rosen es un sinverguenza capaz de presentar un ds modificado donde los accionistas además de perder el valor sus acciones han de poner dinero para cubrir los gastos jurídicos de la montaña de abogados que chupan del bote - con este tiparraco se puede esperar lo peor
que nadie piense o tenga esperanzas de que Rosen presente un DS modificado en el que rasquemos algo los accinistas de preferentes y comunes.Ni en sueños podemos pensarlo.Este Rosen se nos esta tirando al cuello como un vampiro, Y NO NOS VA A DAR NADA POR LAS BUENAS, estoy seguro.
ni por las buenas NI POR LAS MALAS
I'll state what my expectation is.
We will not have the hearing on the Examiner Motion on July 8th.
Why? Because all the parties, Nelson (EC), Rosen (WMI) and THJMW herself alluded strongly to this fact at the last hearing on June 17th.
I was in court. And we've seen the partial transcripts here. Over and over, different parties complained about getting documents, and over and over THJMW said, paraphrasing, "Get what you can get, and come back on the 8th and I'll hear the complaints about what you are and are not getting."
It is my full expectation that the 8th will be arguments about document turnover. And if Rosen/WMI continues to (as I expect it will be) object to document turnover of certain categories of documents..
Rosen will argue that there are procedural and legal reasons that certain documents are or are not fair-game to hand over. And July 8th will be about those arguments.
As a results, "some" documents will be turned over, and "other" documents will not.
And THJMW will want the EC and other parties to review the documents handed over. Between the 8th and the next Omnibus on July 20th.
By the 20th, the EC will have had time to review what they do have, and where those documents allude to other documents, work product, etc that they DO NOT have.
This gives them the arguments necessary to properly argue for either the 2004, or an Examiner, or preferably both. And that argument would be heard at the NEXT scheduled Omnibus, on July 20th
That's my opinion on this matter. This is _NOT_ a delay, IMHO, this is a procedural matter.
Rosen/WMI must be given the chance to "do the right thing" (which we know they won't do), and the EC must argue for THJMW to order turning over certain documents, allowed by law, and this sets the stage for a future "2004" or "Examiner" ruling to get the rest of the documents.
And the timeline, as I laid out, is the most likely. IMHO.
no se quien es este buen señor pero ya empezamos con retrasos hace 2 dias el 8 era el dia d - ahora ya no - el dia 8 no obstante la jueza puede aprobar el ds y dejarnos en cuadro a todos los accionistas - ahora el dia d es el 20 y del 20 ya veremos - me parece mas fiables las opiniones de ten shin jan -
Yo me espero cualquier cosa menos la aprobación del DS. De eso si que estoy seguro.
Si hay retrasos mejor para nosotros Susman podrá probar la confabulación Rosen-FDIC-JPM mientras avanzamos en Examiner y Voto accionistas... la sorpresa será mayuscula si la Juez nombra el examiner finalmente. Eso lo esperan muy pocos.
Esta noche sabremos que prepara el nuevo POR.
Me parece un pacto para ver como de aquí a esa fcha arreglan el desaguisado,
pero podría equivocarme.
She said she wouldn't hear it on the 8th if he didn't have it submitted by the 1st. So, you're saying her words aren't "worth" anything, in other words, she's a liar.
I'm not going to get into all of the other nonsense about the SJ. We all know why she never ruled on the SJ. The debtor kept her from doing such with the settlement. Period. You either don't know or understand the role of a judge or ehh... whatever.
This is the same gibberish posted by Andiesun on yahoo...
I've taken issue with Walrath in the past. She blew my mind with the "investigated to death" statement, but it would appear she's now been forced to rethink that statement.
But all of this crying over the SJ delays that are in retrospect completely linked to Weil's complacency astounds me. If I sued you and the day of the hearing I waltzed in and told the courts "We've settled, nevermind..." how in the world is it the judge's fault?
She warned Weil not to try her patience... not your patience. The next hearing after she made that statement she was threatening Weil with an examiner again, which was what she ruled against the hearing prior. She them ALLOWED the EC to bring their examiner motion to appeal in the 3rd circuit (she could have denied this move) and instructed them to resubmit the motion with her.
Meanwhile because Weil pissed her off the DS and POR are in ice while this gets sorted out. With or without your understanding of the complexities at hand, this screw up didn't just reopen the door for the examiner motion and 2004 discovery. It bought us a months time to push for the shareholders's vote that Weil was doing their best to delay until AFTER confirmation when it wouldn't matter.
There is a much BIIIIIIGER picture here than you are seeing by focusing on the SJ.
I'm usually not as big of an ass when it comes to this stuff... but lately I just can't stomach a lot of the silly nitpicking over specks of dust that have become prevalent in all of this.
If she doesn't something whacked out I'm the first person to freak out. Right now, I'm as far from freaked out as one can be.
Think big picture...
Weil's screw up cost them at least a month... a month we used to get closer to a vote. A month we used to sort through the docs we've been given either to find them usable or to argue against their adequacy in court...
These delays, while the DS is on ice have been nothing short of a godsend.
I'm sorry if I've come across as a jerk, but seriously... THINK.