messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=1&frt=2Zitat patience36...:
There are many theories on 6/29 hearing. Most are negative (not surprisingly). I tend to agree with oilman that "… the agenda today was basically straighten up Aurelius only to make them a team player.” Here is why.
In my view, there is not much difference among four hedgies. By their own admission, AOC said the charges against them in motion to compel are about the same as those against Aurelius. It really doesn’t make much sense for the Judge to spare AOC while singling out Aurelius for further discovery, unless the Judge wants to put pressure on Aurelius to be cooperative.
It’s well known now that AOC were the SNHs negotiating with EC while Aurelius not.
This Aurelius party, who (1) refused to sit down with EC and was against settlement negotiations (by their own admission). I can now understand why EC spent unusually large amount of time researching their files (see my post Recent Susman Billing Statements, item
#2, or Susman March Billing Statement). The timeline goes like this: 2/11, Order of IT investigation; 2/25, submission of bulk of documents by SNHs; 3/20, EC received “settlement offer” (according to Billing statement). Then on 3/23 (post 3/21 hearing) and 3/25, Ard spent nearly 10 hours focusing on Aurelius files. It was clear that EC knew at that time the “offer” did not include Aurelius, and wanted to know more about the fund and see why it failed to come forward. Remember, Aurelius was the only SNH got deposed (on 5/5) when the settlement talks were still going on. It is even clearer now than before that that was designed to bring some pressure on Aurelius as well as searching for answers. (2) Aurelius is also the only SNHs that has made a dramatic U-turn to openly oppose the approval of GSA/POR6 recently. It seems Aurelius’ position is at odds with almost everyone else. It refused to sit down with and make concessions to EC. It opposes GSA/POR6 confirmation and put itself up against the interests of other SNHs and the debtors. It also demanded JPM for the full amount of accrued interests (on $4B deposits). Even though Aurelius’ sudden U-turn is good for us in some way (full payment of accrued interests and opposition to GSA/POR6), it pretty much isolated itself from all other major parties, especially if those players are still considering or conducting negotiations behind the closed door. As oilman said “the court probably has more knowledge about settlement negotiations and hold ups…” so she “fired a warning shot to Aurelius”.
After the Judge’s decision on Motion to Compel yesterday, I was focusing on the change of temper in the court room and the decision. An idea came across my mind that during the break that the Judge might have asked the hudgies, do you still want to work with EC on the settlement? 3 hedgies said yes but Aurelius no. Back to the room, 3 hedgies were calmer and EC turned softer. The Judge hammered out her decision. This scenario seemed too romantic to be believed. Even though it’s more likely the break is just the break, it’s still possible, at a critical moment, the fact that the Judge stopped the clock by itself could be a signal to parties to collect yourself or you may go to he!! (long delays). No matter what happened, the above analysis has some valid grounds. Of course, the analysis has holes in it too. One of them is, if Aurelius was the focus, why bother to bring others hedgies into the Compel Motion?
oilman’s posts:
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...tof=51&frt=2messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1----------------------------------
Zitat toingeens:
I thought Ilene said that no lawyers went into her chambers during the break.
---------
Zitat patience360...:
So the other possibility: "Even though it’s more likely the break is just the break, it’s still possible, at a critical moment, the fact that the Judge stopped the clock by itself could be a signal to parties to collect yourself or you may go to he!! (long delays). No matter what happened, the above analysis has some valid grounds."
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Alles nur meine pers. Meinung, kein Kauf- oder Verkaufs-Empfehlung!
Zurück
Weiter
Werbung
