Question re: PJS valuation that is to be "exchanged" with Rosen today:

I think it's safe to assume that the numbers in EC's confirmation hearing closing arguments came from PJS. On slides 20 and 26, WMMRC was valued at $5.5B, based on the NOL's at that time.
http://ghostofwamu.com/documents/WaMu_Closing_Equity_Committe.pdf

I know that when the case pushed into 2011, some changes in the way NOL's are valued took place, as well as an IRS determination of WMB's stock loss now being considered an ordinary loss, etc. These issues are a bit muddy in my mind - and perhaps the mind of others here, as well.

Does anyone have a good grasp of what the current NOL picture might look like, i.e., what might be the valuation of WMMRC that PJS is handing to Rosen? Other than NOLs, what else might be included in the PJS valuation? Total value of WMMRC?

Thanks.

-Jack

Besides the IT, isn't that what this case is all about at this point - the difference between the Blackstone and PJS valuations?

Would love to get your read on this "exchange" that is to take place today...

William,

Can SG request an extension of the May 13 deadline for objections, under the premise that the postponed (and any yet to be postponed) depos did not afford them enough time? This, in turn, would trigger a possible postponement of the the confirmation hearing, would it not?

-Jack

Good points, William. Logically, much of what you wrote points towards a settlement... some postulate the SNH's won't dare be depositioned for risk of self-incriminating criminal testimony. We'll know in the next couple of weeks how that plays out.

SG's "failure" to object to the DS (or refusal to object, as the case may be) seems out of character, as does his failure to object to Appaloosa's harassment of Thoma, as does the lack of voting direction from his office. Why would an esteemed legal firm seemingly give up the ghost now, in our final hours? Either Susman doesn't give a rat's ass about his reputation in the legal community, or you are spot on and something big may be brewing.

I sure hope it's the latter.

-Jack

I'm no SG apologist, by any means... but in all fairness, Nelson (and TPS) were dead-on with their Spansion arguments in the confirmation hearing. There was absolutely no analysis done by the debtors on the likelihood of success on the claims.

Walrath dropped the ball on that one - not Susman.

-Jack

Thanks again, William. All very good points which would seem to point towards possible settlement... though we've been disappointed so many times in the past that I'm leery of getting my hopes up.

Fingers crossed...

Thank you William. While I agree that "something" appears to possibly be taking place behind the scenes, even you have to admit that that is speculation. We are trying to read tea leaves and decipher - based on SG's reputation, Rosen's history, the hedgies desire to avoid jail, Walrath's disposition, etc. - what might be happening.

But we really don't know.

If our collective speculation is off, we have the appeal to fall back on. THAT is not speculation - it is real. And it ultimately may come down to that.

That is why I ask about the status of the appeal - in case nothing else materializes.

Thanks.

Jack

"Hopefully, the one month delay in the confirmation hearing helps the ec push through the appeal."

Does anyone have an update on the EC's appeal? Do we know if it will be heard before the confirmation hearing?

Thanks.

-Jack

William: I very much value your posts and your analysis of issues.

I agree with you re: NOL's being a major factor still in play, and the lifeblood of equity.

I think Nate Thoma's allegations forced Walrath to investigate the IT issue. If the hedgies submit proof of the "ethical wall" that they had in place and the EC can't prove that is was breached, I think she'll do what she's done in the past - claim that she ruled according to the law and sweep it under the rug.

Is this why Susman didn't bring it up initially? Did they know that breaching "ethical walls" is relatively difficult to prove, and thus passed on it as something to investigate until Nate brought it up and forced their hand?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But if the hedgies are deposed, I think it's safe to say they are confident that the wall they have in place will suffice with the judge.

I think NOL's is where realistic hope lies. It was rightfully the focus of the EC's objection to the DS.

GLTA.

-Jack

I wasn't aware of "ethical walls" until I saw it listed in the EC's depo instructions of Owl Creek that came out last week. That's why NOW.

It's not for me to say it's reasonable or not. I'm pointing out that it is potentially problematic, and may result in the IT accusations amounting to nothing for equity.

Believe me, I want to be wrong. But, in case you hadn't noticed, the market thinks otherwise, since the share prices continue to drift.

William: this is what the SEC requires to prove an ethical wall:

"In that report, the SEC identified the “necessary elements” of an adequate ethical wall: “These minimum elements include review of employee and proprietary trading, memorialization and documentation of firm procedures, substantive supervision of interdepartmental communication by the firm’s compliance department, and procedures concerning proprietary trading when the firm is in possession of material, nonpublic information.”

www.jonesday.com/newsknowledge/publicationdetail.aspx?publication=3839

The bar to prove an ethical wall is low, IMO, based on what's written above. I think the hedgies will produce the documentation, procedures, and proof of supervision as evidence that there was separation between the trading desk and those in possession of material nonpublic info. The EC will need to prove otherwise. No easy task.

If things were as straightforward as looking at what parties were at the settlement table and their trades, we would have seen the SP's of preferreds, at very least, move on the expectation that they are significantly in the money once FJR is applied. No such move has taken place.

I pray the EC can overcome the "ethical wall" claims and prove what we all know to be true.

-Jack

P.S. Sent this to you accidnentally as a Private Reply, as well.

William: I do not believe FJR for the hedgies is a foregone conclusion. Per my earlier post, I think there's a very real chance that Walrath will buy the argument from the hedgies that an "ethical wall" was in place and that no trading was done on non-public info. You and I and everyone here knows differently... but the EC will have to prove it. Not exactly a done deal - especially with this judge and her history of taking the word of everyone outside of equity.

I also think that Rosen is going full bore with his plan to kill equity and wrap this up in June. I do not think we'll see a settlement. I'd like to believe otherwise, but speculation on settlement has been thrown around on the boards for months - after the Examiner was appointed, while he was doing his investigation, when he asked for more time, before the POR hearing, while waiting for Walrath's decision, ect. Yet here we are.

I believe this will all come down to valuation - Rosen vs. PJS. Willingham and PJS went down this same road in Mirant, and were successful. I'm sure they are prepared to do it again.

All IMO.

-Jack

Remember JMW's "the debtors are walking a fine line" with regards to analysis of the likelihood of success on the claims? That was our "tip" to how she was thinking... Nelson further nailed it with his Spansion arguments... the issue is/was immense... and, ultimately, JMW's decision was horrendous, and contrary to her earlier comments. She essentially said "if they said they did the analysis, that's good enough for me." Guess, what, Mary - it's not. Hence, EC's appeal (which is excellent, by the way.)

Point is, just because she "posits" a $10B valuation, doesn't mean she's siding with equity, etc.

EC's work is not done. We need a valuation fight, and for PJS to do what they did in Mirant. Otherwise, Mary is apt to approve, sweep everything under the rug, and let an appeals court deal with it, IMO.

I pray like hell that's not the case.

-Jack

(By the way, big props to you, William, along with Don, Catz, and everyone else who's contributed so much to these boards. I'm not a basher - just fed up with a weak judge and her horrible decisions.)

I hope you're right, Don... but I no longer have the same view of JMW that you do.

Yes, it can be said she's done some pro-equity things: formation of EC, examiner, "denial" of plan confirmation, allowance of investigation into insider trading, etc... but she's also done some immensely harmful things to equity: most recently, inserting herself as an expert witness in the POR confirmation and stating that ruling against JPM would cause their financial destruction. If I hadn't lost so much money here, I might actually be able to laugh at those remarks.

Such remarkably horrid remarks in a landmark case are why I no longer accord her the status of "The Honorable" Judge... nothing honorable about those egregious decisions.

I admire your trust and faith... but we've been beat down by the woman so much that I need her to demonstrate some spine before my hope is restored. She could do a lot in that regard with her decision on the hedgies, and a push for valuation, etc...

Time will tell. Unfortunately, when it comes to decisions that matter, JMW's history is NOT on our side.

-Jack

"Ethical wall". That's what they'll claim, Catz. And it'll be up to the EC to prove that such a wall either didn't exist, or wasn't working as it should have.

We saw JMW agree with the debtors that an analysis of the likelihood of success on the claims had been performed (which it hadn't, per the EC's argument and subsequent appeal).

My fear - and it's based on JMW's behavior above - is that she'll accept that the hedgies had an "ethical wall" in place, that the wall was not breached, and their claims should stand and they should receive contract rate.

I pray like hell the judge grows a backbone... but I'm not holding my breath.

That said, I'm not selling a share. In it to the end, crossing fingers with the rest of you fine people.

GLTA.

Jack

That sounds great... but it is predicated on this: "there is a mandatory mediation process before anyone appeals a judge's ruling."

I'm not a legal eagle either... does anyone know that the above statement is true? If so, your analysis would seem very plausible.

Thanks.

Jack

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110203000000000006.pdf

SA: I concur with your assessment. I just hope the SNH's complied with discovery requests. If so, and their valuation numbers are what we think they might be, we should see some fireworks in the near future.

By the way, your last two posts were excellent. Wouldn't mind if you posted more of your thoughts, more often.

-Jack

William, I, like many others, put NJ on "ignore" a long time ago. I believe you'd be well-served by doing the same.

Please continue to post. Your contributions are much appreciated.

-Jack

One month. Objections to the POR are due May 13, which means we are one month away, at most, from seeing what SG has up its sleeve and what it plans to argue at confirmation. Proper valuation of NOLs and reorganized WMI, ramifications of Insider Trading, etc.

Personally, I can't wait to see SG's objection.

There's been much talk of FJR being applied if the SN's are found to have engaged in insider trading, but after reading the PDF that LargeGreen posted, I believe SG will fight like hell for disallowance of all their claims - and I believe they have a good chance of winning on that. (Assuming Walrath has the courage to rule accordingly.)

GLTA

Jack

Steve,

Thank you for your thoughts. I have always appreciated your comments on this case, you know the issues and seem grounded in reality. (I put that 2XValue guy on ignore a long time ago.)

I was surprised by your Willingham comment - I thought perhaps I missed something. My gut tells me that Willingham, by virtue of his accounting background and his prior success with collaborating with PJS, is ready to unleash the wrath of God in a valuation hearing. That's what Rosen is afraid of and why he wants to depose PJS, I believe.

I posted much about the judge needing evidence of likelihood of success on the claims, per advice of an attorney friend of mine who is also heavily invested in both P's and U's. The judge completely failed in this regard on the last POR; she inserted herself inappropriately as an expert witness. She is almost begging to be overturned on appeal. In fact, her error is so egregious, and so out of line for a judge with her expertise and stature, one can't help but wonder if some nefarious motivation might have been behind it.

SG is a great firm, but I, like many, am frustrated that many of the advances made in this case come from individual shareholders, like Nate Thoma, and not from SG. Nate was up the the very end of the confirmation hearing - we were that close to not getting the insider trading piece of this exposed.

Some have opined that JWM's first POR decision was to protect JPM and FDIC... She latched on to the IT allegations, so may be less inclined to protect the hedge funds that comprise the Settlement Noteholders. To that extent, my hope is that she disallows all of their claims, and doesn't just invoke FJR. That would help P's immensely.

She seems to be pushing for valuation - we might finally get to see the numbers that PJS has been working on for two years. Rosen is a good attorney, but for the life of me I can't see how he's going to get his valuation approved with the huge NOL's that exist and have yet to be valued (or are valued incorrectly).

Just some thoughts on a Sunday morning...

GLTA.

Jack

I apologize if I missed something, but what evidence is there that Willingham is "drawing this out"?

There's been much talk of FJR, but what is the likelihood that Walrath will disallow SN claims if insider trading is proven? It seems their actions are egregious enough to warrant disallowance...

Any and all thoughts are appreciated.

-Jack

There's been much talk of FJR, but what is the likelihood that Walrath will disallow SN claims if insider trading is proven? It seems their actions are egregious enough to warrant disallowance...

Any and all thoughts are appreciated.

-Jack

Biovest is Awarded Orphan Drug Status for its Personalized Cancer Vaccine for the Treatment of Mantle Cell Lymphoma in European Union

TAMPA, Fla. & MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Biovest International, Inc. (OTCQB: “BVTI”) today announced that BiovaxID®, its personalized cancer vaccine, has been designated as an “Orphan Medicinal Product” by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma, which is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This milestone advances Biovest’s plans to develop BiovaxID for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma in addition to the Company’s ongoing advancement of BiovaxID for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. With today’s announcement, BiovaxID has now been successful in obtaining Orphan Drug designation for follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma in the both the U.S. and EU.

Samuel S. Duffey, Biovest’s President, stated, “Achieving our goal of Orphan Drug designation for mantle cell lymphoma from the EMA is another significant milestone in the development of BiovaxID. Orphan designation in both the U.S. and EU for follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma combined with our significant body of evidence supporting safety and efficacy provided by two Phase II clinical trials and one Phase III clinical trial in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma will form the basis of anticipated discussions with U.S. and European regulatory agencies regarding the next steps to seek marketing approvals for BiovaxID.”

According to Dr. Carlos F. Santos, Biovest’s Senior Vice President, Product Development & Regulatory Affairs, “We believe mantle cell lymphoma is an ideal indication for BiovaxID to potentially provide significant clinical benefit for patients. Our clinical data, as reported last December at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting, suggests that BiovaxID-treated patients who express a certain type of protein isotype called IgM on their lymphoma cells are much more likely to remain cancer-free longer after achieving a remission following induction therapy. Virtually all mantle cell lymphoma patients express this IgM isotype, so we look forward to advancing BiovaxID for the treatment of this aggressive blood cancer.”

With EMA Orphan Drug status, Biovest will have a 10-year period of market exclusivity for BiovaxID upon approval for mantle cell lymphoma and/or follicular lymphoma in the EU, thereby offering competitive protection from similar drugs of the same class. EMA Orphan Drug status also provides Biovest with: the opportunity to seek scientific advice and regulatory assistance from the EMA during the product development phase; direct access to centralized marketing authorization; and certain financial incentives. Orphan Drug status was established by the EMA for companies developing product candidates intended for the treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU.

Mantle cell lymphoma makes up approximately 6% of all newly diagnosed cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with approximately 4,400 patients per year diagnosed in the EU with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 50% for advanced stage disease. Mantle cell lymphoma has the worst prognosis of any B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma subtype because it carries the unfavorable characteristics of both indolent and aggressive lymphomas. Mantle cell lymphoma generally behaves like an aggressive lymphoma, yet frequently does not respond to chemotherapy as well as other aggressive lymphomas. Chemotherapy does not generally produce “cures” or durable remissions in patients suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, therefore, there is an urgent unmet need for effective front-line and consolidation therapies.

About BiovaxID®

BiovaxID is a personalized cancer vaccine developed in collaboration with the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI). Each patient’s vaccine is individually manufactured from a tissue biopsy obtained from the patient’s own tumor. This approach is used because there is a unique protein called an “idiotype” expressed exclusively on the cancerous B-cells. When a full, high-fidelity copy of the idiotype is linked to a foreign protein (KLH), and administered with an immune-enhancing agent (GM-CSF), the resulting vaccine can mount a highly-specific anti-lymphoma attack that “trains” the body’s own immune system to solely recognize the idiotype as a “foreign invader”; stimulating and recruiting the patient’s own immune system to destroy micro-pockets of cancer cells that may remain following chemotherapy and potentially target and destroy newly arising lymphoma cells, thus delaying or preventing cancer recurrence. Through its unique mode of action, and exemplary safety record, BiovaxID represents a new therapeutic approach to treating follicular lymphoma.

BiovaxID has completed a randomized, multi-center, double-blind, controlled Phase III clinical trial. Patients with follicular lymphoma in first remission were treated with BiovaxID or a control vaccine. In the study, patients who received BiovaxID demonstrated an average of 13.6 months of additional disease-free survival (duration of remission) compared to patients who received a non-specific control vaccine. BiovaxID represents the only lymphoma vaccine, and the second cancer vaccine overall, to demonstrate positive clinical benefit in a completed Phase III clinical trial.

About Biovest International, Inc.

Biovest International, Inc. is an emerging leader in the field of active personalized immunotherapies. In collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, Biovest has developed a patient-specific, cancer vaccine, BiovaxID®, with three clinical trials completed, including a Phase III study, demonstrating evidence of safety and efficacy for the treatment of indolent follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida with its bio-manufacturing facility based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Biovest is publicly-traded on the OTCQB™ Market with the stock-ticker symbol “BVTI”, and is a majority-owned subsidiary of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCQB: “ABPI”).

For further information, please visit: http://www.biovest.com

Forward-Looking Statements:

Statements in this release that are not strictly historical in nature constitute "forward-looking statements." Such statements include, but are not limited to statements about BiovaxID®, AutovaxID™, events occurring after dates hereof, and any other statements relating to products, product candidates, product development programs, the FDA or clinical study process including the commencement, process, or completion of clinical trials or the regulatory process. Such statements may include, without limitation, statements with respect to the Company's plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, and other statements identified by words such as "may," "could," "would," "should," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "intends," "plans," or similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause the actual results of Biovest to be materially different from historical results or from any results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties related to the progress, timing, cost, and results of clinical trials and product development programs; difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval for product candidates; competition from other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies; and the additional risks discussed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, and Biovest undertakes no obligation to revise or update this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof. The product names used in this statement are for identification purposes only. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.


Contacts

Biovest International, Inc.
Douglas Calder, 813-864-2558
Vice President, Strategic Planning & Capital Markets
dwcalder@biovest.com


Source: Biovest International, Inc.


View this news release online at:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110307006349/en

Thanks, Sly. Knowing POS JMW, she'll only disallow claims on the securities traded illegally (assuming she disallows any.)

My hope is that she plays hardball and really sticks it to the hedgies if insider trading is proven. Just awarding FJR instead of contract rate would be WEAK. But then again, we are talking about JMW...

-Jack

Quick question: what is the amount of the Settlement Noteholders claims? Anyone think we'll see JMW disallow their claims?

Thanks.

Jack

Questions regarding the SN insider trading issue:

When is the final date for discovery? I believe it is coming up soon?...

When might we hear the results? The next court date? In an order from the judge prior?

I'm sorry if this has been answered already - my search of posts for info was unsuccessful.

Thanks everyone.

Jack

"It generally takes two-and-a-half years for a new branch to break even and three to five years for a new branch to pay back what it cost to open it." Charlie Scharf, the chief executive of the New York company's retail financial services, said Tuesday.

Assuming you build the branch, Charlie... It starts paying immediately when you steal it.

MF'er.

J

Biovest to Exhibit at World Money Show Investor Conference

TAMPA, Fla. & MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Biovest International, Inc. (OTCQB: BVTI), a majority-owned subsidiary of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCQB: ABPI), today announced that Biovest is scheduled to exhibit at the World Money Show on February 9th–12th, 2011, at the Gaylord Palms Hotel & Convention Center in Orlando, Florida.

Event: Biovest Exhibiting at Booth #736 at the World Money Show Orlando

When: February 9th-12th, 2011

Place: Gaylord Palms Hotel & Convention Center, Orlando, Florida

Free Registration: Please visit http://www.MoneyShow.com

To meet with Biovest at this event, please contact Douglas Calder at 813-507-2633 or dwcalder@biovest.com.

Biovest also announced that it will launch the Company’s new website tomorrow and is preparing to issue a new special report to stockholders.

About Biovest International, Inc.

Biovest International, Inc. is an emerging leader in the field of active personalized immunotherapies. In collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, Biovest has developed a patient-specific, cancer vaccine, BiovaxID®, with three clinical trials completed, including a Phase III study, demonstrating evidence of safety and efficacy for the treatment of indolent follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida with its bio-manufacturing facility based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Biovest is publicly-traded on the OTCQB™ Market with the stock-ticker symbol “BVTI”, and is a majority-owned subsidiary of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCQB: “ABPI”).

For further information, please visit: http://www.biovest.com

Special Note: Biovest’s new website will launch on February 10th, 2011.

Forward-Looking Statements:

Statements in this release that are not strictly historical in nature constitute "forward-looking statements." Such statements include, but are not limited to statements about BiovaxID®, AutovaxID™, events occurring after dates hereof, and any other statements relating to products, product candidates, product development programs, the FDA or clinical study process including the commencement, process, or completion of clinical trials or the regulatory process. Such statements may include, without limitation, statements with respect to the Company's plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, and other statements identified by words such as "may," "could," "would," "should," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "intends," "plans," or similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause the actual results of Biovest to be materially different from historical results or from any results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties related to the progress, timing, cost, and results of clinical trials and product development programs; difficulties or delays in obtaining regulatory approval for product candidates; competition from other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies; and the additional risks discussed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement, and Biovest undertakes no obligation to revise or update this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof. The product names used in this statement are for identification purposes only. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.


Contacts

Biovest International, Inc.
Douglas W. Calder, 813-864-2558
Vice President, Strategic Planning & Capital Markets
dwcalder@biovest.com


Source: Biovest International, Inc.


View this news release online at:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110209006501/en

I concur - great having Catz contribute to these boards. Many thanks.

Bravo, warcton. This is the issue that matters. We need this addressed..

She overstepped her bounds. If she wants to be recused from the case, let's hope she gets her wish.

In my earlier messages, I assigned a 20% chance that Walrath would approve the POR. (While she didn't outright approve it, she said it's approveable pending modifications.) I said the only way that would happen were if she were incompetent or corrupt - I still don't know which it is (perhaps both?)

So glad to see the EC come out swinging on the issue that the debtors provided no analysis of the likelihood of success of the claims. The bid-rigging and failure to get liquidation value claims are MASSIVE. To blow those off the way she did is reprehensible, and (should be) rectified by an appellate court.

Today's hearing will be interesting.

-Jack

Bravo, tdmd. I agree.

This filing by the EC is excellent. The judge was derelict in her duties, and matters may need to be heard by a higher court.

Any thoughts here as to why the debtors are deposing Killinger tomorrow?

Thanks in advance.

Jack

With all due respect, I believe the Hoffman motion and these shareholder letters are interesting, but ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of the case.

What matters is: how badly to JPM and FDIC (and their directors, attorneys, officers, etc) want/need releases from equity. Do they fear us taking them to court for a MASSIVE claim like bid-rigging, which could potentially put them behind bars?

If the answer is yes, they will pay for our releases and this case will be over.

I suggest we put energy into getting any evidence related to antitrust and bid-rigging to Nelson immediately. We need all the leverage we can get to compel JPM and FDIC to open their wallets.

All IMO.

-Jack

Walrath is a fool.

JP Morgan bankers to share $10bn bonus pot after profits leap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/14/jp-morgan-bankers-share-10bn

BVTI's presentation at the OneMedForum:

http://secfilings.com/searchresultswide.aspx?link=2&filingid=7654462

Sheila cares. Jamie cares. Bid-rigging is a civil, and potentially criminal, offense.

Yes, releases matter.