messages.finance.yahoo.com/...39631&tof=2&frt=2#839631
I totally agree investorwad..... and add to that when THJMW posed the question to Parker Folse:
Page 233/and 234 Transcript...
"THE COURT: I have one question; I think your motion
21 and proposed complaint only mentions two settlement
22 noteholders. Is your request to be able to pursue all four or
23 only those two?
24 MR. FOLSE: We do request -- we put in there at the
25 time it was filed, I want -- this requires a little explanation
1 because people have tried to take advantage of it, to suggest
2 that that means we do not believe that either Owl Creek or
3 Appaloosa engaged in insider trading, that's not true; we've
4 been very clear both at the hearing and in our briefing that
5 all four of them were in possession of material nonpublic
6 information, that all four of them traded in differing amounts
7 and at differing times, but traded while in possession of that
8 information. We have argued that as a basis for rejecting plan
9 confirmation.
10 When we filed the motion"
Now WHY would the court even ask this questions if not to clarify the claim/allegations by EC against the HFs??? and as Parker also mentioned to the court that he was not only asking for "disallowance" but that the plan be unconfirmable..... In other words,, stating to the court....Don't just punish the SNHs/HFs and try to confirm the plan.....BUT EC's position is to punish the SNHs/HFs AS WELL AS Deny the confirmation of debtors plan for bad faith negotiations, failing of fiduciary responsibility and hinting of the faulty F&R of the settlement agreement as a result etc....And to allow EC to proceed with further investigation and pursue claims as debtors/and their counsel/liquidating trust cannot be trusted....
Page 229
"We do believe that the plan should not be confirmed
18 under these circumstances. It is not enough to allow us to go
19 forward with the claim for equitable disallowance; we do want
20 the authority to do that of course, but we believe what has
21 happened in this process renders the plan unconfirmable as
22 well. It's no answer to say well, the result of this process,
23 the settlement agreement, was found fair and reasonable by the
24 Court."
Page 232 & 233
"And I hope the Court
22 doesn't take that suggestion seriously. The evidence shows
23 that the debtors were complicit in permitting the settlement
24 noteholders to engage in the conduct that's the focus of the
25 equitable disallowance claim, they facilitated it, they have
1 repeatedly characterized the claims of insider trading as
2 frivolous, meritless and ludicrous. They cannot be trusted to
3 pursue or settle those claims as estate fiduciaries, and as for
4 the liquidating trust as it's currently constituted, the
5 trustee is the same Mr. Kosturos who was an unabashed advocate
6 for the positions of the settlement noteholders in his
7 testimony at the July hearing;"
good luck WaMuers..
Zurück
