APFA Tweets from Bankruptcy Court – 8.15.13

• In the bankruptcy court overflow room with the press. Actually, with attorneys – the press were smart enough to arrive extra early. #noroom
  (8:47 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Also tweeting from BK Court: @JasonWhitely from WFAA-TV Channel 8
  (8:58 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• I can honestly say I’ve never seen this many lawyers in my entire life.
  (9:06 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane is a little tardy. Still waiting for court to be called into session.
  (9:09 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge just took the bench
  (9:13 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane “This hearing was scheduled several months ago to consider the POR. The POR is based on a proposed merger between US and AA
  (9:15 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• “In the merger motion and proposed POR, it was subject to regulatory approval by the U.S. DOJ”
  (9:16 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• “Two days ago, on Tuesday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in D.C. seeking to block the merger based on antitrust concerns. Upon learning of that lawsuit, my chambers reached out to the debtors who chose to proceed. I asked that question because no party had addressed the impact of today’s confirmation. The question of whether proceeding with this hearing considering the lawsuit. Ultimately, I decided not to adjourn today’s hearing because it might have created unhelpful uncertainty. I will ask the debtors and other parties to provide me with briefs on the DOJ lawsuit. I don’t want any posturing in these briefings regarding the pending litigation. I have no views of the subject. I want the briefing to be limited to the issues before me today – the feasibility of the plan and other confirmation requirements.”
  (9:18 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• “We will proceed now with the confirmation hearing.”
  (7:19 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• “With that statement, I’d like to get appearances from all parties interested in speaking.”
  (7:19 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorneys all introducing themselves. Debtors attorneys, UCC attorneys, DOJ attorney, APA counsel, US Airways attorney, US Bank National Ass’n attorney, HP attorney, Colin Ford (objecting party) attorney, US Bank National Ass’n attorney, ALPA attorney, US bank National Ass’n attorney, Manufacturer’s Trust attorney, USAPA attorney, LA Country Treasurer att’y, Allegheny Airport Authority attorney, Mellon Bank attorney, Plaintiffs’ adversary attorney, Ad Hoc Committee, Rob Clayman for APFA attorney, US Bank Trustee attorney and 3 I couldn’t understand.
  (9:23 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Debtors’ attorney up first. “The plan is a fully consensual plan” that we are here to approve today. It was overwhelmingly approved by all parties. It includes a substantial return to AMR’s stockholders. “Obviously, we are disappointed in the case filed by the DOJ. As US Airways and AA have suggested, they believe the DOJ is wrong in their filing.”
  (9:25 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Declarations from all parties being submitted as evidence. No objections. “We would also like to file the 3rd amended POR that was submitted last night.” No objections.
  (9:29 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA’s attorney reviewing last night’s amended filing with the judge.
  (9:33 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA attorney now reviewing the technical amendments from the revised POR.
  (9:35 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Doesn’t seem terribly prepared. I think AA’s attorney expected Judge Lane to say no – I’ll review later. [attorney leafing madly through documents]
  (9:36 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Amendment 3 – dealing with reporting and withholding requirements. This provides for the mechanism to the other unions to permit addressing backup withholding. Also, to clarify which forms must be submitted and the requirements involved.
  (9:37 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA’s attorney: “Also – the definition of distribution record date was originally the confirmation date. Being that it was anticipated confirmation date would be today, in light of the DOJ action, the confirmation order may include a time lag longer than anticipated. It doesn’t freeze the record date way in advance of record date.”
  (9:38 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Next change (amendment 4 perhaps) – This is to clarify that the voting of the stock in the disputed claims reserve would be consistent with stock to AMR stakeholders rather than all of the stock of the new company.
  (9:39 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Amendment 5 – “Section 7.4A (pg. 78) [for those of you following along in POR 3.0] because there may not be a fixed number of shares for each claim, this is to reflect the amount of the reserve attributed to it.
  (9:41 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Amendment 6 – In connection with this plan the debtors would not pursue avoidance actions. I have no idea what that means.
  (9:41 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Amendment 7 – section 10.11 – this is an issue raised by the DOJ in connection with other plans – requested modification of this language to protect its rights. “We have agreed with the DOJ over this precise language.”
  (9:42 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• pg. 99 – “speaks to the ongoing participation of the UCC post-effective date in connection with Mr. Butler and his colleagues. This would increase the number of committee members and their increased compensation going forward as well as certain professionals.”
  (9:44 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• One of AA’s attorneys speaking about some blank line left to address attorneys’ fees. What this whole proceeding boils down to.
  (9:45 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA’s attorney: “These amendments are not material and do not need a solicitation of votes.”
  (9:46 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney: “A number of objections as well as support of the POR have been filed. Since we filed the MOLaw last week, I’d like to update the status of these with the court. I’m pleased to say that most of them have been resolved.” #1 – DOJ still outstanding. #2 – USAPA resolved. #3 – from ALPA filed after the July 31 deadline but att’y for ALPA is here. #4 – Some firm I couldn’t understand is still open #5 – Allegheny resolved #6 – a company I couldn’t understand resolved #7 – former TWA pilots still outstanding #8 couldn’t understand resolved #9 – resolved #10 – US Bank resolved #11 – US Bank resolved #12 US Bank National Ass’n resolved #13 Salt Lake County Treasurer resolved. #14 – not resolved. #15 LA Tax Collector resolved. #16 – Texas resolved #17 – Miami Dade County resolved #18-27 – a number of letters from various parties unresolved #28-32 already reflected and resolved.”
  (9:51 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• ALPA filed a notice to withdraw. Allegheny County Airport Authority. We agreed to final objection by the end of September and have the court consider it within 90 days. Hargrove is next objecting. They have a lien that debtors dispute. They requested language to be included in the confirmation order. They filed a motion that is currently set for hearing. The immediate concern has been resolved. They filed a notice of withdrawal of their objection.
  (9:54 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge now calling US Bank attorney to the microphone.
  (9:55 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorney from US Bank speaking now on their many objections
  (9:56 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Going back to Amendments 1 and 2: 1 was the technicality of a name change to POR version 3. Amendment 2 – provides for an additional 24 hours to make calculations regarding distributions.
  (9:57 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorneys filing to the mike one by one, all for US Bank and addressing a separate objection. The money represented in this room is really unbelievable.
  (10:01 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• All of the rest of the attorneys representing the objectors speaking to their withdrawal of or standing objections.
  (10:02 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• UCC counsel Jack Butler speaking. “The committee filed six declarations from HP, APA, APFA, Boeing, TWU and the UCC.”
  10:09 AM – 15 Aug 2013

 

• AA counsel speaking now. Summarizing where we are now. What we have left is one objection by the tax authority by the state of michigan, pilots from TWA, pro se letters and the DOJ.
  (10:11 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• State of Michigan objection being addressed by AA Attorney now. Objection relates to amount of tax not collected by the state because of BK.
  (10:12 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane – since no one from the state of Michigan is here, I will overrule the state of Michigan assuming their objection still exists. (Lesson here: never skip a court date).
  (10:13 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Now, with the pilots’ objection: they asked that the court approval be delayed until their issues are resolved. They could’ve asked for a stay. They did not. Judge Lane is asking if anyone present can address these objections. Judge Lane says that “in order to preserve your rights to appeal, a litigant can seek a stay through the appelate court. Those avenues contain their own legal processes. In absence of that, I don’t see a basis to delay this case based on those orders.”
  (10:15 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Pilots meaning USAPA pilots
  (10:20 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney: “Now to the pro se objections. Those fall into 3 categories. A number of them object to the modification of retiree benefits, a letter relating to Mr. Horton, and the last one requesting a delay of the confirmation hearing until the AMR Board can address retiree objections.” AA attorney says the POR before the judge does not seek to eliminate 1114 benefits. It says that to the extent the reorganized debtors are unsuccessful in obtaining relief by the court, any remaining benefits will be addressed by a section of the BK code I couldn’t hear. Re: objection to Mr. Horton letter” ( I couldn’t hear his defense of that) “from Rose Watkins, an objection to venue, we believe the venue is appropriate and shouldn’t halt the proceedings. RE: Mr. McDaniel the plan doesn’t address the retiree program. He doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements to take advantage of retiree travel. “All of the pro se objections be overruled.” Judge overrules these objections. Doesn’t believe any legitimate questions re: venue, retiree objection issue, Mr. McDaniel have been raised. With the exception of Mr. Horton’s issue I find that all of these are not a basis for objection.
  (10:21 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• ALPA attorney taking mike. Concerned about Eagle pilots. Judge Lane trusts that the union and company can continue to have fruitful discussions on this topic. Now US Trustee and Clayton objections are the only ones remaining.
  (10:23 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane has read all the docs. No need to belabor positions. AA Attorney states they reserve right to (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1rlu4re
  (10:24 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Clayton attorney – “given filing of DOJ… the DOJ seeks relief under the Clayton Act. We view that as a serious lawsuit. I’ve read Mr. Horton’s press release which is public. He intends to fight this filing. I take him at his word. He’s also stated in his most recent filings with the SEC web site “while we do not yet know how long the court process will take, it is likely to take a few months.” he also states all recent leadership announcements will be on hold until the merger process continues. “The court should deny confirmation and has no choice but to deny confirmation. The outcome of the DOJ action, should this plan be confirmed, should be divestiture. “this is obviously a complex plan – a merger of two public companies becoming one public company. Judge Lane – “my understanding is the divestiture won’t be an issue until litigation is resolved.”
  (10:27 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorney for Clayton: the court cannot confirm this today. Judge Lane is asking for clarification of the attorney’s argument. Not interested in posturing of the district court action.
  (10:29 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Clayton attorney: pages 91-93 of the plan is what we object to.
  (10:29 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge asking him why they did not file a motion?
  (10:29 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane questioning why, given the passage of time, why a filing wasn’t done. “You have a right to object to confirmation, but to the extent you’re seeking a certain injunctive relief, why wasn’t it done.” The two are now arguing about procedure. I can’t keep up.
  (10:32 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane doesn’t want to belabor this issue in light of the fact that things have changed. Asking this attorney what his intent is.
  (10:33 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane “People have lots of rights. It doesn’t make them wise.” It appears this att’y wants the BK court to try their objection while the DOJ’s case is outstanding.
  (10:35 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorney wishing to preserve standalone Clayton rights that would be “subsumed in the Plan.”
  (10:37 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Lots of attorneys climbing over each other to address the court. Judge Lane asked these 3 to figure out what they want to say and one of them pose their statement/question.
  (10:38 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane asked to hear from the debtors while these 3 figure out what they want to say.
  (10:38 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Airways attorney speaking to the court. “I think that the DOJ filing was not welcome to us and it will proceed in DC and be hotly contested. What we care about is that the issues of the BK not be commingled with the antitrust issues. Timing is everything.” (referencing the Clayton lawsuit). This lawsuit was filed in direct contravention in the Adelphia case and by the same lawyers. You have the very same argument that you have to give us some timing relief. “Because I showed up so late I won’t have any time to present my case.” A ridiculous notion.
  (10:41 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Airways attorney very well spoken. I wish I could type faster.
  (10:42 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Airways att’y “The confirmation should go forward. You asked for briefing on that. We are more than willing to do that. I think you already put your finger on it at the beginning of the hearing. The DOJ has a right to do this in a particularly different way. They’re pursuing that and we will deal with that in their forum. Here, the court schedule on this BK is entitled to respect. By coming here so late and asking for a backdoor TRO simply should not be allowed.”
  (10:43 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Jack Butler on behalf of the UCC is addressing the court. Wants to present several motions.
  (10:44 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Jack Butler: “On behalf of the UCC, we appreciate the court’s decision to proceed today. The committee believes it is important to obtain a confirmation order along with the briefings the court requested.”
  (10:45 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• UCC Attorney Jack Butler reiterating the position of the US Airways attorney regarding the late objections before the court today.
  (10:48 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler is very passionate in his arguments regarding Alioto SFO-based plaintiffs attorney. He wants everyone to take a breath and look back at all the things we’ve said to the judge, our stakeholders, all the things included in the entries to the court and put it in context. You have to look at the merger agreement, the POR and the letter of disclosure statement.
  (10:52 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler quoting the judge: “Every class of creditor entitled to vote on this plan has overwhelmingly voted to approve – frankly something I’ve not seen before.”
  (10:53 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: Summarizing his comments: The doj filed the action they filed, it will be dealt with in D.C., and now we ask did we plan for this eventuality? we thought we did… Let’s start with the merger agreement. This agreement contains a number of important provisions. Section 5.1b – the conditions of each party to effect the merger. This deals with regulatory approvals. Everyone has to obtain all of the regulatory approvals. Happily, most of these have been obtained. 2 still outstanding – The DOT and the DOJ by enacting the Clayton Act. In Section 4.7 there is a contemplation that this event might happen. If so, what would the obligations of US and AA be? They are obligated to cooperate and use their reasonable best efforts to defend the consummation of the merger.
  (10:56 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “The agreement doesn’t stop there.” “It says that what does reasonable best efforts mean? The Merger agreement defines that. Remedies and settlement opportunities were spelled out in the agreement. Well, how does Judge Lane know that he hasn’t been cut out of that process? Everyone knows your honor, you won’t be presiding over the Clayton Act proceeding.”
  (10:58 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “In 4.7 clause Z, AA’s best efforts are qualified in the case of AA – they can’t do something that isn’t approved by the BK Court.” This means that if you read this section carefully, that if there is a reasonable best efforts where there is a settlement, there is oversight by this court by virtue of this provision.”
  (10:59 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: We have a framework in the merger agreement that there may be this litigation. It addresses how it’s to be settled. The timeframe goes through mid-December. That’s contained in the merger agreement. It also contains another important section. “The parties are obliged to obtain the confirmation order and do so promptly in advance of the conditions of closing of the merger.
  (11:02 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Basically, Butler is laying forth his arguments to the court re: the plan and the fact that this already-approved merger plan contains the process by which this objection by the DOJ should be handled in this court today.
  (11:04 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “The disclosure statement, Section 4 address the constructs of the merger and the disclosure statements regarding the effective date of the plan.” In summary: All of this was disclosed to those who were expected to vote. It also contained language that addressed the anticipation of an objection by the DOJ.
  (11:06 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “in its clearest terms the disclosure statement contains the means by which the court should address” the issue of the DOJ objection and the Clayton Act.
  (11:07 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “While nobody is pleased by the actions the DOJ took on Tuesday, it’s important to note on the record that there was a very thoughtful construct put into the merger agreement and the POR we’re asking you to confirm today.” Butler is pleading for the judge to confirm the POR today despite objections by the att’y for the Clayton Act who requested more time.
  (11:10 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler’s position is that if the DOJ’s objection prevails, there will then be a different plan. But what we believe is best for the stakeholders is that this plan be approved today.
  (11:11 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney driving Butler’s point home regarding Aliota’s late objections in this case. http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/tag/joseph-m-alioto/
  (11:13 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney driving Butler’s point home regarding Alioto’s late objections in this case.
  (11:15 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Terry Maxon breaking it down for everyone: http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/
  (11:16 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Alioto attorney back at the mike arguing his rights to file this late in the game.
  (11:17 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Alioto’s att’y states that the premise of his objection is brought to light by the DOJ filing. Judge Lane and the att’y are going back and forth arguing whether the proceedings should be delayed at their request.
  (11:20 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane – “It’s a bit of a mess. Life is complicated.” Maybe not trying to be condescending but it got many giggles.
  (11:21 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Att’y for Alioto: “We’re asking the court deny confirmation or continue confirmation until the disposition of my action.”
  (11:22 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Alioto: “Plans as this seek a discharge, an injunction and a release well beyond normal debtor/creditor.” “In terms of the discharge, injunction and release – that fast machinery goes well beyond what a debtor/creditor would ask for. In focusing one of our key objections is for the court to carve out that against my clients.”
  (11:24 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Arguments between the judge and the attorney for Alioto continues. He’s a funny little fella.
  (11:27 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Airways attorney responding to Alioto att’y. “Mr. Alioto advised me that he was going to seek relief from the auto stay.” Then they decided to change course and not seek relief from that auto stay. “It seems to us in light of the obvious latches problem and the comments from the debtors and creditors’ committee about how the plan works, the solution should be not to allow this to cause a delay.”
  (11:30 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane suggested he’ll be needing a lunch break to sort this out.
  (11:33 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane – more than half of my job is to decide what the issue is before me prior to deciding on it.
  (11:34 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane breaking for lunch at 12:35 – remaining objection is the US Trustee’s. Back in court at 1:45.
  (11:35 AM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Court reporter just asked the conference call if they were still connected. Response from the conference directors “Yep we’re here. Up to 77 attorneys.” Just sayin’
  (12:52 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Court back in session. Judge Lane is asking if there are any other matters aside from the US Trustees’ objection re: BK fees and Horton’s $20 million.
  (12:54 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Att’y: “The value brought to the reorganization by Mr. Horton …” merits his $20 million.
  (1:03 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Att’y: Basically using the argument that since this compensation isn’t lining the pockets of senior management “at the expense of the creditors” since recovery under the POR (Plan of Reorganization) is 100 cents on the dollar, this $20 million makes sense.
  (1:05 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane trying to find a way to rule on the compensation under his purview as the bankruptcy judge in
  (1:06 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane: “there’s a quote from a case Judge Gerber from the Adelphia case that I’d like you to address. In his analysis… he talks about 503(b) you can satisfy 503(b) but that doesn’t provide that it’s the only way fees are provided by the estate…” Lots of legal references that lost me…
  (1:08 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney really earning his hourly wage trying to convince the judge he can rule and approve “the Chairman Letter” (aka Horton’s compensation)
  1:19 PM – 15 Aug 2013

 

• Retweet: ScottGordonNBC5 @ScottGordonNBC5
  Judge: “I’m a little uncomfortable relying on anything other than the agreement (about) what the payment is.” @NBCDFW
  (1:19 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney: describing Horton’s duties that he currently and will continue to perform and why he will be earning his compensation.
  (1:21 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• AA Attorney: Propping up Horton as the reason the Plan of Reorganization will realize the value it will because he recognized the merger as the best value for stockholders. I’m just typing what I hear.
  (1:25 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane and AA Attorney still going back and forth in effort to find a way to rule on Horton’s compensation aka the Chairman’s Letter.
  (1:27 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane “Would you like to address the other payments that are issued here?” AA Att’y: “Sure. The Trustee has objected to the payment of reasonable professional fees to the creditors and indentured trustees.”
  (1:35 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane wants to hear from Butler of the UCC now.
  (1:39 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler wants to address the Chairman’s agreement letter. This topic, he says, has been exhausted in this court over the last several months already. Won’t belabor them here. Talking about what was actually negotiated and that the number was a one size fits all. Said Horton did what he said what he would do and that Butler wants the court to have the truth before making a decision on this piece (Horton’s compensation). “We (the UCC) wanted one number to be out there. Pay 1/2 in cash, 1/2 in stock. Under reasonableness, your honor has to parse through whether this is a reasonable payment under” the BK code.
  (1:44 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Butler: “If you left this to the new Board to decide, they might ask if they were permitted to make this decision.”
  (1:46 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Shout out to @clairecmc @EdMarkey Thanks for tuning in to APFA’s Tweets
  (1:49 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Retweet: Holly Hegeman @PlaneBusiness
  @APFAunity is tweeting live from the American Airlines U.S. Bankruptcy hearing in New York. Doing a damn good job too!
  (1:56 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Jack Butler continuing his impassioned plea for the judge to make a decision “based on THIS plan before the court.” (re: Horton’s payment)
  (2:02 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane now hearing from att’y from Bank of New York Mellon re: airport bonds.
  (2:03 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• She strongly supports the payment of Mr. Horton’s compensation and the fees at question.
  (2:04 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Yet another attorney discussing position of these fees at the mike.
  (2:08 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• HP Attorney is also compelled to address the court regarding payment of these fees.
  (2:11 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Susan Golden, US Trustee up to the mike.
  (2:13 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Golden (US Trustee attorney) arguing that 1) approval of severance agreement for Horton doesn’t comply with a section of BK code, nor do 2) compensation of professional fees, and 3) non-committee indentured trustee fees. She is laying out her arguments against all three.
  (2:16 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Trustee’s att’y: Discussing Horton’s payment first. Her argument includes the position that there should not be a severance payment to an insider without certain conditions being met…
  (2:19 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Trustee: “I would like to remind the court that the duties of Mr. Horton (as previously laid out by her) are in fact his job as the CEO of a company in bankruptcy.”
  (2:22 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane is asking the US trustee att’y what her view of providing for compensation in this situation under the BK code.
  (2:23 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane appears to be trying to figure out what compensation the US Trustee would find appropriate in this case.
  (2:26 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Trustee responding to just how these items should be paid. “It should be reviewed under the bucket of 503(b) or (c). If not consistent it should not be allowed under 1129.a.4
  (2:29 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane: “We are clearly not going to resolve this issue in its entirety. But there is a benefit to resolve” as much of the issues before us today.
  (2:34 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane “surrenders his common sense to legal proceedings.” Regarding how to put this dispute behind us.
  (2:39 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US trustee att’y – now addressing committee fees.
  (2:42 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US Trustee taking her seat. Counsel for HP at the mike. He explains that the expenses incurred by HP detailed in Mr. Ross’ declaration are directly related to his work on the committee. No fees related to work for the actual client unrelated to the UCC are being submitted. Via Jack Butler – All members of the UCC confirm that such is the case as it relates to the expenses they are seeking reimbursement for. All are fees directly related to those incidental to the UCC.
  (2:47 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Mr. Butler is being asked to clarify the controversy here. The following items are covered relating to fees: normal out of pocket expenses plus fees for their professionals they retained individually as it relates to their seat on the committee. Every member seeking reimbursement retained separate counsel.
  (2:50 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• So the US Trustee objects to payment of the individual committee members’ professionals should not be reimbursed. They should make a motion of substantial contribution for reimbursement. Jack Butler is arguing this position with regard to each of the Creditors’ Committees’ professionals on the committee.
  (2:51 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Retweet: Jason Whitely @JasonWhitely
  FYI, when an attorney begins their remarks by saying “very briefly” you’d might as well sit down. It’s going to be a while.
  (2:52 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane asking if anyone else wishes to be heard on this topic. No one spoke. It’s a miracle.
  (2:53 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Taking a break for 15”. Back at 4:10 Eastern.
  (2:54 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• US trustee back up at the mike.
  (3:17 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• “Will reach out to them again in the coming days to see if we can work out an amicable resolution.” Sounds like some progress was made during the break.
  (3:18 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Attorney representing Alioto back up to the mike.
  (3:20 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• A little pissing contest about whether one attorney is agreeing with the other. Judge Lane pointed out that lawyers have a way of making the action of agreeing with each other sound hostile.
  (3:22 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Att’y for Alioto is requesting Hart Scott Rodino paperwork. Judge is reminding him that this is not the hearing to address that. What the Judge will want by the time we meet again in September is how certain claims should be handled in light of the DOJ’s case.
  (3:23 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane appears to be nearing a decision on something or other. I think.
  (3:24 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Judge Lane will be leaving hearing open on only the one issue of antitrust. Judge will not be making a ruling. The judge has closed the record except for the feasibility issue and whether it’s wise to enter a confirmation order given the uncertainty of the DOJ lawsuit. Briefs are due on the 23rd. Hearing on August 29th will be the day Judge Lane may decide whether or not to approve the Plan.
  (3:36 PM – 15 Aug 2013)

 

• Court adjourned til the 29th of August.
  (3:40 PM – 15 Aug 2013)