Episodes
296
Latest episode
Nov 2026
Language
EN
Listen to audio recordings of American court proceedings, brought to you in podcast form to make the proceeding recordings more accessible to people. ]]>
The podcast is in the style of a Deep Dive podcast with two people conversing. What is being discussed is the Evergrande liquidators' recent update of significant progress made in the last year or so recovering assets for distribution to creditors as well as some challenges.
This deep dive style episode is made with Google LLM tools and highlights U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Goldblatt's legal analysis balancing the statutory mandates of the Bankruptcy Code with federal sovereign immunity and contract law principles while presenting a respectful overview of the arguments from both Noble Supply and the United States Government. Link to the underlying November 2 ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the Noble Supply bankruptcy: https://veritaglobal.net/noble/document/2611369261102000000000012 Link to other court filings in the Noble Supply bankruptcy proceedings: https://veritaglobal.net/noble/document/list/6618
Listen to the first bankruptcy court hearing in the Getty Images chapter 11 proceedings in Delaware. For more information see https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/GettyImages/
Link to the filings on the docket of this adversary proceeding Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC v. Defense Logistics Agency https://veritaglobal.net/noble/document/list/6636 (case number 26-50885, pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware)
This podcast episode is made with Google tools based on two sources which are matters of public record, the arguments of counsel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit presented last year and the ensuing court filings on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, which include the petition filed on behalf of Sam Bankman-Fried by counsel seeking appellate review as well as amicus briefs, meaning briefs filed by friends of the court, ie organizations that wish to add information or context for the court such as discussion of due process rights. The government has not yet responded and has the opportunity to do so as part of the process. The appeal is separate from the pardon request reportedly made on behalf of SBF. I hope the parties decide to mediate and have before offered to work with them to try to facilitate a mutually agreeable resolution. I think a #FreeSBF could do a lot of good and would be willing to work together. Whether he should be allowed to be a licensed trader I leave to people who can better assess but I believe he has much to offer the world professionally in any event and that he is remorseful and has been since 2022 when he was reportedly duped by CZ leading to a run on FTX. No one can stop a run like that. I can understand why he hoped a chapter 11 bankruptcy would help stabilize the business and gave control to John Ray. And I can understand why he quickly regretted it and there was nothing he could do. I relate to being powerful and becoming powerless, and being powerless and becoming powerful. And I relate to trying to make peace no matter the power dynamic and asking yourself what you really value because power comes and goes, and some like the band U2 would tell you someone else is in control - God. I am intrigued SBF gave an interview to the Economist about effective altruism in the form of a podcast. I posted it to LinkedIn but I don't have a subscription so can't access the content. I thought it might be helpful to synthesize the arguments to the federal appellate courts in podcast form based on the arguments of counsel to the Court of Appeals and briefing to the Supreme Court. This podcast is with automation and not biased one way or the other though I disclose here in the accompanying notes that I am sympathetic to SBF as a person caught up in a legal storm and to his family and loved ones and the many affected by what happened including of course the investors. I am also sympathetic to the government, and have served as a civil servant before. And like Sam's mom I have served as a law clerk to federal judges, and I have faith in the system. Typically mediators are not sympathetic to parties they help reach agreement, but I think some sympathy and empathy can surely help parties figure out what to do together, with the alternative being third parties like courts deciding. I'd love to help and I wanted to shout out Drake and his song and video for his song DUST, mentioning corporate America hit survivors and Sam Bankman-Fried in that context. Drake might be a crypto investor as so many people are invested. And we have no clue who the investors are in FTX and the shadow banking around FTX because there is so much sealing of information on the FTX docket. On the other hand to get paid out on FTX claims customers need to give a lot of information by KYC as is normal in U.S. chapter 11 cases and is the sort of disclosure issue that makes some liquidity issues better handled offshore via schemes of arrangement and other popular restructuring practices. It would not have been possible for the lead bankruptcy counsel to lead an offshore case so they were for a chapter 11 process in the US they could lead, per some speculation in papers filed in the FTX bankruptcy. That makes some sense to me, or it seems plausible. I don't know if it's true. What duties do the lawyers owe the individuals relative to the duties they owe themselves and their families to deal with stress they were under to cooperate with the government to deal with the fall out of FTX only the lawyers and people they confided in know and I think that is probably privileged and confidential. I feel for the lawyers being one myself. But imagine the outcome if SBF hadn't been blamed by people he trusted when he was part of a bigger picture where many people were to blame. Imagine Paul Weiss hadn't conflicted off and had explained what happened and the firm's role. That's not what the appeal is about but surely the Supreme Court Justices, lawyers themselves by training, consider many factors including whether they believe harsh punishment of one person does anything good or bad for the integrity of the financial markets and what message it sends to the rest of us who are working class to see working class people punished harshly while the generationally wealthy seem at times entirely above the law.
This podcast episode focuses on the publicly available Evergrande liquidation website on the worldwide web that provides liquidator updates about the Evergrande liquidation proceedings and invites submission of information. The podcast is a second in a series about Chinese bonds that I am making with the help of Google automation. How is Google doing? Is it accurate? It is scanning large volumes of documents and can make errors but it seems to be doing a good job describing the scale of the liquidation and efforts by the liquidators to seek information and provide updates. The first podcast episode in this series focused on Chinese sovereign bonds and COVID-19 Hong Kong bonds. Evergrande's financing, including past issuances of bonds, is part of its complex financial situation. Please Donate via PayPal if you can to support my work podcasting.
This is my first attempt at a podcast built with Google tools. It's based on the argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held a few days ago that the court posted to its website. I suggested some areas of focus including providing a legal analysis and historical overview and the rest is the magic of Google. How did Google do generating this podcast, is it accurate? I think gravamen is pronounced grav-ah-men not grav-amen but I have heard Englishmen pronounce the American word clerk as clark so I don't know if the pronunciation reflects a different dialect than the American English to which I am accustomed. Here is the Google summary of the argument to the Court of Appeals: In Noble Capital v. PRC, the appellate court reviews a legal dispute concerning whether Noble Capital LLC can seek billions in monetary damages from the People's Republic of China for historical bond defaults. Noble Capital argues that the PRC breached a precedence covenant by selling newer bonds in the United States that superseded century-old predecessor bonds issued in the UK and US. Conversely, counsel for the PRC contends that the underlying lawsuit is fundamentally a time-barred non-payment claim that is entirely barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the applicable statute of limitations. The court examines whether the core injury stems from the historical non-payment or the recent U.S. bond sales, as well as whether equitable remedies like injunctions might apply to a uniquely recalcitrant debtor. Ultimately, the arguments center on jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and how to properly categorize the breach of contract theories regarding sovereign debt. —
This is a surprising case that was argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on October 13, 2026. Surprises include the allegation that JP Morgan Chase bank issued the bonds that gave rise to the underlying dispute with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and that the dispute was brought in the United States. There are also references in the argument to Chinese COVID-19 bonds/Hong Kong bonds and to historical bearer bonds, sometimes referred to during the hearing as antique bonds. Please Donate via PayPal to support my work podcasting hearings held by American courts to make the hearings more accessible.
Claim this listing to keep it up to date, reach guests who want to pitch you, and manage bookings with Guestify.
Claim this listing
Dr. Allen Lycka
Jessica Lorello and Maddison Donchez
Statera Asset Management
Tom Haugh
Brian Rose
