Post by wtf on Aug 21, 2013 4:29:47 GMT -5
Hi guys. I don't know how many of you were at the hearing today, but it was obvious to me that the judge had already made up his mind before the hearing that he didn't care what shareholders thought or said. That fact was also evidenced by the fact that the Debtors didn't address even a single objection raised by shareholders at the Confirmation Hearing, although they had "deferred" most shareholder objections to the confirmation hearing earlier when those objections were raised in relation to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement. Rather than address them then, they said "we'll cover those later at the Confirmation Hearing". And then when "later" came, they ignored them entirely (other than providing a long list of names and docket numbers, without addressing even a single issue raised in all those objections). They even went so far as to state that no one had objected to the financial disclosures in the POR. When I tried to set the record straight on that account, the judge told me to shut up. If I didn't have the decency to drive all the way to New York to be ignored in person, then he didn't care to hear what I had to say! WTF?
The judge was downright rude to shareholders wishing to be heard, and basically ordered them to just "shut up and go away". He didn't quite put it in those exact words, but he came as close as he could without violating his oath of office.
On the issue of illegal insider trading, he said that he didn't want to hear it from shareholders. If other creditors hadn't complained about the illegal activity, then the shareholders had no right to complain. Or words to that effect. WTF?
Although I gave him 2 concrete examples to show that shareholders should be "in the money" in this case, he appeared to be oblivious to basic math.
Although my written objection clearly showed multiple violations of the US Bankruptcy Code by the proposed Plan of Reorganization, he ignored my objections totally and didn't address them at all.
On the issue of the KPP deal giving some creditors a recovery of greater than 100 percent (a plain "no-no" under our Bankruptcy laws), he twice told me that I should just "move on" because he had already approved that deal. After his first "move on" instruction, I inquired "even if new evidence shows that the deal gives some creditors more than a 100% recovery?" --- upon which I received his second "move on" instruction.
This ruling will be so easy to overturn on appeal that it isn't even funny.
But only if the appeal is presented by counsel (and it has to be counsel which is well respected by those with money). Does anyone know a well-respected law firm who will take an important case on principle? Or at a minimal fee? I'd be willing to throw in $500 or so, just on the principle of the thing. That's all I can really afford, and I can't really afford even that.
But this case bends our laws backwards in so many ways that it isn't even funny. It sets VERY dangerous precedents, in many ways. Anybody still have the stomach for a fight? To be meaningful, an appeal must be filed and a stay granted by the appelate court before implementation of the "confrmed" POR - which gives us less than 2 weeks.
What say ye?
The judge was downright rude to shareholders wishing to be heard, and basically ordered them to just "shut up and go away". He didn't quite put it in those exact words, but he came as close as he could without violating his oath of office.
On the issue of illegal insider trading, he said that he didn't want to hear it from shareholders. If other creditors hadn't complained about the illegal activity, then the shareholders had no right to complain. Or words to that effect. WTF?
Although I gave him 2 concrete examples to show that shareholders should be "in the money" in this case, he appeared to be oblivious to basic math.
Although my written objection clearly showed multiple violations of the US Bankruptcy Code by the proposed Plan of Reorganization, he ignored my objections totally and didn't address them at all.
On the issue of the KPP deal giving some creditors a recovery of greater than 100 percent (a plain "no-no" under our Bankruptcy laws), he twice told me that I should just "move on" because he had already approved that deal. After his first "move on" instruction, I inquired "even if new evidence shows that the deal gives some creditors more than a 100% recovery?" --- upon which I received his second "move on" instruction.
This ruling will be so easy to overturn on appeal that it isn't even funny.
But only if the appeal is presented by counsel (and it has to be counsel which is well respected by those with money). Does anyone know a well-respected law firm who will take an important case on principle? Or at a minimal fee? I'd be willing to throw in $500 or so, just on the principle of the thing. That's all I can really afford, and I can't really afford even that.
But this case bends our laws backwards in so many ways that it isn't even funny. It sets VERY dangerous precedents, in many ways. Anybody still have the stomach for a fight? To be meaningful, an appeal must be filed and a stay granted by the appelate court before implementation of the "confrmed" POR - which gives us less than 2 weeks.
What say ye?