Yo también lo veo como Vene, esto para Rosen ya es o doble o nada. Se la juega porque supongo que entiende que no le queda otra y eso para nosotros es bueno. No digo que la jueza no pueda dar la razón a Rosen pero si que creo que cada vez esta más cogido con pinzas.
Yo espero para el lunes o martes una rápida moción por parte de Susman en contra de este sin sentido al que ya nos tienen acostumbrados.
Saludos
La fecha en que pide interrogar a los miembros del EC es 16/07, descuenta que antes no habrá acuerdo? o estoy entendiendo mal?
Dodge
Después de todo lo ocurrido, para mis ojos, todo parece que empieza a coger el cauce correcto.
Hace muchos meses que yo esperaba una situación como la actual, pero no terminaba de llegar. Con lo que ahora hace Rosen, para mi, indica que su jugada maestra, ahora está KO.
Con lo que ha presentada ahora, parece que se le han acabado las cartas. Será así? Espero que sí.
Es hora que empiece a relucir la verdad, que la opinión pública se haga eco de ella y que al final sea exclusivamente, un tema de justicia.
La perspectiva que tengo es que el precio de las comunes y preferentes volverá a subir, pero el proceso no terminará pronto. Por lo tanto, vamos a necesitar mucha paciencia y más de uno, como ya ha ocurrido, se bajará durante el trayecto.
Estamos al principio del final? espero que no sea un espejismo?
Pues eso, a mí me parece que a Rosen ya no le quedan ases en la manga y está actuando un poco a la desesperada.
Lo comentaba el otro día; en este caso hay mucho dinero, demasiado dinero más bien.Y claro, si su plan ya iba justito ocultando los assets, con el inesperado segundo round de devoluciones del NOL ya les desbordan los billones para hacer que A
Judge Walrath is fair.
She wants the EC to have a fair chance to examine the documents before the court can make any decision on the debtor’s DS/POR. Without transparency, it’ll be extremely imprudent and unfair for the court to approve the DS/POR. This is exactly EC’s argument. (You may notice a small detail at the beginning of Thursday hearing. Due to lack of “chart” from the debtor, Judge Walrath put aside the DS issue. Rosen attempted immediately to push aside the discovery issue too on the ground “No DS to be approved today, therefore no discussion on discovery.” Seemingly surprised, Judge replied: Really? She soon dismissed Rosen’s theory, saying “why would I stop the discovery discussion?” then move the discussion forward. It’s clear to me that the Judge regards the discovery/transparency issue as highly relevant in determining the validity of DS/POR. It’s my impression that even armed with its newly-filed 51 page responses – chart to the objections, the debtor will have a hard time passing the DS/POR confirmation in Judge Walrath’s court without some breakthroughs on discovery issue.)
People criticized that the Judge made a mistake when she denied the examiner motion on May 5th. They also thought the Judge didn’t realize her “mistake” until Thursday hearing. I disagree. Just like she wants to be fair to the shareholders, the Judge also wants to give the debtor the benefit of the doubt, encouraging the debtor to make good faith effort to accommodate the EC’s requests for documents. It’s the Judge’s job to be fair and balanced. The debtor/Rosen blew it. The resistance by the debtor to the Court instructions now makes the EC’s arguments for the appeal motion, discovery issue, or a new examiner motion much stronger.
People also criticized the statement by the Judge “it has been investigated to death.” While I disagree with the Judge on that, I think her critics (and Rosen too) were missing the point by charging the Judge contradicted herself by insisting the need for the discovery. The key dispute in the court on Thursday, as the Judge pointed out, was for the debtor to share “the fruits of investigations”. “Investigated to death” or not, the debtor has the fiduciary responsibility to its constituents, as the Judge expected, to share its work products with the EC. The debtor temporarily got away by arguing “attorney-client” privileges. However, it left the door open for the examiner. The Judge clearly expressed her willingness to reconsider her earlier examiner decision because of the debtor’s refusal to cooperate and share information. She also said to Rosen we may not have the confirmation (of POR) by next year if the debtor insists the EC do its own work from scratch. The Judge may not go that extreme. But both the Judge and the debtor are facing a choice. Either way, the EC will obtain the necessary information to make meaningful evaluation of the debtor’s DS/POR.
The outcomes of Thursday hearing are not unanticipated. The confirmation of DS was postponed as expected. No definitive decisions on the examiner issue yet while the discovery can go on. Strong pressures are gathering around the debtor . In hindsight, it’s so obvious when the Judge ruled on the examiner motion the way she did on 5/5, the ruling set off a series of chain events. Nothing black and white in court battles, especially at these stages of high uncertainty. It’s series of chain events, and you keep ploughing ahead.
The EC/Susman is doing a fine job. The Judge is fair-minded. What more are we asking for?
Rosen is going to depose the EC members because he hopes to show "clear abuse" of the bankruptcy process by the EC under the Johns-Manville and Marvel cases. Rosen already telegraphed that he would be deposing the Equity Committee members. Remember the April 19, 2010 hearing where we sought relief from the automatic stay to file for a shareholders meeting?
Here's the colloquy:
April 19, 2010 hearing at 55:30 (and following ... this is a very rough take):
THJMW: "Marvel and Johns-Manville make it clear ... in order to enjoin shareholders, the courts look to whether there is clear abuse ... there is none shown on the record ... before the debtor files any motion to enjoin and makes me have a hearing, it is clear that you need more than the shareholders disagree with what the debtors have done..." (goes on to discuss Manville)
"The mere desire to get more bargaining power is not enough ... it's not enough that they want to elect board members who have a different opinion as to how the bankruptcy case should proceed. I don't find any basis to find clear abuse or any basis to stop the shareholders from exercising their state law rights."
"So ... I guess that's a ruling ..."
Rosen: "Your honor, we will be going forward though with our expedited discovery then to seek to have this thing heard on the merits...including our counterclaim."
THJMW: “All right ..."
Now, here's a snippet from the Marvel decision showing what constitutes "clear abuse":
"It is well settled that the right of shareholders to compel a shareholders' meeting for the purpose of electing a new board of directors subsists during reorganization proceedings. In re Johns-Manville Corp., 801 F.2d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1986). The right of shareholders "to be represented by directors of their choice and thus to control corporate policy is paramount." In re Potter Instrument Co., Inc., 593 F.2d 470, 475 (2d Cir. 1979) (quoting In re J.P. Linahan, Inc., 111 F.2d 590, 592 (2d Cir. 1940)). Shareholders, moreover, "should have the right to be adequately represented in the conduct of a debtor's affairs, particularly in such an important matter as the reorganization of the debtor." Johns-Manville, 801 F.2d at 65 (quoting In re Bush Terminal Co., 78 F.2d 662, 664 (2d Cir. 1935)). As a result, the election of a new board of directors may be enjoined only under circumstances demonstrating "clear abuse." See, e.g., Johns-Manville, 801 F.2d at 64; In re Heck's Properties, Inc., 151 B.R. 739, 759-60 (S.D. W. Va. 1992); In re Allegheny Internat'l, Inc., 86 Bankr. 466, 1988 WL 212509, at * 4 (W.D. Pa.1988). "Clear abuse" requires a showing that the shareholders' action in seeking to elect a new board of directors "demonstrates a willingness to risk rehabilitation altogether in order to win a larger share for equity." Johns-Manville, 801 F.2d at 65. The fact that the shareholders' action may be motivated by a desire to arrogate more bargaining power in the negotiation of a reorganization plan, without more, does not constitute clear abuse. Id. at 64.
******************
So I'm pretty sure that's the "why" behind the deposition notices for the EC. Shows that Rosen didn't learn a thing from yesterday's debacle, doesn't it?
Pues yo no lo veo nada bien, Rosen va a buscar un claro abuso del EC al intentar cambiar en la junta de accinistas una nueva directiva, con el propostio de topredar la solución. Como ya comentó en una de la audiencias de abril y tratando de apoyarse en jurisprudencia de otros casos, en los que se aprobó el EC pero le depusieron acciones como la de la junta de accionistas por ser un claro abuso al ser todos buitres post bk en busca de fortuna. Asi que no subestimemos a Rosen, que igual que nosotros se dice que no estamos tan mal, Al Loro que Rosen no está tan mal ;)
Saludos
