Danl- The only question remaining is who wants to throw more good money after bad??
I read today, for example, that one of e.Digital's "creditors", perhaps a shareholder, someone by the name of Frank Bladin, brought a motion to preserve electronic records, probably all the hard drives and other electronic documentation that might exist at the corporate office (that which hasn't been scrubbed or compromised already). Kipperman's response was essentially that there is no money to secure these records and evaluate the records to determine what records and data Frank is entitled to and what is privileged. Kipperman is absolutely correct that it is potentially a very expensive undertaking to attempt to go through the decades of EDIG records and to sort out what the creditors and/or shareholders might be entitled to and what they are not entitled to.
The Judge's preliminary ruling suggests that if a creditor or shareholder wants to preserve and access some of these records, than that creditor/shareholder has to hire an "ombudsman" at his/her expense to obtain, review and evaluate the records to determine what the creditor/shareholder might be entitled to, before said creditor/shareholder even gets access to anything.
What is significant and important to note here is the fact that securing internal records and data are a large part of just the most rudimentary preliminary step to evaluating whether or not any actionable claim may exist in the first place, and that anyone wishing to pursue such a claim obviously needs to secure and review such records/data, knowing full well that the longer the records/data remain out of reach, the greater the chance for loss, corruption, spoliation, etc.
However, to secure the records and data, a third-party (the ombudsman) must be hired at great expense just to review and segregate what is discoverable and public, and what is private and privileged- a potentially huge expense, without any guarantee or certainty that anything of value will be found in the first place. Poor Frank, of course, whoever the poor soul is, is spending good, real, hard-earned, fresh money with an attorney representing him in BK Court to find out all this disappointing procedural information.
Wherefore, thee question persists, How much good money does anyone want to continue to throw after bad money, without any certainty at the end of the day that this spending of good money is going to lead to the retrieval of a single penny of the bad money already down the toilet?
And make no mistake about it, what remains of EDIG is literally a toilet, and who here wants to put there hand, arm, torso and head down deeply into that commode in search of treasure???
