Your time is 11 o'clock central.
On the 11 o'clock docket, we have the jointly administered cases
under case number 22-90341, Core Scientific E.
Folks, please don't forget to record your electronic appearance
if it's the first or it's been a while, perhaps even an entire year.
That's a quick trip to the website, a couple of mouse clicks.
You can do that at any time prior to the conclusion of this morning's hearing.
First time that you speak, if you would, please state your name and who you represent.
That really does help to give the reporter a good point of reference
in the event that a transcript request is made.
We are recording this morning using court speak.
We'll have the audio up on the docket shortly after the conclusion of this morning's hearing.
I previously told everyone, there we go, that I have activated the hand raising feature.
You know you're going to be speaking.
Haven't already done so.
If you give me a five star, and Mr. Perez, I just saw you.
I don't think just looking at the numbers that we had a while,
I thought we'd see you unmuted.
Your Honor, good morning.
This is Chris Turner.
But we just want to confirm that our audio is working.
I saw you pop on earlier and I could hear you, so yes.
We can't hear you if you're intending to speak to us.
I think mine unmuted.
Wow, should I start over?
Yes, you're on now, Your Honor.
My apologies to everyone.
So let me start again.
The time is 1101 Central.
Happy New Year to everyone.
Today is January the 3rd, 2023.
This is the docket for Houston, Texas.
On the docket this morning, we have the jointly administered cases
under case number 22-90341, Core Scientific Inc.
We are recording this morning using court speak.
We'll have the audio up on the docket shortly
after the conclusion of the hearing.
Please don't forget to record your electronic appearance.
That's a quick tip to the website.
You can do that at any time prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
The first time that you do speak, if you would, please state your name
and who you represent.
That does, plays a very important role
in giving the court reporters a point of reference in the event
that a transcript request is made.
I think I got it.
I was better the first time than I was the second in any event.
Mr. Perez, good morning.
Are you doing intros and then handing it off?
I think, Your Honor, that's correct.
Along with me is my partners, Ronny Berkovich and Ted Zacharides.
And I think Ms. Berkovich will handle the matters initially.
Thank you.
Let me ask, are we going forward today?
Yes, Your Honor.
All right.
I really didn't understand the reason
why there was a request to seal Celcia's preliminary objection.
Was that done by agreement?
Was there a discussion?
I generally don't like to do that unless there's a reason.
And having read it, I just didn't see the reason.
Your Honor, for the record, Chris Turnman and Kirk Lonell
for Celcia's and its affiliated debtors and debtors
in possession, build our objection.
Your Honor, there's a protective order in the Celcia case.
That material is governed by the protective order.
In advance of filing our objection,
we reached out to counsel for court and asked them,
what, if anything, they believe was confidential
and should be sealed.
They provided us with a list to be clear that Your Honor may
have seen in our ceiling motion.
We don't believe that the ceiling of that information
is necessary.
But pursuant to the protective order,
that's what we're required to do.
It was designated by court.
So we can provide the obligations
under our protective order filed and under seal.
And under that protective order, court
has seven days to object and argue
about why that should be sealed.
And if they don't object, they will automatically
be unsealed after seven days.
So there's a process to go through, again, to be clear.
We don't believe that it needs to be sealed
or should be sealed, but we did it at the request of court.
All right.
So this was, yes, Mr. Securities.
Good morning.
Yes, Your Honor, I wanted to address the content of the
securities from Wilde to the debtors on the ceiling issue.
So most of those documents relate
to third party agreements or third party discussions.
And that's why we kept them confidential,
because they're not just our information.
And the transcripts from the depositions,
we allowed those in.
And anything that was between the parties,
we allowed those in.
But because the documents that they wanted
related to third parties, that's why
we maintained the confidentiality.
Separate from the issue that we don't think any of that
is relevant, but just on the confidentiality point,
that was the reason behind it.
So was that with respect to Mr. Brown's affidavit?
Yes.
It was all on the issue about the underlying dispute
on the contract.
No, so let me take a step back.
And again, I'm not trying to get in the middle
of whatever arrangement was made.
Mr. Brown's affidavit is totally inappropriate
for so many different reasons.
I'm not going to consider it on any basis.
Quite frankly, it probably ought to simply be struck
based upon what's on file.
But I want to talk just about the objection itself, which
is docket number 211, which is the actual sealed document.
Is there a reason why that should be sealed?
And if there is, I'm not, again, not
trying to step on the toes of any agreement that's
been reached.
Just having read it, I don't understand why it was sealed.
I got why you would have an issue with Mr. Brown's
affidavit.
But best I can tell, that wasn't actually sealed.
Well, we didn't discuss with them in advance the objection.
They had sent us a list of documents
that related to the underlying dispute and some deposition
testimony.
That's what we referred to.
When I read the objection this morning,
I think the front half relates to the dispute
about the rejection to the extent that it is one.
And then the back half is on the underlying contract dispute,
which we don't even think is relevant in the rejection
context.
Presumably, if they were seeming,
because there is reference to the underlying documents that
are confidential in that back half,
probably that's why they've sealed that.
I didn't see this beforehand.
But the driver for the sealing, from our perspective,
were these third party documents.
That's some odd reference in this objection.
Right, but the document, all of the materials themselves
are attached to Mr. Brown's affidavit, which, again,
just looking at it, isn't sealed.
Right, I know that affidavit.
Sorry, go ahead.
Your Honor, there was a sealed version and an unsealed version.
Certainly, the exhibits are not confidential and were not sealed.
Certainly, the exhibits were confidential
and were sealed for now.
There's two versions.
The sealed version is in 212.
I'm sorry.
Yes, the affidavit.
It's 214 is the sealed version, which
has all of the documents.
And 212 is the redacted version, which
those documents that were confidential
was attached to the affidavit publicly
and the remainder were not attached.
I did not appreciate that they weren't identical.
OK, I got it.
All right.
But with respect to the objection itself,
that was sealed as well, correct?
That's right, Your Honor.
We did that because we made reference
in the objection to certain documents
that horse counsel told us they believed was confidential.
And so we didn't want to have the horse be out of the barn
at that point if it turned out that those documents were
to be confidential.
And again, we don't believe that they are,
that the references are confidential.
But it's hard to reseal something
once we post it publicly.
No.
One second on the docket and it's no longer sealed.
I totally got that.
But I do.
And again, if there is a legitimate reason
that it should be sealed, then I'm all for it.
But I really disfavor these situations
where anyone who has an interest in the case
can't understand what's going on because everything gets
sealed.
And again, there's a good reason to seal it.
I'm all for it.
I don't want it to be used as a competitive advantage
or embarrassment or if it discloses
any sort of confidential information.
I just didn't see it.
Mr. Secreta?
Yeah, so I think the point I made there, Your Honor,
is that their objection is through page 9 before section
4.
As it relates to the rejection, I
don't think any of that section has
anything to do with the underlying dispute
in the documents that issue.
They could have, we didn't say anything about that.
They could have unsealed that front portion
and redacted the back piece.
I haven't gone through every document
that they cite from section 4 to the end.
I'm sure there's some in here that
fall within what we would consider competitive information
and third party information, but certainly in addition
to not being relevant.
But I think they could easily unseal the first 8 and 3
quarters pages that have nothing to do with the underlying
dispute or claim of confidentiality
and relate just to the rejection fees.
All right, so for purposes of today,
because I don't want to get off track,
I'm going to leave it where it sits.
But I'm urging everybody, again, if there's
a legitimate reason to seal something, then fine.
And I understand that there are real reasons to do it.
What I really don't want to see is a developing habit
where every single pleading is sealed,
because I think that just does a disservice to the process.
And I just don't think it's needed most of the time.
OK.
I wonder what happened.
Hello.
Please enter your six digit conference.
We'll now connect you to your call.
There are 19 attendees in this conference.
Your host has joined.
Your honor, conference muted.
All right, evidently the entire call was dropped.
My apologies.
We'll go back as far as we need to.
I do have everybody muted.
So if you would give me a five star again,
I would be much appreciated.
Your honor, we can hear you now.
This is Alfredo Perez.
Thank you.
And I have you unmuted.
I'm waiting for the other folks.
Yes, Mr. Koenig.
Mr. Sekiridis, can you hear me?
Mr. Perez, could you text your colleagues in New York
and tell them that they need to dial in again?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Koenig, can you hear me just thumbs up or thumbs down?
All right, I need for you to hit five star again.
Your honor, it looks like our whole line dropped.
So we re-dialed in on my cell phone.
We're coming in.
Can you hear me OK on the cell phone?
Loud and clear, however you're doing that.
OK.
So I missed whatever until just now when you asked me
if we could hear you.
All right.
Please continue.
Let's take a call.
Let's just take a minute and get everybody in.
I've got Mr. Perez back, and he's live.
I don't think that we have Mr. Sekiridis back on the line
yet.
Your honor, we'll put in the chat
that everybody should re-dial, and that's the best way
to get re-counted.
I think everyone has done that.
I now have 80 some odd folks back on the line.
But thank you.
Thank you, your honor.
I think we can.
I can feel Koenig.
I can read your lips, but I can't hear you.
Hold on.
There's a Chicago number just popped up.
There we go.
Thank you, your honor.
Appreciate you helping us through the technicality.
No, no, no.
Let's see.
Do we have?
No, we don't even have it.
Ah, there he is back.
Sekiridis, can you hear me?
I can't hear you.
There it is.
There's the 646 number.
All right.
OK.
We good?
We are good.
All right.
So I don't know where I lost you,
but let me just take a step back.
And again, I want to make it very clear.
If there are legitimate reasons for pleadings to be sealed,
I'm all for it.
I understand the reasons for that.
What I don't want to do is to start a habit where
every single thing that gets filed in the case is sealed.
I just think that that does a disservice to the process.
And again, if there are reasons that part or all of this,
the motion, the affidavit, I'm sorry,
the objection or the affidavit should be sealed,
I don't want to parse through and say pages two through eight
shouldn't be and the remainder shouldn't be.
I'll leave it like it is and just please
take the position of being yourself on the outside
looking in, wanting to follow and wanting
to understand what's going on in the case.
Legitimate reason, great.
But otherwise, I'd really prefer the transparency.
So let's just proceed from there.
OK?
I'll certainly do that, Your Honor.
Thank you.
And Your Honor, this is Alfredo Perez.
But they did file a redacted version of the objection
at 2 13, I think.
So that's the one that I pulled down before we ever
got anything else.
No, where I started was the sealed version
of the objection.
And I just didn't understand why it was sealed.
I didn't learn anything in there that I didn't have already
or in my base knowledge set.
And so I just didn't understand it because all I see
is what's on the docket.
All right?
So with that, let me.
No, thank you both.
So let me go ahead and Mr. Koenig.
And again, I'm not trying to dictate
how this proceeding goes.
I'm still trying to understand what
it is that your primary complaint focuses on.
Because I'm having difficulty, other than trying
to be strategic, I'm having great difficulty
in understanding the position that you're taking.
Sure, Your Honor.
Again, for the record, Chris Koenig.
So look, our concern here, Your Honor, is process and timing.
Let me start with the strategic point.
We're not seeking to make a dollar off
of court followings today.
We've agreed that they can turn off our rates effective today
and that they don't get to continue to charge us.
We don't continue to pay for it.
We understand what we're trying to do
is make sure that there's a process that gives us
adequate time to talk to our stakeholders,
gives us the opportunity to talk to Judge Glenn,
and move forward on that basis.
And candidly, Your Honor, we think
this is an emergency entirely of court zone making.
They filed this two business days ago.
They knew all of the facts on the petition date.
It was in the first day declaration.
It was referenced at the first day hearing.
We don't really understand why they filed it
when they did last week.
But to the extent there is an emergency that's valid,
we've agreed to take care of that.
By turning, if we allow them to turn off the rates,
their alleged harm from continuing to go through
and have to pay, or continue to service a contract
that they believe is not value maximizing,
that that concern will no longer be there.
But that'll give us the adequate time that we need
and we think it's appropriate to, you know,
we're a veteran in our own Chapter 11 case.
We have our own bankruptcy judge.
And we have litigation with CORE that is pending
before Judge Glenn right now.
So we're trying to be mindful of Judge Glenn.
We don't want to get sideways with him.
We don't want him to feel like the rug was sort of pulled out
from under him on an emergency basis.
And if this had been said on regular notice,
we would have had time to work with CORE
and to go to Judge Glenn and propose a list state motion.
To be clear, we're not opposing the rejection
at the appropriate time.
We're not opposing the listing of the automatic state
because we think that CORE could demonstrate cause.
But we think as a technical matter,
the automatic state exists and is in place
and the debtor can't just waive the automatic state.
There's black letter law that says that the state,
not only the debtor, but the debtor's creditors
to make sure that the debtor can't lift the state
to allow a friendly creditor to proceed.
And so we think that the process is important.
And again, we don't think that CORE is going to suffer
one iota from having done this
because they can turn off the power on our ranks today.
But that'll give us time to go to our own constituents,
to go to our own CORE.
And we will support a joint stipulation with CORE
that we believe automatic state should be lifted.
And that'll also give us the time to continue to work
with CORE on the terms of the transition.
I'm sure your honor saw in the objection we filed last night
that we proposed terms for the transition
to the 37,000 rates.
We just frankly, given the emergency,
haven't had the time to finish working that out
with CORE's counsel.
But we think that that would be appropriate and reasonable
and frankly, we think it's required
by the automatic state in our own case.
And so what provision of the automatic state
is it that you think that the sheer act
of rejection violates?
We think it's control over property of the estate.
I mean, it's black letter law
that the debtor can enforce compliance
with an executive order contract
by the non-debtor counter,
so we're just two debtors here.
But Celsius can compel CORE to comply with the contract
and it's an automatic state provision.
And that's what we did.
That's exactly what we did in our bankruptcy.
We brought a motion for contempt
and a motion to enforce the automatic state
to compel the non-debtor counterparty,
the then non-debtor counterparty CORE
to comply with the automatic state.
And so we believe that-
Let's peel that back a bit.
So the act of rejection is simply nothing more
than giving the debtor the right to breach the agreement
and excusing future performance.
A motion to enforce and for contempt
absolutely impacts the stay in this case.
Did you agree?
We agree and that's why we haven't pursued
that motion in our own case.
And so how is it,
because the debtor could just stop performing
and that wouldn't violate the stay.
The CORE debtor.
Yes, CORE, they could just stop performing
and it doesn't violate the stay.
I think it could violate Celsius' stay
and I think it would order for us to continue.
What would, if I just decide not to perform,
I'm third party dealing with your Celsius debtor.
If I choose not to perform,
how could that possibly violate the automatic stay
in your case and what provision?
Because we have the right, Your Honor,
to file the contract in self property of the estate
and contractual rights of property of the estate.
And so we have the ability to enforce
those contractual rights in our own bankruptcy
and we file the motion to enforce the automatic stay
in our bankruptcy.
But that's not the state.
The state doesn't have to do with seeking enforcement.
You can absolutely file a motion to compel performance.
But until you do that, until you have an order,
which you don't have an order
and you can't get one at this point
without violating the stay in my case.
Agreed.
How does non-performance violate the automatic stay?
Because we have contractual rights
that property of the estate
and their failure to perform under them.
It gives rise to a claim perhaps,
but tell me what provision of the automatic stay
that simple non-performance violates.
I think it's an attempt to exercise control
over the property of the estate.
Not even close.
What am I trying to exercise control over?
I'm just simply saying I either can't or won't perform.
What property right is that exercising control over
other than my own?
It's our contractual rights to compel performance
from the non-performance.
So if I told you that I consider that
to be a frivolous argument,
where would you like to go from here?
Your honor, what I would say is we have litigation
that's pending in front of Judge Wynne
and we think that it's appropriate that,
as I said earlier, that he not sort of have the rug pulled out
from under him, that there's litigation
that this would effectively move.
If the rejection goes forward,
that would move the litigation in front of Judge Wynne.
How so?
It may limit it, but how does it pull the rug out
from underneath it?
If there was a right between your petition date
and the date of rejection,
that cause of action hasn't been affected.
It hasn't, just simply rejecting the contract
doesn't affect what happens next.
It doesn't affect what happens to the computers.
It doesn't happen to enforcement.
Sure, your honor, I'll concede that I'll move instead
to the rig for the property of the estate
that we're really concerned about, right?
It's not about, at this point,
it's not about the contractual right.
It's about the rig, about the...
Sorry, your honor.
Now, let me say this to both of you.
So one, the debtor has almost an unqualified right to reject,
so long as there is a right to reject,
there is a rational business reason for doing it.
And you've acknowledged that that reason exists.
So what, and again, I'm talking to you,
but I'm also talking to the debtor.
I'm not gonna let you use this as a strategic maneuver,
and I think that you're actually taking advantage
of Judge Glenn without Judge Glenn
being able to voice his own concerns.
I think it's exactly the opposite
of what you're representing to me.
That all being said, my debtor is not gonna use
the rejection of the contract to gain a strategic advantage
in dealing with very valuable and expensive
and sensitive property, which are the computers themselves.
So what I, and again, I'm not trying to dictate
the course of the hearing.
I just need to get this on the right track,
because you folks are not talking to one another.
You're talking past one another.
And I don't think that you want a third party
in this conversation,
because I tend not to listen very well.
There needs to be a structured, agreed, orderly,
efficient, cost-effective way of dealing with
the termination of the relationship without prejudice
to whatever monetary issues may exist out there.
You folks will work that out.
But I'm not gonna let this,
there aren't gonna be computers on the sidewalk,
and I know that nobody would do that,
but it's just a statement.
There aren't gonna be computers on the sidewalk.
There isn't gonna be air conditioning turned off
that would endanger sensitive electronic components.
It isn't gonna be, well, you gotta come pick them up
between the hours of four and five.
Not gonna happen.
I'm gonna do this the right way.
So we can have a hearing on whether or not
the debtor is entitled to reject the agreement.
You and the respond, or you and the objection
acknowledge that that's a losing battle.
It's just a question of when.
And I'm telling you, the when is gonna be right now.
And we can spend time figuring out the right way
to effectuate the transition so that we maximize
the current situation that we find ourselves in
for both bankruptcy estates.
That's what we should all be working toward.
Not trying to hang somebody up with a contiff motion
or a sanctions motion, or trying to set this up
so that we can charge rent for computers
or we can try to make a point.
Not gonna happen either way.
But it just seems to me that we ought to be focused
on having a conversation about how we end this
in an honorable and transparent way
without the involvement of either Judge Glenn
or Judge Jones.
This ought to be an operational transition
that quite frankly no one who wears the black dress
ought to be engaged in.
Unfortunately for you, I lived in a data center
for a long time and I feel like I know an awful lot
about it and we don't really wanna test that theory.
So let me ask, do we want to take a break
and perhaps talk about a reset on how to proceed
with the hearing or do we wanna proceed ahead
with the hearing?
Your Honor, I think it would be helpful for us
to have a few minutes to talk offline
and come back to your honor and committee
and come back to your honor.
We certainly understand and appreciate your comments
about the stage.
Just to be clear, we just felt like we couldn't
concede it in our case and given that we have our own,
our own judge and our own constituents,
it was something that we felt like we had to do.
I'm not bothered by it at all.
I think it's wrong.
I think there's a huge difference between
rejecting a contract and then what happens next.
It's the what happens next that absolutely touches
on the set.
And I haven't heard and I asked everyone
who had listened to me over the past couple of days
as to give me the best argument you can come up with
as to how a rejection would possibly violate
an automatic stay in a case filed by the counterparty.
I haven't heard it yet.
Maybe that it's out there and I just haven't met anybody
smart enough and I may not be smart enough
to come up with it myself, but I don't see it.
It's what happens next.
And so I want the thing that happens next
is the most important thing to me.
So let's focus on that.
Let me ask the wild team have any opposition
because it is your hearing.
And again, I didn't mean to hijack your hearing.
Any objection from the wild team
as I've taken a couple of minutes
and see if we can talk about what I think
the most important part of this is
and that's the transition.
No objection, Your Honor.
We agree with you.
So it's 1130.
This is not a short conversation.
Should we check in at noon?
Does that make sense?
And that would be noon central, 30 minutes from now?
That makes sense.
All right.
Then what I'll do, I'm gonna leave everything up and running.
I will mute everything and I'll make sure that I don't,
I'll make sure that I unmute it when I get back on.
If it turns out that there are productive discussions
and you need more time,
just have somebody pop back on and say,
we need more time.
And that way folks who want to monitor can hear it
and we'll figure out what to do next.
If we don't go in a productive direction,
then what I'll expect when we come back at noon
is that the debtor will present its case
and we'll move forward.
Okay.
Yes, we've actually had preliminary discussions
about these, which is just issues that have been
in the past, and I'm confident that we can use
the 30 minutes of productive week
to get to a resolution.
We'll start that right away.
Terrific.
All right.
Then I'll see everybody back at noon central.
Thank you.
Great.
You ready?
Great.
All right, folks, it is 12 o'clock noon.
We are back on the record in the jointly administered cases
under case number 22-90341, core scientific.
Folks, where are we?
Your Honor, Chris Coney for the record.
We had very productive conversations.
We used the time well.
Language was pretty good.
We had a very productive conversation.
We used the time well.
Language was proposed by core that we believe works.
We've recommended it to our clients.
Frankly, we need the clients to sign off on it.
We're not expecting any issues,
but we need a little bit more time
to confirm with the client.
Our proposal would be to submit an agreed form of order,
assuming that the client agrees to it,
but I think that we're resolved in the terms
of an orderly transition that works
for both Celsius and core.
All right.
Deirdre, agree?
Your Honor, yes, that's agreed.
Just one request.
They're losing more than $1,000 an hour
by leaving this machine on.
So since it's agreed that we can turn the machines off,
we intend to do so right after this hearing
while we work out the form of order.
Mr. Coney, do you have any objection to that?
No, Your Honor.
And I assume that there's no process
for taking the machines down.
It literally is just disconnecting power.
No, there is a process to track palletized,
but for right now, no, simply turning off the power.
Okay, I just, I lived a life where there was a process
to taking something down.
I just want to make sure that we were following
any protocol that was in place or any process
that was needed in order to ensure the longevity
or preserve the integrity of the equipment.
Core will do that in the decommissioning process.
All right, Mr. Coney, let me ask, I'm sorry, go ahead.
I was gonna say, I apologize, Your Honor.
I was just gonna say that part of the language
that we've agreed to is that part of the transition
is how is Core going to be rad and palletized
and get everything ready for pickup.
But as far as just turning off the machines,
we have no objection to them doing that
right after this hearing.
Okay, let's just talk to the people that know
and make sure that, again,
I've lived in a world where if you've flipped off
the power switch without running a process,
it was a million dollar mistake.
So let's make sure we do it the right way.
Mr. Coney, let me ask you this.
I'm perfectly comfortable if you tell me
that you are proposing to simply submit an agreed order.
I'm also perfectly happy if you want to
I can give you some time this afternoon,
if you wanna come back and say,
we have an agreed order, you can upload it before then,
or we have this outstanding issue.
You know the conversations that have occurred,
obviously, much better than I do.
What would be the most productive?
I'm happy to take the time if it's not an imposition
to you or to chambers.
I don't know what your schedule is like.
I don't believe that you're gonna be able to do that.
I don't know what your schedule is like.
I don't believe we're going to need the time.
We had a very productive conversation.
I expect we'll be able to get there
on the agreed form of order pretty rapidly.
But if Your Honor has time this afternoon,
we certainly want to say no to it.
I've had a number of things go off the docket.
So I'm perfectly happy to give you all some time
if you think it would be helpful.
Happy to have a placeholder on your calendar.
And if we end up not needing the time,
I'll contact Mr. Alonzo.
Absolutely.
How about 3.30 Central?
That would be 4.30 East Coast time.
Would that work for everybody?
Okay, for Celsius.
Okay.
Then what we'll do is we will adjourn the hearing
until 3.30 with hopes that perhaps
an agreed order can be uploaded prior to.
But if folks who are listening,
what I will do is at 3.30,
whether I have a hearing or not,
I will get on the line and make an announcement
so that folks aren't wondering what's occurring.
Any objections to that?
No, Your Honor.
And again, if you've uploaded an agreed order,
no need for you to get on.
I know you've got a million other things to do.
All I'm going to do is to,
if there's been an agreed order,
I'm just going to make the announcement
that an agreed order has been uploaded.
I either have or haven't signed it.
And if I have signed it, it's on the docket at docket number X.
I'll do it.
Okay.
Okay, Your Honor.
And one just quick item to flag,
and it's not an issue for today.
It's just sort of a coming attraction
and we wanted to make sure while we have, Your Honor,
in front of us.
We discovered that Celsius recently made a prepayment
for January services.
That prepayment is the amount of about $4.7 million.
Not for today, not for rejection.
It's not going to be part of this resolution,
but it's going to be a resolution
that we need to work on very soon.
We're going to start talking to CORE immediately.
Hopefully we can reach a resolution.
If not, you know, we expect to bring it before Your Honor,
but just wanted to flag so that you are aware of it
as I said, a coming attraction potentially.
Either a resolution or another just to see if that's going to arrive.
I got it.
I assume that this is just one in a number of issues
that you folks are going to have to address.
And as I told you first day and I meant it, I mean it today.
As soon as you folks are ready to tee things up,
you will have my undivided attention promptly.
Thank you.
We personally, we just wanted to make sure Your Honor wasn't surprised.
I got it.
It's and what's the fun in life if you can't get surprised from time to time.
I will see everybody if I need to at 3.30 and if not,
again, just reach out to Mr. Alonzo and let him know that an order is there.
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, everyone.
We'll be adjourned until 2.