtors, the events that cause the debtor to fall for bankruptcy.

1379
03:45:12,000 --> 03:45:40,000
And I think that's taken place. They reached the conclusion that there's only four people at the top that were responsible for all of this. And that out of the hundred plus companies of the debtors, that there was nobody else, be it other officers or other employees that either assisted them in wrongdoing or aided in a betting or were negligent and missed something they should have seen, turned a blind eye.

1380
03:45:40,000 --> 03:45:54,000
Maybe nobody else was. Maybe it was only four people that committed this allegedly massive fraud involving billions of dollars and nobody else in the organization and none of their professionals and nobody else knew about it.

1381
03:45:54,000 --> 03:46:01,000
But there needs to be an investigation before those causes of action are solved.

1382
03:46:01,000 --> 03:46:16,000
Okay, there's a business in Japan. Where's the evidence that nobody in Japan was involved with any wrongdoing? Where's the evidence that nobody in Japan knew about any of this? We don't know. It's too early.

1383
03:46:16,000 --> 03:46:45,000
So, we feel that, given the situation, that there should be added to that list of not just the four names, any officers or directors, any employees, any family members of officers, directors, any companies that are controlled by officers or directors, again, former or current, or controlled among an officer and their family members.

1384
03:46:45,000 --> 03:46:56,000
I mean, there's a wide range of these causes of action should not be solved at this point in time. Now, the debtors say, oh, well, you know, we can deal with that at the sale.

1385
03:46:56,000 --> 03:46:59,000
Here's the problem.

1386
03:46:59,000 --> 03:47:06,000
We have, right now, we have no purchase agreement to look at. We have no idea what they're proposing in this regard.

1387
03:47:06,000 --> 03:47:20,000
We're going to be getting, potentially, if they're stalking horses, we're going to be seeing a stalking horse asset purchase agreement or stock purchase agreement. We're going to have seven days to review it and make an objection. It's a very small period of time.

1388
03:47:20,000 --> 03:47:31,000
There's going to be schedules. There'll be schedules about which causes of action are going to be purchased. There may be placeholders in those schedules. I mean, we've seen this many times. Schedules aren't filed. They're not ready yet.

1389
03:47:31,000 --> 03:47:46,000
Then we go to the auction. Somebody else, maybe somebody other than the stalking horse wins. Now you have a tiny window of a few days between the auction and the sale hearing where they're negotiating the purchase agreement.

1390
03:47:46,000 --> 03:48:03,000
That gets filed, you know, maybe a day before the sale hearing. And again, a lot of times, oh, the schedules aren't attached. They're not finished. Or here they are, but they can be amended. They can be amended up until the time of the closing or even after the closing.

1391
03:48:03,000 --> 03:48:19,000
And so we'll be scrambling, trying to figure out if it's hidden somewhere in there, are they selling causes of action? I mean, it's not going to be like there's a bright shining light on it. And that's a real concern. It's going to be a very small period of time to look at it.

1392
03:48:19,000 --> 03:48:45,000
And we might not see it. It might not even be included. Or again, they could amend later after the sale hearing. That's typically said, oh, we have the right to amend the schedule. So in this case, given what the situation is, this early on, before an independent investigation, we think it is just completely inappropriate to be selling, to be even considering selling these types of claims.

1393
03:48:45,000 --> 03:49:01,000
And the debtors are willing to have a prohibition against things against the top four. They should be willing to expand that to all directors, officers, employees, again, companies that are controlled by them and professionals, benefit petition professionals. No claims against them should be sold.

1394
03:49:01,000 --> 03:49:17,000
So that's what we think is appropriate at this point in time. And if the debtors cannot do that, if they say we can't, we were not able to do that, then maybe the sale should be put off. Then maybe it's too early to do the sales if that's the situation.

1395
03:49:17,000 --> 03:49:33,000
Because we don't have the information, we don't have the investigation, and you're going ahead with the sale. So either that has to be carved out of the sale, or you have to wait to do the sale until that investigation is complete. That's what the U.S. Post-D thinks.

1396
03:49:33,000 --> 03:49:45,000
One way or the other, one choice or the other. We cannot move forward at this stage of the case without an independent investigation selling causes of action against directors, officers, employees, or professionals.

1397
03:49:45,000 --> 03:50:14,000
Well, isn't there a way, I mean, I certainly would consider any requests from the U.S. Trustee if the debtors were trying to jam the trustee at the time of sale hearing, that you didn't have time to conduct whatever review you needed to do to raise whatever objections you needed to raise at the time of sale hearing.

1398
03:50:14,000 --> 03:50:34,000
We don't even know yet whether debtors are even going to sell these assets. We don't know, and we don't know if it's going to be an APA, a merger, stock purchase. We don't know at this point. I think debtors are trying to dip their toe into the water to see what happens, see what kind of interest they receive.

1399
03:50:34,000 --> 03:50:47,000
And I think it's important to be allowed to do that. We always have, we have a lot of cases where there's an expedited sale process for one reason or another.

1400
03:50:47,000 --> 03:50:58,000
And I understand your concerns about whether there's other people who might have been involved other than these four executives that have been specifically named.

1401
03:50:58,000 --> 03:51:24,000
And I would also perhaps say to the debtors that if they do receive a stocking horse bid that includes the purchase of causes of action, that they immediately notify the U.S. Trustee so that it's not hidden in a gigantic sale agreement and you have some advanced notice that the issue is live.

1402
03:51:24,000 --> 03:51:34,000
And it might not be. They might not want to buy the causes of action. They might want to just buy the platform or the assets and leave the employees behind. I don't know at this point.

1403
03:51:34,000 --> 03:51:54,000
But, Your Honor, could we, following up on that idea, I think it should be, we would appreciate it if it was more than just letting us know. Of course we'd like to know. We think this is important enough that there will be a filing that highlights so that everybody can see that the debtors are selling causes of action. We would highlight it.

1404
03:51:54,000 --> 03:52:08,000
That should be done. And it can be done like we do with a motion to approve a dip. We have certain requirements that certain things have to be highlighted in that motion so that everyone knows that it's in there.

1405
03:52:08,000 --> 03:52:29,000
So we can fashion a form of order that includes that when they file, when they receive a stocking horse bid and they file it, they include in that filing something that highlights for everybody that they're proposing to sell the causes of action.

1406
03:52:29,000 --> 03:52:50,000
I think that might, that helps alleviate some of the time issues for you and for others who might want to object. And I'm certain that Mr. Hanson and his colleagues on behalf of the committee are going to be investigating whether there are causes of action against any of these other employees.

1407
03:52:50,000 --> 03:52:59,000
And hopefully we'll have some understanding of that as well before we get to the point where these sales are being sought to be approved.

1408
03:52:59,000 --> 03:53:18,000
Your Honor, thank you. I appreciate that. I think again that it could also come up again, assuming that the stocking horse bidder is either not the winning bidder or it's the winning bidder, but the agreement that's amended, which is possible, right, and after the auction, okay, we agree to pay more, but then we want these causes of action.

1409
03:53:18,000 --> 03:53:33,000
But again, at whatever stage, if causes of action are being sold, that they be highlighted. So whether it's a stocking horse stage, whether it's the winning bidder or the auction, and now they're filing their purchase agreement to highlight that.

1410
03:53:33,000 --> 03:53:46,000
And specifically what could not just be selling causes of action, what causes of action. I agree. I agree. Thank you, Your Honor.

1411
03:53:46,000 --> 03:54:01,000
Thank you, Your Honor. Andy Diderick, we can confirm that's a great approach to the solution. In fact, that is exactly why we actually had it called out in the solicitation of indication of interest, because we knew we had a special process to run for any bidder that wanted to do the release.

1412
03:54:01,000 --> 03:54:10,000
So thank you, Your Honor. With that, I don't think there's any other comments on the sale orders, so I would respectfully ask you to enter the order.

1413
03:54:10,000 --> 03:54:12,000
Okay. Well, we need to revise the order.

1414
03:54:12,000 --> 03:54:13,000
Revise the order, of course.

1415
03:54:13,000 --> 03:54:15,000
And submit it under COC, and we'll get it answered.

1416
03:54:15,000 --> 03:54:32,000
Sure. All right. Thank you. And with that, I think the only remaining business is the scheduling matter.

1417
03:54:32,000 --> 03:54:48,000
Mr. Bromley, go ahead. Good afternoon. May it please the court. Jim Bromley and Sullivan Cromwell on behalf of the debtors, Your Honor. This is the time that we need to deal with the scheduling of the motion for the appointment of an examiner.

1418
03:54:48,000 --> 03:55:14,000
The motion has been filed by the U.S. Trustee's office. We have consulted with the office of the U.S. Trustee and the Creditor's Committee's counsel, and the view of the debtors and the Creditor's Committee counsel is that the hearing that has been reserved on the 8th of February, which is an omnibus hearing date, is the appropriate date to go forward with the motion for the examiner.

1419
03:55:14,000 --> 03:55:30,000
We debtors are cognizant that the motion has been filed for some time, but the date has been held in abeyance. We do have certain limited discovery requests to make of the U.S. Trustee's office.

1420
03:55:30,000 --> 03:55:47,000
We will have submissions ourselves that we will be making, both evidentiary and legal. Our suggestion is that the papers and our declarations in support of our papers be filed on Monday, January 30th.

1421
03:55:47,000 --> 03:56:12,000
That would give the U.S. Trustee's office time to respond and to seek to oppose any witnesses that we have, and we would suggest as well with the U.S. Trustee's office and the Committee, and we consult for a pretrial order that would be submitted to the court no later than Friday the 3rd of February.

1422
03:56:12,000 --> 03:56:20,000
Mr. Arquise? Let me ask Mr. Hanson first. Now that we have a committee, we need to know your view as well.

1423
03:56:20,000 --> 03:56:41,000
Yeah, exactly, Ron. So we agree with Mr. Rahm against Chris Hanson and Paul Hayson as on the abbey committee. We agree with Mr. Rahm in terms of the dates. I just wanted to point out to the court that we also may have evidence to present. We'll make that decision in enough time to let Mr. Arquise know so that she can similarly take discovery of our witness as well, if we have that.

1424
03:56:41,000 --> 03:56:57,000
Well, I currently have an omnibus hearing on the 8th scheduled 1 for this case, and I have two other matters on that morning. So if we're going to have an extensive evidentiary presentation, I may need to move the date.

1425
03:56:57,000 --> 03:57:08,000
Or if I can, I'll move the other matters and move this one up for the full day. It sounds like we might need a full day for this hearing.

1426
03:57:08,000 --> 03:57:18,000
I think between argument and potential evidence, I don't know if it would take the full day, but I think you should resolve that. Jim, I'm not sure if you have a different view.

1427
03:57:18,000 --> 03:57:25,000
I agree with that. All right. Let me hear from Ms. Sarkisian.

1428
03:57:25,000 --> 03:57:44,000
Your Honor, for the record, you're in Sarkisian on behalf of the U.S. Trustee. Your Honor, we understand from the last hearing that your Honor had the February 20th date that's scheduled in this case, that your Honor has the entire day for this case. Correct about that?

1429
03:57:44,000 --> 03:57:45,000
February 20th?

1430
03:57:45,000 --> 03:57:49,000
I'm sorry, January 20th. How much are you saying February? January 20th.

1431
03:57:49,000 --> 03:57:52,000
That's a holiday, a court holiday.

1432
03:57:52,000 --> 03:58:01,000
January 20th, Friday, January 20th, which I believe had been scheduled primarily for a hearing. Well, there's a few things.

1433
03:58:01,000 --> 03:58:12,000
There's a hearing in connection with the Robin Hood stock, which has been seized, and I believe the last time around, Debtors' Council indicated that might be moved because of the seizure.

1434
03:58:12,000 --> 03:58:39,000
There were also five or six retention applications that are on for that date, and the U.S. Trustee believes that that would be the best date for the hearing on the examiner, in part because we do have issues with certain of the retention applications that are scheduled for hearing on January the 20th, that the scope of the retentions encompasses work that must be done by an examiner.

1435
03:58:39,000 --> 03:58:57,000
So we think that that argument is dovetailed with the examiner motion, and it makes sense to have them both heard at the same time. Our examiner motion's been on file since December the 2nd, so obviously the Debtors has had more than enough time to address that.

1436
03:58:57,000 --> 03:59:10,000
We recognize the committee council has retained on, I believe, December the 20th. Nevertheless, there's been a good amount of time to respond, so we would ask for that.

1437
03:59:10,000 --> 03:59:23,000
But absent in the alternative, we would ask if your Honor has a date. We, too, were concerned about February the 8th not being out of the time with it being scheduled at 1 p.m.

1438
03:59:23,000 --> 03:59:36,000
So we were wondering if your Honor has a date between the 20th, January 20th, and February the 8th that would have more time available than the 8th.

1439
03:59:36,000 --> 04:00:00,000
The other thing I would say is that, you know, the U.S. Trustee would need to get their reply on file three days, three business days prior to the hearing, and so we would, given how long parties have had our motion, we would like to have at least a week between when the objections are filed and when all replies do.

1440
04:00:00,000 --> 04:00:17,000
So if, for example, your Honor was to say, put the hearing on the 8th, since our reply would be due February the 3rd, we would want objections filed January the 27th to give us one week.

1441
04:00:17,000 --> 04:00:20,000
Okay.

1442
04:00:20,000 --> 04:00:23,000
All right.

1443
04:00:23,000 --> 04:00:31,000
I do think I need to, the 20th is, doesn't work, I don't think, for this. It's too soon.

1444
04:00:31,000 --> 04:00:36,000
There is outstanding discovery. If it hasn't already been issued, it will be issued, I assume. Are you taking any discovery?

1445
04:00:36,000 --> 04:00:39,000
I have received no discovery.

1446
04:00:39,000 --> 04:00:46,000
I'm trying to imagine what possible discovery there could be against the U.S. Trustee, but I have not received any.

1447
04:00:46,000 --> 04:00:54,000
We have not seen an objection, so.

1448
04:00:54,000 --> 04:01:06,000
We don't know who the witnesses are. We have no idea if they're, in fact, Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee's position is that this is mandatory under the code, and therefore there's not need to have any evidence.

1449
04:01:06,000 --> 04:01:17,000
It's legally mandatory. Nevertheless, we understand that the parties may want to put on evidence, but we don't know what they, who they plan to put on, what they plan to put on. We have no idea.

1450
04:01:17,000 --> 04:01:25,000
I think you're familiar with my position on the mandatory nature of appointment with the governor, so.

1451
04:01:25,000 --> 04:01:30,000
Which, for the record, is I do not believe it's mandatory.

1452
04:01:30,000 --> 04:01:34,000
But let's do, let's do this.

1453
04:01:34,000 --> 04:01:39,000
I think the eighth, I want to make sure we have a full day.

1454
04:01:39,000 --> 04:01:48,000
I'm going to reschedule this for February 6th, which is Monday of that week.

1455
04:01:48,000 --> 04:01:54,000
We'll start at 930 a.m.

1456
04:01:54,000 --> 04:02:10,000
The debtors and the committee's responses will be due by the 25th.

1457
04:02:10,000 --> 04:02:16,000
And then the trustee will have until the 1st. So you have a week, Ms. Accusion.

1458
04:02:16,000 --> 04:02:17,000
Yes, Your Honor.

1459
04:02:17,000 --> 04:02:18,000
For your reply.

1460
04:02:18,000 --> 04:02:19,000
Thank you.

1461
04:02:19,000 --> 04:02:27,000
And then we'll have a hearing on the 6th.

1462
04:02:27,000 --> 04:02:31,000
If there's a pretrial, pretrial orders are always helpful for me.

1463
04:02:31,000 --> 04:02:39,000
So if there's going, if we're going to have an evidentiary hearing on the 6th, let's have a pretrial order by

1464
04:02:39,000 --> 04:02:49,000
close of business on the third, so 5 p.m. on the third.

1465
04:02:49,000 --> 04:02:56,000
And Mr. Bromley, Mr. Hanson, one, if you're going to take discovery of the U.S. trustee,

1466
04:02:56,000 --> 04:03:05,000
please do that immediately so that Ms. Accusion knows that she needs to do some discovery work.

1467
04:03:05,000 --> 04:03:11,000
Ms. Accusion, in light of my view on the mandatory nature of the appointment of an examiner,

1468
04:03:11,000 --> 04:03:19,000
I don't know if that now opens up for you, your desire to take discovery of the debtors.

1469
04:03:19,000 --> 04:03:23,000
But if you do, you should do that, obviously, as soon as possible.

1470
04:03:23,000 --> 04:03:26,000
Yes, understood, Your Honor.

1471
04:03:26,000 --> 04:03:29,000
Did I miss anything? Did I cover all the issues?

1472
04:03:29,000 --> 04:03:34,000
Did I have all the dates that we need for everybody?

1473
04:03:34,000 --> 04:03:36,000
I think that's all the dates that we need.

1474
04:03:36,000 --> 04:03:46,000
Okay. Ms. Accusion, anything else?

1475
04:03:46,000 --> 04:03:51,000
I don't, I think those are all the dates in connection with this, with the exam.

1476
04:03:51,000 --> 04:03:59,000
Okay, thank you. All right. Are we done?

1477
04:03:59,000 --> 04:04:01,000
I have an oral argument.

1478
04:04:01,000 --> 04:04:05,000
You have just a 12-minute 30-second.

1479
04:04:05,000 --> 04:04:09,000
And we really appreciate the court indulging us because there's a long hearing today.

1480
04:04:09,000 --> 04:04:12,000
The only other scheduling matter, according to the Rays, Your Honor,

1481
04:04:12,000 --> 04:04:14,000
are Brian Bluckstein for the debtors.

1482
04:04:14,000 --> 04:04:20,000
In reference to the January 20 hearing, we did allude to this as a status conference that we've developed.

1483
04:04:20,000 --> 04:04:25,000
We have been in touch with counsel, with Blackfy,

1484
04:04:25,000 --> 04:04:35,000
and we are asking to adjourn the hearing on the 20th with respect to our motion to enforce the automatic stay with respect to the robberhood issues.

1485
04:04:35,000 --> 04:04:41,000
Blackfy has a related motion, an evidentiary motion, that's part and parcel of that hearing.

1486
04:04:41,000 --> 04:04:46,000
We're asking at this time that that hearing be adjourned to a date to be determined.

1487
04:04:46,000 --> 04:04:52,000
We'll come back to the court in light of the government seizure of the shares.

1488
04:04:52,000 --> 04:04:55,000
We're proceeding in Blackfy barons' case earlier this week.

1489
04:04:55,000 --> 04:05:03,000
The parties are continuing to talk about next steps there with respect to all of the issues involving the robberhood shares and with benefit from the time.

1490
04:05:03,000 --> 04:05:09,000
So we would ask, if Your Honor, with Your Honor's permission, that we adjourn that hearing on those two issues.

1491
04:05:09,000 --> 04:05:16,000
There are other things, of course, scheduled that day, the retention motions and the status conference that Your Honor ordered this morning on the redaction issues.

1492
04:05:16,000 --> 04:05:22,000
With respect to the debtor's motion and the related evidentiary issue, we ask that that be adjourned.

1493
04:05:22,000 --> 04:05:25,000
What's Blackfy's position on the continuance of their motion?

1494
04:05:25,000 --> 04:05:31,000
They represented me. We had an email change this morning where they said they were okay with us still representing.

1495
04:05:31,000 --> 04:05:38,000
Okay. All right. We'll take that off then for the 20th. Both of those off for the 20th.

1496
04:05:38,000 --> 04:05:43,000
Anything else before we adjourn?

1497
04:05:43,000 --> 04:05:47,000
No. All right. Well, thank you all very much.

1498
04:05:47,000 --> 04:06:14,000
We are adjourned. I will see everybody on the 20th. Thank you.