Rockie, I'm taking a more conservative view.
TPS wanted to do their own 30(b)(6) discovery -- that rule is a discovery / deposition of an 'organization' not of a person. Yes, the 'organization' provides one or more individuals, though.
This 30(b)(6) is a normal deposition prior to a confirmation hearing.
....Different in purpose and approach than, say, an adversarial style deposition of the SNH's, etc. (That was Rule 2004 depositions)
TPS came along and wanted to do their own 30(b)(6) as well.
Subsequently a few things have happened.
1) TPS got the SNH docs.
2) The EC held their 30(b)(6)
3) The court stated that she would be reticent to approve more depositions (eg, 30(b)(6) ones) **
4) Rosen stated he'd file to quash TPS's 30(b)(6) and with
#3, the court indicated it's support of such a motion. **
For me, it's more plausable that either/or/both/all
1) TPS got what they wanted to know from the doc turnover
2) TPS got what they wanted to know from the EC's 30(b)(6)
3) TPS knew this was a battle they were going to lose, so they agreed to the cancellation -- eg, Rosen would move to quash, TPS would respond, and it'd all not get heard in time for confirmation, etc anyway.
I honestly don't read this as 'wonderful' -- I read it as housekeeping.
And I certainly don't read this as TPS got 'bought off' or whatever.
But, for the record, TPS's are P's. And P/K's are pari-passu. So TPS=P and P=K as far as class goes.
1) The ESTATE cannot treat class members differently - the estate cannot do something for TPS and not do exactly the same thing for P/K's.
2) Only JPM or an outside source could 'buy off' TPS -- separate from providing for same treatment of P/K's -- and I don't believe that happened here, not at this time.
-----------------
**
2 ... ROSEN: We are struggling, however, with
3 the fact that another deposition, a 30(b)(6) deposition on
4 topics completely different than those that are being requested
5 by the equity committee in its 30(b)(6) deposition, and
6 documents that are --
7 THE COURT: I’m not going to prejudge it, but I assume
8 you’re going to file a motion to quash that?
[...]
11 THE COURT: I suggest you go ahead with the deposition
12 tomorrow, that the equity committee has served. I’ve already
13 stated I’m not inclined to let anybody else serve late
14 discovery.
15 MR. ROSEN: Then we will do that, Your Honor, we’ll
16 move to quash the other, thank you.
[...]
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64947248
Gruß
Dude44
Zurück
