Zurück
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1
ZItat fl0und3rz:
Beautiful!
151. While in possession of the waterfall matrix provided on March 22, Appaloosa engaged in WMI securities trades on March 29 and March 30; Centerbridge engaged in trading on multiple dates from March 29 through May 15; Aurelius was trading on multiple dates from April 7 through May 7; and Owl Creek was trading on multiple dates from March 29 through April 21. (Tr. 7/20 at 156; AOC 54; AU 8; EC 131.)
202. In retrospect, and in light of the evidence that has surfaced since the December 2010 plan confirmation hearing, it is now apparent that the Debtors’ efforts to investigate and potentially litigate Business Tort Claims against JPMC were simply window-dressing, perhaps intended to keep just enough heat on JPMC to help push the SNH-directed settlement process to consummation sooner rather than later, but not more than that. We now know that while the Debtors were in this Court in January 2010 arguing for additional investigative authority under Rule 2004, they had already transmitted to JPMC a detailed draft settlement agreement, having reached agreements in principle on the resolution of virtually all major issues – the Disputed Accounts, the Tax Refunds, the ownership of the TPS and the Goodwill Litigation, and so on. This Court did not know about those agreements, nor did the public, but the SNHs did.
203. No one involved in the process was looking out for the interests of shareholders or genuinely attempting to maximize the value of the estates for the benefit of all parties. To the contrary, by January 2010, equity was viewed by the Debtors as a nuisance at best and at worst as a threat to accomplishing the deal that they and the SNHs were on the verge of achieving. And so, while representing to this Court in January 2010 that they were guardians of the interests of all, the Debtors sought to disband the Equity Committee – with full knowledge that the deal they were close to achieving would provide nothing to equity.
204. The Debtors’ transparent hostility to shareholders has been revealed over and over again in this case, while their allegiance to the interests of the SNHs has just as clearly been demonstrated repeatedly – to the point of persisting, until this Court finally ruled otherwise, in seeking payment of their attorneys fees and legally unsupportable releases in their favor as components of the Plan.
205. The gross imbalance in the Debtors’ treatment of the SNHs and of equity could hardly be more clear, or more unjustifiable. In a nutshell, the Plan is the product of a deeply flawed process, and the Debtors have failed to carry their burden of proving that it has been submitted in good faith.
ZItatende
MfG.L:)
ZItat fl0und3rz:
Beautiful!
151. While in possession of the waterfall matrix provided on March 22, Appaloosa engaged in WMI securities trades on March 29 and March 30; Centerbridge engaged in trading on multiple dates from March 29 through May 15; Aurelius was trading on multiple dates from April 7 through May 7; and Owl Creek was trading on multiple dates from March 29 through April 21. (Tr. 7/20 at 156; AOC 54; AU 8; EC 131.)
202. In retrospect, and in light of the evidence that has surfaced since the December 2010 plan confirmation hearing, it is now apparent that the Debtors’ efforts to investigate and potentially litigate Business Tort Claims against JPMC were simply window-dressing, perhaps intended to keep just enough heat on JPMC to help push the SNH-directed settlement process to consummation sooner rather than later, but not more than that. We now know that while the Debtors were in this Court in January 2010 arguing for additional investigative authority under Rule 2004, they had already transmitted to JPMC a detailed draft settlement agreement, having reached agreements in principle on the resolution of virtually all major issues – the Disputed Accounts, the Tax Refunds, the ownership of the TPS and the Goodwill Litigation, and so on. This Court did not know about those agreements, nor did the public, but the SNHs did.
203. No one involved in the process was looking out for the interests of shareholders or genuinely attempting to maximize the value of the estates for the benefit of all parties. To the contrary, by January 2010, equity was viewed by the Debtors as a nuisance at best and at worst as a threat to accomplishing the deal that they and the SNHs were on the verge of achieving. And so, while representing to this Court in January 2010 that they were guardians of the interests of all, the Debtors sought to disband the Equity Committee – with full knowledge that the deal they were close to achieving would provide nothing to equity.
204. The Debtors’ transparent hostility to shareholders has been revealed over and over again in this case, while their allegiance to the interests of the SNHs has just as clearly been demonstrated repeatedly – to the point of persisting, until this Court finally ruled otherwise, in seeking payment of their attorneys fees and legally unsupportable releases in their favor as components of the Plan.
205. The gross imbalance in the Debtors’ treatment of the SNHs and of equity could hardly be more clear, or more unjustifiable. In a nutshell, the Plan is the product of a deeply flawed process, and the Debtors have failed to carry their burden of proving that it has been submitted in good faith.
ZItatende
MfG.L:)
Alles nur meine pers. Meinung, kein Kauf- oder Verkaufs-Empfehlung!
