AZ,
There are couple of things bothering me.
I realize you have invested large amounts of time into reading documents and tapping resources that many of us do not have ready access to. Also, I realize that you have a base of knowledge and experience in reading these documents.
But, I am still worried. I trust you and your assertions, but I keep reminding myself that trusting someone on the internet is 'at your own risk'. I keep remembering the words of my favorite historical president - 'Trust, but verify'.
So, one of the things that bother me is that I cannot believe that there are not parties that are still scheming to 'steal' some of the BK remote assets or at least keep them hidden so that some participants will not even know that they have been swindled yet again.
Specifically, it seems to me that if the CUSIPs get deleted (yes, I know you are confident they will not) then everyone can say 'Oops, now we cant distribute so it goes to <insert interested party here>'.
I am also concerned (even after seeing your recent post about timing of ownership) that dilution to parties who did not take the risks we have (as 11 year holders of these financial instruments) will be yet another travesty.
Yes, I know that legally, these things shouldn't happen. However, I believe we live in a culture where what is 'legal' is more important than what is 'right' and firmly believe that there are those who think that as long as something is 'legal' it is acceptable behavior.
I fear finding myself in a position where I could have averted a disaster and did not act.
With that in mind, I have some questions.
If it were possible, do you think someone should be in court to ask questions before the judge rules. You know, as a 'just in case' or a 'verification'.
Questions like :
1. Are they planning to delete the CUSIPs representing Us, Qs, and Ps? I know you are convinced that they will not be, but would additional confirmation be useful?
2. If so, why not leave them in place for a while (maybe a year) until the dust settles?
3. If so, (actually regardless of the answer) what is the expected method of distributing BK remote assets? As justification for this question, it could be pointed out that KCCLLC refuses to take address changes but rather indicated that as long as the address at the brokerage firm is correct, everything would be fine.
4. Why is there a rush on removing the restrictions on preserving documents?
5. Will this court ever be in a position to announce the size of BK remote assets?
6. Will this court be involved/responsible in ensuring that any BK remote assets are appropriately distributed?
Do you think asking such questions would be beneficial?
Do you think asking such questions would materially delay the distributions?
Do you have any other questions you would like to see asked?
