1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,160 Time is 9.30 Central. Today is March the 3rd, 2023. This is the docket for Houston, Texas. 2 00:00:06,960 --> 00:00:10,720 First on the docket this morning, we have the jointly administered cases under case number 3 00:00:10,720 --> 00:00:17,520 22-90341, core scientific. Folks, please don't forget to record your electronic appearance. 4 00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:22,160 That's a quick trip to my website, a couple mouse clicks. You can do that at any time prior to the 5 00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:28,320 conclusion of the hearing, but that is how we record your appearance. First time that you speak, 6 00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:31,920 if you would, please state your name and who you represent. That really does serve as a good point 7 00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:37,920 of reference for the court reporters in the event that a transcript request is made. We are recording 8 00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:42,800 this morning using court speak. We'll have the audio up on the docket available for your download 9 00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:48,160 shortly after the conclusion of the hearing. There was some odd noise, so I went ahead and 10 00:00:48,160 --> 00:00:52,160 activated the hand raising feature. If you know you're going to be speaking, if you go ahead and 11 00:00:52,160 --> 00:00:58,320 give me a five star, let me get you unmuted now. Obviously, you can change or you can make that 12 00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:12,800 decision at any time. All right, Ms. Berkowitz, good morning to you. You want to start us off 13 00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:19,920 and give me an update as to where we are? Yes. Good morning, Your Honor. Can you hear me? 14 00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:25,600 I'm clear. Thank you for asking. Great. Ramees Berkowitz from Wild Onshore for the record. 15 00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:34,080 I understand, although they will confirm for themselves, that both of the ad hoc group of 16 00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:40,320 equity holders and the ad hoc group of convertible note holders have agreed to the construct that the 17 00:01:40,320 --> 00:01:46,640 court suggested on Wednesday in relation to the appointment of an equity committee. We've all 18 00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:52,400 gone back and forth a few rounds on the proposed order and have made some progress. However, 19 00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:58,880 there is still not agreement on the proposed terms. Primarily, the disagreement is between 20 00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:04,960 the ad hoc equity group and the ad hoc convertible note holder group. We did just get a revised 21 00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:11,600 version right before the hearing started that we're going through, but I will, if it makes sense to 22 00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:17,520 the court, I will turn it over to Mr. Meisler to advise the court on what the open place are. 23 00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:19,840 Certainly. Thank you. Mr. Meisler, good morning to you. 24 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:29,040 Mr. Meisler, do you perhaps have me muted from your side? I can see you talking, but we can't 25 00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:33,200 hear you. And had you hit five star, I guess I should have started there. 26 00:02:36,640 --> 00:02:41,120 And Your Honor, just for the record, Noel Reed is on as well for the ad hoc equity group. 27 00:02:41,120 --> 00:02:47,040 I don't seem to be able to get the video. It's just spinning on joining sessions for me, 28 00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:51,360 but I am on the audio. So I will tell you this. If you're seeing the spinning that tells you 29 00:02:51,920 --> 00:02:59,120 that you don't have a sufficient internet connection, that it will pass the video. 30 00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:06,000 What I've seen other folks do, and it tends to work, is that disconnect, try to reconnect. 31 00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:11,440 Sometimes that fixes it. Sometimes it doesn't, but it's an internet connection issue. 32 00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:21,120 Got it, Your Honor. And just very quickly, I was prepared to at least start for the ad hoc equity 33 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:27,520 group. Ms. Berkish stated it correctly. I think we're in agreement on the concept. I think we're 34 00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:32,320 close on the order. And I think from our perspective, while Mr. Meisler can talk through 35 00:03:32,320 --> 00:03:39,360 the details of the two remaining open items, I think the parties are trying to affect your intent. 36 00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:44,240 And so it probably just makes sense for you to simply resolve what that intent is. 37 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:49,200 Certainly. First, let's see if we got Mr. Meisler unmuted. Mr. Meisler, 38 00:03:49,200 --> 00:03:52,960 do you want to try that again? Just say something. Yes, Your Honor. Loud and clear. 39 00:03:54,080 --> 00:04:00,800 Yes, sir. Thank you. Oh, perfect. Great. I did Val Skeddon's tech course several times. 40 00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:08,400 So I'm glad this was working this morning. Your Honor, what Ms. Reed said is 100% correct. 41 00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:16,880 You should hear also from Mr. Hanson, but at its core, we're in agreement on the proposed resolution 42 00:04:16,880 --> 00:04:26,480 suggested by Your Honor. We did have a meeting with our client group yesterday, and we had 43 00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:31,360 overwhelming support by the group to move forward on the terms that you suggested. 44 00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:40,800 I think we just have some details on the margins where Mr. Hanson and I haven't yet resolved the 45 00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:50,080 order. And I'm happy if Mr. Hanson's okay. I'm happy to go through what I think are the areas of 46 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:57,120 dispute, but I don't want to get ahead of Mr. Hanson. So if Mr. Hanson wants to jump in, he is 47 00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:02,480 very welcome to do so. So let me, and again, I'm certainly going to hear from Mr. Hanson, but let 48 00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:12,640 me propose a different way of proceeding. It just generally tends to work is that you take today, 49 00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:19,040 weekend if you wish, see if you can hammer it out between yourselves. If you can't, and I'll pick a 50 00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:24,480 deadline, if you can't get it done by 10 o'clock on Monday, upload competing forms of the order. 51 00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:29,680 Just understand that you may get form A, you may get form B. More likely you get form C. 52 00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:37,920 Your Honor, that would be fine with us, although I would ask, 53 00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:41,680 especially in light of previous comments that you've made, 54 00:05:42,800 --> 00:05:46,480 I would ask you submit an order by close of business today. 55 00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:53,360 I'll find by May. I was just trying to recognize that you folks have other things to do other than 56 00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:57,920 work on this order. I was just trying to give folks flexibility. Mr. Hanson 57 00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:00,560 didn't mean to not give you an opportunity. 58 00:06:03,280 --> 00:06:05,440 No, thank you, Your Honor. So can you hear me okay? 59 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:06,400 Loud and clear. Thank you. 60 00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,640 Chris Hanson with Paul Hastings on behalf of the Ad Hoc Secure No Holder Committee. 61 00:06:12,640 --> 00:06:19,440 Your Honor, we're fine to try to upload either an agreed upon order or two forms of orders. 62 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:21,360 That's by the end of today. That's fine. 63 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:29,360 I do think it would benefit us in the process of trying to get an agreed order if Mr. Miser and I 64 00:06:29,360 --> 00:06:34,320 can explain just a couple of the things that we're struggling with so that you can give us 65 00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:37,120 a little guidance on that. More than happy to do that. 66 00:06:37,120 --> 00:06:42,960 I was just trying to keep my finger off the scale, but happy to do that. 67 00:06:42,960 --> 00:06:47,920 Yeah, so I would defer to Mr. Miser. I always want the mic and I'd like to go with 68 00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:52,880 what he started. So from a court perspective, I'll let him start his motion and then I'll respond. 69 00:06:52,880 --> 00:06:53,840 All right. Mr. Miser. 70 00:06:56,160 --> 00:07:00,640 Thank you, Your Honor. There's really two areas of dispute. 71 00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:11,280 One is, Your Honor, we have put in the assumptions that were the factors that got us to arrive at our 72 00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:17,920 $4.75 million budget. And to be sure, our original budget was higher than that. The debtors could 73 00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:24,640 negotiate negotiating with us led to a lower budget, but those factors are what led to the budget. 74 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:28,800 If we were to bust those assumptions, it doesn't give us automatic answers. 75 00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:34,880 It doesn't give us automatic license to increase the budget. So we would want all parties to be 76 00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:42,080 aware that it's those assumptions that led to the budget. Why? If a party propounds needless 77 00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:48,240 discovery upon us, then, Your Honor, we're going to bust the budget. Now, I think that goes into 78 00:07:48,240 --> 00:07:53,840 some of the factors that you were thinking about, that if someone launches discovery, 79 00:07:53,840 --> 00:08:00,240 it's really aimed at us. If we're launching tactics that are really meant to be, using my own words, 80 00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:05,920 extortionist tactics rather than value accretive tactics, then we wouldn't get compensated. 81 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:13,040 But I think that that litmus test in some way would also apply if the shoes on the other foot 82 00:08:13,920 --> 00:08:20,560 and some other party in interest were to launch needless value destructive discovery upon us. 83 00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:26,720 Discovery is labor intensive and it could lead us to bust the budget. So the factors are out there 84 00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:32,720 in a sense to educate all the parties in interest how we arrived at the budget, but not meant to be 85 00:08:32,720 --> 00:08:40,800 a test for, Your Honor, on the question of whether the budget can be increased. And we'll pause there 86 00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:45,360 just for one moment in case, Your Honor, has any questions to that principle. 87 00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:50,720 So, obviously, I haven't seen anything. And Mr. Hanson, what does your client see? 88 00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:57,760 Well, Your Honor, so our clients are still not happy with the appointment of an equity 89 00:08:57,760 --> 00:09:01,520 committee, but they appreciated the way that you described things at the hearing the other day. 90 00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:06,480 So we're going to, as Ms. Berkman-Betch noted, we're going to try to proceed to get an order settled. 91 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:10,640 With respect to the assumptions, our only point was in the form of order that we've been working on, 92 00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:16,240 the misdemeanor had included a schedule which had assumptions in it. And I don't think that's bad. 93 00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:21,120 I don't think that's appropriate. And B, the point on the assumptions is that, you know, 94 00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:25,920 and this really translates to the bigger question, which is, is this a budget or is this a cap? 95 00:09:26,560 --> 00:09:32,320 And our view is it's a fee cap. That cap is only subject to increase by total order of the court. 96 00:09:32,320 --> 00:09:36,240 And as the court noted at the hearing the other day, the court might not even agree that they can 97 00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:42,160 go through the cap based upon your analysis later if people keep the check. And so my point that I 98 00:09:42,160 --> 00:09:50,160 was debating with Mr. Meisler was, you know, we don't, whatever basis upon which you agreed to cap 99 00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:55,280 yourself at $4.75 million for all the professionals for the equity committee, these expenses and 100 00:09:55,280 --> 00:09:59,600 expenses of the members themselves, that's your business. We don't need to have an order that 101 00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:04,720 notes what the assumptions were that went into that because that would give some information that 102 00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:08,880 if those assumptions were no longer valid, for some reason, there's a better reason to increase 103 00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:11,280 the cap. That's something that you can consider at a later time. 104 00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:18,720 So this is really, this one's really easy for me, if it's helpful, is that the equity committee 105 00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:24,720 and the debtor agreed to a cap of $4.75 million. And that cap can't be exceeded absent further 106 00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:30,240 order from me. And I'm not going to be constrained by any consideration because I don't know, 107 00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:34,960 I don't know what I don't know. And so if there's a request that's filed to exceed the cap, 108 00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:40,320 I'll take it up based upon what I know at the time that the request is made. Hopefully that helps 109 00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:42,320 move that issue along. 110 00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:50,320 Yes. 111 00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:56,320 After Ron Meisler, on the fee cap, what we understand is that if we exceed the $4.75 million, 112 00:10:56,320 --> 00:11:03,360 $4.75 million, we being the equity committee for advisor expenses, then we can't get paid 113 00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:11,680 by the estate unless you're on our borders otherwise. The reason why, and maybe just 114 00:11:11,680 --> 00:11:19,200 semantics, the reason why we use the word but as opposed to cap is our concern is that it could 115 00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:25,520 limit the pool of advisors that are willing to be hired by the equity committee. 116 00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:26,080 Absolutely. 117 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:26,880 We would of course make it. 118 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:27,840 Absolutely. 119 00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:28,960 Right. We would of course make it. 120 00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:29,280 We could. 121 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:40,480 Exactly. We want to enable the best advisors to pitch and be retained by the equity committee, 122 00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:47,360 understanding that they will not get paid if the budget is exceeded and your honor doesn't 123 00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:53,520 order otherwise that they could get paid. But that semantic difference could be the reason why a 124 00:11:53,520 --> 00:12:01,040 senior management team of a law firm or a financial advisor may choose simply not to pitch. 125 00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:08,160 And again, our principal motivation here is we would like the best advisors to be able to 126 00:12:08,160 --> 00:12:10,720 represent this group, understanding the risk. 127 00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:16,160 Totally agree. And I can't imagine that you're going to talk to someone and ask them to make 128 00:12:16,160 --> 00:12:22,800 a pitch of a group that doesn't know me. And I would think that alone would give them a degree 129 00:12:22,800 --> 00:12:28,880 of comfort. If not, then they're just going to have to make a business decision. It's just easy 130 00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:30,480 for me. So what's next? 131 00:12:33,680 --> 00:12:38,160 Your honor, I think that's it. Although I don't have so clearly the word cap will be in that 132 00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:46,800 order. But I don't have clarity on the assumption that that builds up that number, which we'd like 133 00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,840 because we, again, it doesn't bind the court in any way. 134 00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:57,360 So take the decision-making process out of it. It's an agreement between the ad hoc equity 135 00:12:57,360 --> 00:13:02,320 committee and the debtors. It's 4.75. I'm not going to look behind it. And again, if there's a 136 00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:07,200 request to increase it, I'm going to base it on what is important to me and what I know at the time. 137 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:12,400 Not today. I'm not going to consider anything on a list that exists today. Or I'm going to say I'm 138 00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:16,080 not going to be bound by anything on a list today. I'm going to hear what the arguments are at the 139 00:13:16,080 --> 00:13:26,400 time. So let's get rid of the list. Let's move on. Thank you, your honor. Unless Mr. Hanson has 140 00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:33,600 something else, I think those are the principal areas of dispute. Okay. Mr. Hanson, anything else? 141 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:40,800 Yeah, your honor, I had one other point on the order and then just the general comment before we 142 00:13:40,800 --> 00:13:46,480 part that I wanted to make. So with respect to the order, I think where the parties are going to land 143 00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:53,040 is that we are going to rely on your honor's comment as the standard by which the fees get 144 00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:58,240 analyzed as opposed to trying to come up with language between us, which we may have a 145 00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:02,400 disagreement on and which we may have to ask you to resolve. So for example, instead of having a 146 00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:08,720 decreedal paragraph that says, the fees for the equity committee shall be viewed in hindsight 147 00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:12,880 based upon, you know, instead of getting really choppy with the words, I think you gave us a bunch 148 00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:18,160 of examples. You went through it at the hearing the other day. But we wanted to just make sure 149 00:14:18,160 --> 00:14:22,320 if we all align in that language that we have this discussion with you today so that we have a little 150 00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:26,800 bit of a supplement to the record the other day. And, you know, you were clear that you want to be 151 00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:31,840 able to have the discretion to view the fees that are generated by the equity committee in hindsight. 152 00:14:31,840 --> 00:14:38,080 And what we understand hindsight means is at whatever period you're looking back, sure, 153 00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:41,440 you're going to assess whether the fees are reasonable at the time that they were incurred, 154 00:14:41,440 --> 00:14:46,560 but you're also going to assess them having the benefit of the result that was produced 155 00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:51,200 as a result of the act that was taken, as well as the factors that are existing in the case 156 00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:54,560 at the time that you were looking at them. And you're not going to be constrained by saying you 157 00:14:54,560 --> 00:15:02,000 had to go back in time to look at it then. So we're, in our mind, while you didn't go all the way 158 00:15:02,000 --> 00:15:05,920 to say, I'm going to look at it on substantial contribution type standards, effectively what 159 00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:11,120 you're saying is you always have the discretion to look back across these fees whenever it is 160 00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:14,880 based upon where you are. And you're really guided by the six factors that you added to the 161 00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:19,280 film from Pride analysis, which is what difference did they make. And so we wanted to just make sure 162 00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:26,560 that we were all clear there so that when we say we're relying on whatever you had told us 163 00:15:26,560 --> 00:15:31,280 we're going to be the standard rather than try to describe your words ourselves, that we were clear 164 00:15:31,280 --> 00:15:36,560 on what that standard is. I think that's right. And I think if you look back, I've been entirely 165 00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:42,800 consistent when I added that additional requirement to Pilgrims. I think that's actually 166 00:15:42,800 --> 00:15:48,800 in another case and in another order, but that shouldn't be a mystery to anybody. I mean, look, 167 00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:55,840 you're just going to have to accept a little bit this on faith. I spent 20 plus years as a 168 00:15:55,840 --> 00:16:03,840 professional. I understand that you like to be paid for the services that you provide. I am certainly 169 00:16:03,840 --> 00:16:10,720 not out to make a point with any professional, but we're in a unique situation here. And my focus 170 00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:19,280 is exactly as I said at the hearing, it's on the debtor and the business and the employees 171 00:16:19,280 --> 00:16:27,760 and whether or not there is a path forward here. And just to be entirely transparent, 172 00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:33,840 I'm simply reserving the right to exert leverage on everybody to move this forward. Everybody does 173 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:41,200 their job. I can't imagine there's a problem. People don't do their job. And for instance, 174 00:16:41,200 --> 00:16:47,600 if I ever have to revisit the snippiness issue that I raised at the prior hearing, okay. I mean, 175 00:16:47,600 --> 00:16:54,320 everybody had fair warning at that point, but this is not an I got you. This is not a, I want to make 176 00:16:54,320 --> 00:17:00,640 a point about rates. I'm not. I think I've said a thousand times, you know, rates are driven by the 177 00:17:00,640 --> 00:17:06,000 market. I'm a big believer in the market. Just do what you all, do what you know you're supposed to 178 00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:10,240 be doing. And I can't imagine there's an issue, but I am reserving the right to come back and 179 00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:16,800 revisit this if in fact my assumptions about any or all of you turn out not to be correct. 180 00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:18,960 I don't know how it could be any more transparent than that. 181 00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:24,640 And your honor, this is Noel Reed. We thought you were perfectly transparent and that was the 182 00:17:24,640 --> 00:17:32,480 basis on which we advise our client and secure their support. And we're very comfortable with 183 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:37,920 the guidance that the court gave previously. Mr. Hanson, did I say something that was any 184 00:17:37,920 --> 00:17:42,000 different than what I said the other day or that I've previously said in other cases? 185 00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:48,400 No, your honor. I think we're again, we're good with what you said the other day as far as to make 186 00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:52,960 sure that we were all clear because again, I think that's a better stance that I again suggested if 187 00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:57,840 we agree with it that it's better to do that than it is to try to describe, you know, our own words. 188 00:17:58,720 --> 00:18:02,880 And to your point about moving this case forward, there's just, I want to touch on this, right? 189 00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:06,960 Ms. Portovich gave you an update the other day, you know, they're now two months into the case. 190 00:18:06,960 --> 00:18:11,120 I made the point that perhaps we should wait to see what happens here until we have a business 191 00:18:11,120 --> 00:18:17,920 plan. But clearly the exclusivity clock is ticking and we currently have no progress towards the plan 192 00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:23,680 of reorganization at all. We had an RSA that's been torn up, right? And so one of the major 193 00:18:23,680 --> 00:18:27,360 standards here, and we've highlighted it a few times, is we don't want to hang out in bankruptcy. 194 00:18:27,360 --> 00:18:31,120 We want to move this case as quickly as possible and get out and move fast and of course keep 195 00:18:31,120 --> 00:18:36,240 seed down. But it also helps us get an entity out of bankruptcy where it shouldn't be hiding. 196 00:18:36,240 --> 00:18:41,200 And so we want to just point out to the court that clearly there may be an exclusivity extension 197 00:18:41,200 --> 00:18:47,120 coming. We hope to see significant progress on plan by that point in time, but we can't do that 198 00:18:47,120 --> 00:18:51,200 without the debtors having a business plan and the debtors getting around and trying to negotiate 199 00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:55,360 with everybody. So we look forward to that happening and we hope it happens soon. And I'd 200 00:18:55,360 --> 00:19:00,720 also just note for the record judge, to your point about the fragileness of this business, 201 00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:07,040 part of the Bitcoin drops almost 5% overnight, last night. And so it is... For whatever reason, 202 00:19:07,040 --> 00:19:16,960 I now look at it every day. Welcome to the club. Your honor, I agree with what Mr. Hanson said in 203 00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:22,000 terms of the, as I mentioned the other day, our finalizing our business plan. And then we intend 204 00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:27,680 to sit down with all of our major stakeholders, including Mr. Hanson's large client group, 205 00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:34,880 and negotiate a plan of reorganization. And again, if it's helpful, and I mean this sincerely, 206 00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:42,080 if anyone... It doesn't take a lot to get a status conference if there's an issue that 207 00:19:42,080 --> 00:19:46,480 you believe I can be helpful on. I want to be helpful to the process. I'm here to resolve 208 00:19:46,480 --> 00:19:51,920 disputes, but I also want to be helpful to the process. And again, I want to get you all focused 209 00:19:52,560 --> 00:19:57,440 on the next part of this, which is why I've kind of been a little pushy with respect to this 210 00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:06,640 issue. If it turns out that Isger can help, I had to go eat the most god-awful cheeseburger 211 00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:13,440 in my life yesterday, so he now owes me another one. I'm more than happy to get him involved, 212 00:20:13,440 --> 00:20:20,640 if that's helpful. If Judge Lopez can be helpful, I think he owes me a couple. I'm happy to use 213 00:20:20,640 --> 00:20:27,120 all of those favors to help move this along, because I really do want to... I'm looking at 214 00:20:27,120 --> 00:20:31,840 this a whole lot like I would a retail case. This really has to move quickly if it's going 215 00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:37,760 to have a chance of succeeding. So again, I trust you all. I'm going to sit here and expect 216 00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:43,760 everyone to do what I know you can do so well. But if it turns out that we need a nudge in one 217 00:20:43,760 --> 00:20:47,280 direction or another, all of you know how to ask. It's not going to bother me one bit. 218 00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:51,040 That is very helpful, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. So ordered by the end of the day, 219 00:20:51,040 --> 00:20:57,200 somebody will shoot Mr. Alonzo an email once it's been uploaded, and I'll turn it promptly around. 220 00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:06,640 If it turns out that there is just a logjam... Number one, I'm going to be here all day. If 221 00:21:06,640 --> 00:21:11,120 folks think it would be helpful to jump back on, I'm happy to do it. Also, if you want to just 222 00:21:11,120 --> 00:21:17,760 submit, again, version A, version B, I'm happy for you to do that, just always with the caveat 223 00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:25,040 that you could get order C. Okay? Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. 224 00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:29,440 Trey, everyone have a wonderful weekend. I don't know what the weather is like your way, 225 00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:44,800 but it's just beautiful here today. But have a wonderful weekend and see everybody soon.