American court hearing recordings and interviews

--

emergency motion

--

Hearing re approval of Saks et al, disclosure statementVery interesting. The Bankruptcy Judge presiding over the Saks bankruptcy called out that the disclosure statement submitted to the court included third party releases - in order words releases of parties that did not file bankruptcy - which runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Purdue Pharma. It sounds like Saks' bankruptcy lawyers are planning to fix that.

seeking and receiving approval of a revised disclosure statement that is subject to further revision, towards commencing solicitation of votes in support of a chapter 11 plan to exit bankruptcy

What does this hearing sound like to you? If I was doing business with QVC, like a supplier, let's say, I might be worried because the case was supposed to be a quick in and out of bankruptcy court to shave off debt.I am not a supplier. I am a lawyer but not one practicing in Houston from out of state on the phone, like the lawyers on the call. My legal practice in New York years ago entailed making court appearances in person and doing trial work. My practice predated the telephone lawyer on the phone with the judge in a jurisdiction where I am not admitted thing. Which is to say I am not part of this scene whereby New York lawyers are yelling on the phone to a judge in Houston.To me it sounds like the lawyer arguing to the judge is trying to get his firm paid out of the bankruptcy estate and make sure other professionals at other firms aren't hired and paid. To save money. So then did his law firm bill for the "work" and the "emergency" court papers fighting the other lawyers' billing?If there were lawyers in Sodom and Gomorrah they would make arguments like this lawyer in the opening of the hearing speaks. And he cites Google, lol, charging how much per hour??? Maybe he should at least quote Claude or the Judge should tell him to shut up or address the court per the applicable rules for making a presentation and including factual assertions.

More information about the Ascend Elements bankruptcy is available on the free case administration website: https://veritaglobal.net/ascendAnd here's a link to Recycling Today's coverage of the Ascend Elements bankruptcy and events leading up to it: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/ascend-elements-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy/

The podcast skips a couple of hearings held in the Saks bankruptcy proceedings earlier in April. The 4/24/2026 hearing is a helpful one to review because it includes an update on the restructuring support agreement and also an update on the anticipated timing of the chapter 11 disclosure statement. Additionally the hearing includes a summary of the proposed chapter 11 exit financing, with the business justification for the terms. At the conclusion of the hearing, the bankruptcy court approved the proposed exit financing, and the court noted another hearing is on for next Friday.

In this case the Supreme Court is considering whether investor harm is a prerequisite to a disgorgement award in a civil action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

--

The hearing opens with counsel extending condolences to the Court following the passing of Judge Dorsey, the Judge who had presided over the FTX and Alameda bankruptcy proceedings after they were filed in Delaware in 2022: https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/news/passing-judge-john-t-dorsey

--

--

--

The hearing starts approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

This is the official audio recording of the argument held in the appeal in United States versus Sean Combs (Diddy) brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit following the criminal conviction and sentencing.

This is a very interesting hearing, and is available on the bankruptcy court's docket. I am streaming it to make the audio more accessible to the hearing impaired and people domestically and internationally who cannot readily access this publicly available information.Sorry for the volume issues. The volume is low on the court audio. (It's ok on desktop with headphones.) The hearing opens with the defense counsel (the Binance side) trying to get the bankruptcy "clawback" claims decided via Hong Kong (China) arbitration panel as opposed to by the US bankruptcy court. In the US, if the arbitration clause isn't enforced then the litigation against the defense/Binance side would typically be decided without a jury, by a US bankruptcy judge, even though the challenged transfers were allegedly foreign company to foreign company transfers.As such the hearing is a reminder of the many good years FTX had in Hong Kong during its successful period, and the Chinese investment money in and out of FTX, a group of companies that include Alameda entities and many offshore registered companies that are typically depicted as a single American FTX company by association with the Americans among the former FTX executives.

This audio recording is docketed in the Power Block Coin bankruptcy proceedings as docket number 471.

This is the official court audio of the hearing held April 2, and is docketed on the court's docket.There have been some hearings in the Saks bankruptcy proceedings since the last Saks hearing posted to this podcast. The hearings concerned, for the most part, a dispute with a particular party as opposed to macro developments in the cases. The hearings were somewhat lengthy and broken up over a few recordings, and not available on the podcast but are available on the court's docket and the case administration site. https://cases.stretto.com/Saks/court-docket/ (Search the docket for the files named audio).This latest hearing being streamed here was held on April 2, 2026 and concerns an emergency request to lift the automatic stay. The automatic stay is a protection that goes into effect by operation of law under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, when a bankruptcy petition is filed. In this case as it typical the Saks chapter 11 debtors are protected by the stay, not only from contractual obligations, but also from continuing to defend personal injury litigation arising from injuries sustained before Saks Global went into bankruptcy.In this case it sounds like an individual plaintiff wanted to proceed with personal injury litigation in Massachusetts and sought bankruptcy court approval via counsel. The bankruptcy court was responsive, held a hearing, and continued the hearing to a final hearing on May 7. The court encouraged the parties to work things out, in other words to at least agree to a date the automatic stay will lift. This is after the judge suggested a 60 day time frame at the outset of the hearing.The court noted that the court will not allow the stay to stop the case from going to trial indefinitely. I think it would be interesting for the lawyer who argued against the automatic stay being lifted to listen to what he is saying to the court, and ask himself why he would try to deprive a personal injury claimant of continuing litigation when it doesn't make a difference in terms of the future of Saks Global. Also the law is pretty clear, even with outlier cases like Purdue Pharma, which some people estimated pays just $40k for wrongful death claims - that personal injury claims can't be liquidated in bankruptcy court.As the court noted, at some point bankruptcy courts allow personal injury claims to be liquidated, in other words to continue on their path to jury trial or other payout under applicable non bankruptcy law.

This is the official audio of the court hearing held 3/31 and is docketed in the bankruptcy proceedings as docket number 51. For more information about the bankruptcy proceedings see the case administration site at https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/ultinon/Home-Index

The scheduling in the BlockFills chapter 11 bankruptcy case, pending in Delaware, is changing due to objections filed in the case, which the court concludes require hearing, and unfortunately there was a death in the family of the bankruptcy judge, and his honor needs to travel relatedly.

For the rest of the court filings in this adversary proceeding, which is within the BlockFills bankruptcy pending in Delaware, see: https://veritaglobal.net/blockfills/document/list/6505

The Chicago Tribune is covering the Delaware bankruptcy of BlockFills, which is described as a Chicago-based cryptocurrency trading firm. See, for example :Chicago-based crypto trading firm BlockFills files Chapter 11 bankruptcy; Blackhawks among the creditorsPushed over the edge by recent customer lawsuits and a “crypto winter” that saw Bitcoin valuation halved, Chicago-based cryptocurrency trading firm BlockFills filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Sunday in a Delaware court.BlockFills, which suspended customer withdrawals Feb. 6 amid liquidity issues, chose the path of voluntary reorganization after being unable to find a buyer or an investor to help recapitalize the cryptocurrency firm, which was more than $100 million in debt, according to the filing.The Chicago Blackhawks are listed in the filing among the largest unsecured creditors. The debt is from a corporate marketing sponsorship by BlockFills, according to the team....For more see:By Robert Channick | [email protected] | Chicago TribunePUBLISHED: March 17, 2026 at 7:46 AM CDT | UPDATED: March 17, 2026 at 3:26 PM CDTCrypto trading firm BlockFills files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Basically, it seems to me there is risk for both sides - and if there is interest - I would be happy to serve as a mediator or otherwise help the parties resolve the appeal before there are rulings...This is the official court audio, posted by the court the afternoon of the day the appellate argument was held. I am re-posting on March 15, 2026, with my thoughts of November 4, 2025 on how the argument went. Basically, it seems to me there is risk for both sides - and if there is interest - I would be happy to serve as a mediator or otherwise be of assistance to help the parties resolve the appeal before a ruling is handed down by the US Court of Appeals. This could also help resolve the pending motion for a new trial, before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Alternatives seem to be more litigation and appeals, potentially to the Supreme Court while SBF is incarcerated, which seems like a costly and time consuming path to follow, that would take out of the parties’ control the ability to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution, through a confidential process.With this said, here are my thoughts on the argument on appeal, writing as a former judicial law clerk to federal bankruptcy, district and circuit judges:The appellate argument re Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal conviction proceeded this morning, before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The argument was scheduled for 20 minutes or so and went beyond an hour. The bench was a hot bench, with the judges on the panel prepared to ask a lot of questions.Maybe the case will be resolved consensually?The appellant’s side, SBF’s counsel, argued to the appellate judges that more evidence of advice of counsel would have changed the jury’s decision to convict. The judges were skeptical.But the appellee, the government, had a hard time justifying the forfeiture order against Sam Bankman-Fried, which was part of his punishment.There is a disconnect between the presentation of massive losses in the record of the criminal trial relative to representations of customers being paid in full in the FTX bankruptcy. This was discussed at some length during the argument today. I am not sure it is correct that the FTX customers who are to receive (the low) cash value of Crypto as of 11/11/2022 (the FTX bankruptcy filing date, on Veterans Day, during Crypto Winter) are expected to receive the current value of the Crypto or more in the future. So maybe a fact check of the FTX bankruptcy plan would be helpful.****I think there could possibly be a motion for new trial at the district court level regardless of the outcome of the appeal, based on the ability to seek a new trial where there is newly discovered evidence… where the interests of Justice require, etc. even where there was a lot of evidence at trial, evidence in support of a jury verdict.The appellate argument today raises questions like how much does acting on advice of counsel count? Is a person who has lawyers acting more in good faith than a person who doesn’t have lawyers? Like can a person hire lawyers to set up a business or help as it grows and be excused from criminal responsibility? If so - to what extent? One view expressed during the oral argument today was that it may depend on whether the lawyers know what the client was up to, but that is not something that would usually come into evidence at trial because of privilege issues.****I am concerned for pressure SBF is under from lawyers - BECAUSE he does rely on advice of counsel, now as he must - and his emotional health....With potential for the SBF case to be heard by the US Supreme Court or a retrial or a pardon, the stakes are high. And with billions at stake in the forfeiture order, based on losses at time of trial that have been reduced, there seems a lot of room for compromise and come to an agreement that resolves the appeal.

--

For more information about the bankruptcy proceedings, pending in Delaware, see https://dm.epiq11.com/case/glq/docketsFollowing entry of a jury verdict imposing damages due to a wrongful death, the owner/operator of the park and tour operator filed for bankruptcy protection, intending to appeal the judgment and try to stay in business and restructure its financial affairs. For news coverage of the bankruptcy filing, see https://www.cpr.org/2026/02/10/glenwood-caverns-settlement-bankruptcy-lawsuit-wongel-estifanos-death/

--

Listen to the hearing held in Saks's chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on February 20, 2026, to catch up on the Saks bankruptcy.The audio streaming on this platform is available on the bankruptcy court's docket. If you'd like to download it directly, see docket number 926, which is a PDF with an embedded MP3 file:https://cases.stretto.com/public/x503/14494/PLEADINGS/1449402202680000000212.pdfThanks to streaming technology and my podcasting initiatives, publicly available court hearings are more readily accessible to people who are hearing impaired, people who prefer to hear content while reading along with subtitles, and the many people who cannot be present in person or send someone to take notes, or for who it does not make sense to hire counsel given the typical costs and delays.Also, some streaming platforms enable use of subtitles in languages other than English, which expands the accessibility of information about developments in the Saks bankruptcy proceedings internationally. Given the international nature of the business and how many people are affected by the bankruptcy, I believe international streaming is essential.There is an important development in the case ahead. The Saks Meeting of Creditors is coming up. The Meeting of Creditors is scheduled to be held telephonically on February 23, 2026, 1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. Below is the dial-in provided for the call, on the case administration site, which also includes more information about the Saks cases - https://cases.stretto.com/saks/---Meeting of CreditorsPursuant to section 341 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Meeting of Creditors has been scheduled for February 23, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. CT and will be held telephonically:(888) 330-1716; passcode 7125797#---Meetings of Creditors can be informative and provide an opportunity to ask questions of the representative of the bankrupt company presented at the Meeting of Creditors.Thanks for listening to my podcast! Please Subscribe to support my work.

Listen to the tariffs argument held by the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2025 when you have a couple of hours to listen to long form content, such as your favorite podcasts.I am reposting the argument today because of the Breaking News that the Supreme Court has reached a decision. After considering the arguments of counsel and the law, today a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly struck down the tariffs in a ruling.The Presidential administration has reportedly responded that it will seek to apply tariffs under other legal authorities, so stay tuned for more news on whether tariffs will continue to be imposed, in light of the ruling.I am not sure when the ruling was handed down. I happened to be on LinkedIn around 11:00 am or so, when the press started reporting that a ruling had been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.I always find it interesting when an important ruling is handed down on a Friday morning. Often markets are open and trading shifts in real time, in response to the ruling. This is not inevitable.It’s possible to release significant rulings, or reports, in a way that doesn’t kick off an immediate reaction, like imagine that today’s tariff news came out after close of business. On the other hand, with a Friday release of an important ruling there is a chance to triage over the weekend and stabilize markets.I don’t know why… I am reminded of the handling of the Mueller report, over a weekend, where there was somewhat of a catch and kill, helpful to the President. I suppose this leads to the observation you really never know how a response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling can play out, much as the tariff ruling seems momentous.Making things more interesting in the current market conditions is that Crypto and other assets trade 24/7, and prices of Bitcoin and other assets that have experienced some volatility of late could respond to the tariff ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today.—The audio in this post/podcast is the official court audio of the oral argument on tariffs, from the U.S. Supreme Court’s website:supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Re Sak's Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman bankruptcy

--

This seems like it could be one of those cases that is structured backwards, or as some English practitioners refer to the backwards case structuring - round tripping of the U.S. debt. The court closes the hearing with that parties shouldn't rely on what the court did in this case as precedent for future cases.Per Google AI:Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd. is a UK subsidiary of the fashion accessories company Fossil Group, Inc. that has recently been involved in a debt restructuring. It is now the entity used for the UK restructuring plan which was sanctioned by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, and also recognized by a U.S. bankruptcy court. The restructuring plan involved canceling $150 million in unsecured notes and issuing new notes to create a more durable capital structure. Purpose: The entity was created to implement a restructuring plan in the UK to deal with the company's debt.Restructuring details: The plan was a court-sanctioned restructuring of $150 million in unsecured notes, with the High Court sanctioning the plan in early November 2025.International recognition: Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd. also sought and received recognition of its UK restructuring plan from a U.S. bankruptcy court under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This ensures the plan is binding on U.S. creditors.Legal status: The company was registered in the UK on August 8, 2025. It is a private limited company with a registered office in Milton Keynes.Information: For investors holding the notes, an information agent is available for password-protected website access, and more information can be found on the Fossil Group's investor relations page.

November 12, 2025 Houston bankruptcy court hearing in the Klöckner Pentaplast bankruptcy case.

Re bankruptcy sale of Marineland assets in Florida

The subject matter of the hearing is sale of the company in the US bankruptcy.Sorry the volume is low. This is the court recording that was docketed on November 10 as docket number 725. https://veritaglobal.net/dolphinco/document/list/6300

For more information about the bankrupt company see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kl%C3%B6ckner_PentaplastFor more information about the bankruptcy filing see article on www.plasticstoday.com below:Klöckner Pentaplast, a global packaging and specialty film manufacturer, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Part of a comprehensive financial restructuring plan, the filing will reduce the company's funded debt by approximately €1.3 billion ($1.5 billion).The company and certain subsidiaries voluntarily initiated the prepackaged Chapter 11 process in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Under the restructuring agreement, ownership of the company will transfer to certain Klöckner Pentaplast partners following completion of the process.https://www.plasticstoday.com/medical/kl-ckner-pentaplast-enters-chapter-11-restructuring-to-reduce-1-3-billion-debt

This is the official court audio recording, from the U.S. Supreme Court website: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

This is the official court audio, posted by the court this afternoon. The appellate argument therein is the appeal of Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal conviction proceeded this morning, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The argument was scheduled for 20 minutes or so and went beyond an hour. The bench was a hot bench, with the judges on the panel prepared to ask a lot of questions.Maybe the case will be resolved consensually?The appellant’s side, SBF’s counsel, argued to the appellate judges that more evidence of advice of counsel would have changed the jury’s decision to convict. The judges were skeptical.But the appellee, the government, had a hard time justifying the forfeiture order against Sam Bankman-Fried, which was part of his punishment.There is a disconnect between the presentation of massive losses in the record of the criminal trial relative to representations of customers being paid in full in the FTX bankruptcy. This was discussed at some length during the argument today. I am not sure it is correct that the FTX customers who are to receive (the low) cash value of Crypto as of 11/11/2022 (the FTX bankruptcy filing date, on Veterans Day, during Crypto Winter) are expected to receive the current value of the Crypto or more in the future. So maybe a fact check of the FTX bankruptcy plan would be helpful.More generally, how well the FTX bankruptcy is going/supposed to have gone in terms of paying customers in full seems to undermine at least the forfeiture order. It is not unusual that there is interplay between a criminal case and a bankruptcy case/appeal, proceeding on separate tracks but inter-related factually.I think there could possibly be a motion for new trial at the district court level regardless of the outcome of the appeal, based on the ability to seek a new trial where there is newly discovered evidence… where the interests of Justice require, etc. even where there was a lot of evidence at trial, evidence in support of a jury verdict.The appellate argument today raises questions like how much does acting on advice of counsel count? Is a person who has lawyers acting more in good faith than a person who doesn’t have lawyers? Like can a person hire lawyers to set up a business or help as it grows and be excused from criminal responsibility? If so - to what extent? One view expressed during the oral argument today was that it may depend on whether the lawyers know what the client was up to, but that is not something that would usually come into evidence at trial because of privilege issues.This was a fascinating argument. I don’t know if it is what SBF wanted to be represented to the court. Is this how he was told his case would be presented? Or does he have the same problem again, where the FTX bankruptcy case was allegedly described to him as planned a certain way, but then the case went another way and he was arrested and blamed for the collapse of FTX.Wasn’t he told that a bankruptcy would help liquidity, to monetize FTX assets so that customers could be paid? And then he handed over control of the company, which he laments. The pressure must have been very great, with the other FTX executives blaming him and a bankruptcy presented as a way to stabilize FTX’s business and avoid customer losses… and lawyers telling him what to do.I am concerned for pressure SBF is under from lawyers - BECAUSE he does rely on advice of counsel, now as he must - and his emotional health and well being must be under so much pressure.With potential for the SBF case to be heard by the US Supreme Court or a retrial or a pardon, the stakes are high. And with billions at stake in the forfeiture order, based on losses at time of trial that have been reduced, there seems a lot of room for compromise and come to an agreement that resolves the appeal.

--

--