investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66598074ZItat noneck:
Catz, so what kind of scenarios can we expect?...
If she denies POR6, a guess at to what happens to the share price? Up a little? Up a lot. Then back down?
Then it's on to POR7? What good is that doing to do if no one is willing to compromise? We're back to square one. I know the judge said she is well on her way to making a decision. Based on that, I assume she can say, forget POR7. I'll come up with my own plan. If either side wants to appeal, then fine, appeal, but my ruling is going to be final as far as my court is concerned. If this happens, an appeal is sure to happen. Which means, once again, we're back to square one.
Question: Are we ever going to make it past square one? I'll pay top dollar for a vowel! lol.
-----------
ZItat With Catz:
noneck - There's just too many moving parts available to the judge. A lot depends on how she feels about the GSA "now", whether she leaves it basically intact, or suggests mods to it, or flat out kills it.
There's options for whether the debtors will be told to file another plan, a trustee appointed, etc.
And with the hedge funds, whether IT was sufficiently shown, and if so, what is the in-bankruptcy penalty for that, and what might be moved to the litigation/liquidation trust to pursue post-confirmation.
Just too many moving parts. It's a combination of any of the above, and certainly even more options that I and/or others haven't contemplated.
As far as PPS affect, I'm a macro player here, so PPS doesn't directly matter to me -- I feel my investment is a long-term one here. I'm not looking to add more, nor sell what I have. And certainly not flip.
The "square one" problem is just that. We only now know how dangerously close we came to being killed off. It was a heck of a lot closer than we realized at the time.
Things are much better for us, but effectively it took all this time to get "here", and "here" is likely a fresh starting ground.
This is not an investment for the "quick" buck.
--------
ZItat noneck:
Thanks Catz. I too have wondered about the IT thing...
You're innocent until proven guilty. The DOJ would have to charge the hedge funds, etc., then take them to court and then prove the IT charge. In the judges ruling, I'm not sure if legally she can even take the IT accusations into consideration when making the ruling. After all, it's a bankruptcy court, not a criminal court. If she did take IT into account with her ruling, it seems to me she would by guilty of penalizing them before they had a chance to defend themselves in a criminal court of law. So even if she were 100% certain IT was committed, I don't think she can do anything about it as far as her ruling goes. She would be acting as judge, jury and executioner before they even had their day in court. I'm not sure what kind of power she has in this regards.
This has more twists and turns then a French Alps mountain road.
---------
Zitat WithCatz:
noneck - Actually no. Those are separate issues.
Ironically, I just had a post on GB about this.
~~~~~~~~~~
My understanding is that while certainly a "criminal" conviction -- if we still aren't out of bankruptcy -- would be a 'factual' thing to the bankruptcy case. But, IMHO, that's theoretical.
Such a criminal conviction would have to be completed -- perhaps even after appeals, and would take quite a bit of time -- well, as compared to bankruptcy court.
My understanding is, as Folse pointed out, the standards are different. "By a preponderance of the evidence (aka, more likely than not)" (paraphrasing) is the standard for a civil matter. Bankruptcy is a CIVIL matter.
Of course, the SNHs are arguing that the court should apply the criminal level -- "Beyond a reasonable doubt"
And, lastly, my understanding is that a Criminal conviction would be jail, fines, etc. But nothing that DIRECTLY would return monies to the estate -- the value to us would be satisfaction.
So, sequencing wise -- I expect us to have completed bankruptcy -- good or bad -- well before any criminal prosecution would be completed.
--------
Zitat noneck:
Catz, I agree with you on a couple of points...
My understanding is that while certainly a "criminal" conviction -- if we still aren't out of bankruptcy -- would be a 'factual' thing to the bankruptcy case. But, IMHO, that's theoretical".
"So, sequencing wise -- I expect us to have completed bankruptcy -- good or bad -- well before any criminal prosecution would be completed".
Yep,
#1 and
#2 tie right in together.
In regards to my other statement about the judges power, whether it's by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, that has to do with a civil and crimal court. This is a bankruptcy court. I don't see where she has any power whatsoever to factor in IT, when none of the parties who have been accused of IT have yet to be found legally guilty. To make a ruling in this case and state that IT was one of the factors would, in my opinion, not only lead to an immediate appeal, but could get the judge in a lot of hot water, i.e., who are you, Judge Walrath, to decide it's okay to factor in IT in making your ruling? None of the parties have yet to be formally charged with IT.
I'm glad I'm not a bankruptcy judge!
~~~~~~~~~~
Catz, you bring up a really great point. I never thought about that; her ruling not having a lot of prior case law to lean on regarding the commons. That could spell trouble from my pov.
IF she modifies POR6 to include commons and maybe a few bucks per share compensation (or whatever), she's going to have to find some kind of a precedent to base that particular part of her ruling on. If she can't, then she will be setting a precedent. That could get pretty dicey, because then she has to come up with a logical explanation as to why she thinks the commons should be included and receive some sort of compensation.
Okay, I admit it; can't wait for her ruling. This should be really fascinating.
I look at her job the same as a baseball umpire; neither have a homefield advantage.
-----------------
ZItat radiumsoup:
replace "IT" with "bad faith" and you have your answer.
--------
Zitat noneck:
radiumsoup, that would be a way around it. Leave out the IT completely and go with the bad faith angle.
ARE YOU READING THIS JUDGE WALRATH! lol.
-----------
Zitat WithCatz:
noneck -- radium's reply about replacing "IT" with "bad faith" is 1/2 of the answer.
The other answer that a finding of civil IT also can affect the "claims" filed by the SNHs. Eg, their claims also through, IT, become "bad faith" claims. As if they were claims against the estate by a bogus company that should never be paid.
And if it goes further, that the court believes the plan itself, and perhaps the GSA, was tainted by "IT" (aka, Bad Faith) then the plan cannot be approved, and perhaps also hits the GSA as well.
...Catz
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66607193ZItat With Catz:
Folse mentioned a newly-found case on 8/24
Folse, in his arguments at oral closing arguments, said there was a case that the EC had found since their written opinion.
He went on to say that since it was new he was reading the "citation" into the oral record.
I think this is the case:
SIMON DeBARTOLO GROUP, L.P.,
v.
RICHARD E. JACOBS GROUP, INC.,
scholar.google.com/...,352,380&as_ylo=1999&as_yhi=1999---------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Alles nur meine pers. Meinung, kein Kauf- oder Verkaufs-Empfehlung!
Zurück
