Followers | 293 |
Posts | 4644 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 10/12/2008 |
Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:31:43 AM
See the application here: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0024.pdf
The two questions are:
Since these questions have not been previously resolved in the Supreme Courts of Delaware and Virginia (they are first impressions), the presiding federal judge is placed in the position to decide the legal issues (the two questions) by interpreting and applying state laws. In short, the federal judge will "predict" how the Supreme Courts of those states would resolve the legal issues.
The Plaintiffs' attorneys applied for certifying the two questions of law to the State Supreme Courts so that the federal judge's "predictions" are replaced with the Supreme Courts' "actualities." In this way, certifying questions takes the decision-making on these specific questions out of the hands of the federal judge who may or may not be an expert on state laws concerning the corporate bylaws and the issuing of senior preferred stock or who may or may not be biased towards the government Defendants. By certifying state law questions the presiding federal judge can save time and energy in deciding or predicting answers to questions of state law and rule out explicit or implicit biases by simply following the law as laid down. Legal precedents for pending cases can be set in this manner and the federal judge is obliged, more or less, to follow the law as decided in those State Supreme Courts.
Plaintiffs' "predict" that the Supreme Courts of Delaware and Virginia will decide the legal answers of no to both questions. It is anticipated by the Plaintiffs, that such decisions would make the 3rd amendment invalid, void ab initio and unenforceable for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and in doing so, move the pending cases along. In addition, decisions against the net worth sweep can prevent negative affects on state law and policies regarding corporations, stockholders, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate matters.
Next steps are: The presiding federal judge will decide to certify or not. Then, if the application is affirmed, the State Supreme Courts will, at their discretion, accept or decline the certification questions. The decision to accept or deny certification may require a separate round or rounds of briefing.
___________________________________
2. Also, what is your opinion on/of the H&J ask relating to the old 'oh well, but HERA says so...' retort?
Not sure what is meant. Could you clarify?
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM