investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70512439
Zitat bond-007:
The term fair cash value means the fair or reasonable cash price for which the property can be sold in the market. It is the intrinsic worth of the stock, which is to be arrived at after an appraisal of all the elements of value.
Fair cash value is synonymous with actual cash value. [Adams v. United States Distributing Corp., 184 Va. 134 (Va. 1945)].
The actual cash value of property is the price which it will bring in a fair market, after fair and reasonable efforts have been made to find the purchaser who will give the highest price. The actual cash value then is the fair or reasonable cash price for which the property can be sold in the market. [Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 126 Ill. 329, 337 (Ill. 1888)].
Courtesy Of:
definitions.uslegal.com/f/fair-cash-value/
-----------
Zitat clawmann:
Whether a settlement agreement is "fair and reasonable" (the legal standard that must be met before a judge may approve the settlement agreement) is not the same as "fair cash value". They are different standards employed in different contexts
---------
Zitat bond-007:
You are wrong… the fair and reasonable recovery statement in this case is very similar to cash value definition of fair and reasonable in that the efforts made by the EC to find the actually worth of the assets or the lack thereof. That is what has held this up for three years, they can not come to and agreement on what this company is worth and/or if it has any assets hints why we have almost been canceled numorus times.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitat WithCatz:
bond, what you describe is what we would like to happen, not what is required to happen.
The debtors (by testimony) have chosen to represent the "pool of disputed assets" without itemizing them or valuing them individually vs. the JPM/FDIC claims, to arrive at a settlement.
That is, a 'fair and reasonable' legal approach.
The testimony specifically stated that they did not value each individual disputed asset, just that the holistic approach of 'this pool of disputed assets' vs. the claims.
We would LIKE for it to be done differently. It is not required.
...Catz
---------
Zitat bond-007:
Right but its up to the Judge to declare rather the settlement is Fair and Resonable and I believe this case is going to set precedent when she rules...
----------
Zitat WithCatz:
Correct. Just like the wide latitude given to a Debtor-in-possession to use "Business Judgement". Another phrase similar to/as "Fair and Reasonable" is what gives wide latitude to what falls under "Business Judgement".
Again, not deciding what we would like to happen, isn't necessarily against legal standards which are minimum.
----------
Zitat fsshon:
Yeah and these debtor's used sound so-called "business judgement" when they allowed post-bk creditors (SNH's) who were not a part of the the official creditors committee and subject to rules of membership to negotiate with JPM and FDIC in gifting away the assets of the estate, all so JPMC/FDIC-R would not prosecute their so-called 27B claims "each" in this court of law against the debtors.
Either JPM and FDIC had some serious dirt on WMI exceutives or these firms and their representaives made the decision to not piss off the alledged "financial terrorist" Jamie Dimon as recently released press reports dictate. In other words, they allowed regular creditors to negotiate a multi-billion dollar settlement with these two giants, because they alledgely (as filed in court documents) did not want to confront parties who were deemed to be bosses and not adversaries..Also allowing the trading of debtor securities on negotiated info.
Quinn was hired for this very reason (conflict of interest), but Quinn did not negotiate the global settlement, yet this Judge found this to be acceptable, because the SNH's alledgely benefited the estate because they negotiated a deal that paid off the creditors to the estate. WOW!
The precedent this so-called "fair and reasonable" GSA and "Business Judgement" ruling along with the SNH's being allowed to negotiate on behalf of the debtors whose job description says differently is not good for any creditor to a bankruptcy.
Caveat Empour: be careful what company you invest in, in the future. If a company has 2 straight quarters of losses on the books, do not invest in them, get out.. This is a very weak economy, the ability to make a buck is still there, but that old addage "invest in companies you want to hold for long-term" is out the window with this GSA ruling. The idea that a Judge finds a debtor exercised good business judgement when they did not do their job correctly but billed for it, is bad for business and investing in the future.
The ruling by the SCOTUS on Stern was handed down because the John Roberts court is aware of the 3rd's usurping of bankruptcy law. Look for Congress to keep pushing for the bill that makes Corporations file for BK in their own backyard and not in Delaware where they incorporated, this will take away power from the 3rd; where we have an inept system of US Trustee's and watchdogs. SCOTUS will quickly take other bankruptcy style jurisdictional appeals, so they can keep sending the message to Delaware.
I believe Judge Walrath is Honorable and did everything she could to make sure equity surivived the onslaught from the debtors. I also believe the BK system is broken and should once again be reformed. Judge shopping whould not be allowed, I believe the debtors hand-picked this judge because they felt they could get away with jettisoning equity, dumping creditors and gifting the rest of the carcass to JPM. They almost succeeded, yet they left equity alive with a funded litigation trust with the express written langauge of no releases in the case of fraud even for JPM and FDIC.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitat clawmann:
I'm sorry you don't seem to understand the point I made. But I can't think of a way to make it more comprehensible.
----------
Zitat bond-007:
I do understand... but there is the way things are and the way they ot to be. There is nothing about this case that is standard...
----------
Zitat fsshon:
Now Now simmer down now! All this judge needs is "fair and reasonable" on anything she wants to use it on. Many legal standards that were once straight lines, have been bent into "S" curves to satisfy the plan to get this corp out of BK as fast as possible.
That is what we are seeing. She will deal with the other legal problems after she gets this corp out of her courtroom. The system will (as it has already done) bog down all appealants into a legal morass of endless attorney billings and small offerings to entice all appealants to withdraw their appeals.
That is the future for all appealants in this bankruptcy case. Judge Sleet will not hear any appeal until confirmation is finished. Any appeal to him, will fall (as it has already done) on deaf ears.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Alles nur meine pers. Meinung, kein Kauf- oder Verkaufs-Empfehlung!
Zurück
Weiter
Werbung
