InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 1043
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/12/2019

Re: toogoodfella post# 91377

Sunday, 11/15/2020 2:15:09 AM

Sunday, November 15, 2020 2:15:09 AM

Post# of 111176
Waske and Wu. Their response to Appellee's brief argument is basically 510A of the plan is not being enforced. Not only that, its violated and the POR is compromised. 510A already has been ruled on with the Citibank ruling by Judge Peck. Do you even know what 510A is? Ask cottonisking, Waske or Wu if you dont. I doubt you do.

I read about 510A recently. What Waske and Wu basically is saying 510A was violated intentionally and there is a material error. They left room for the error to be unintentional in the beginning. I can tell they are getting more aggressive and imo, they will bring up 510A in a hearing if one is called by Judge Abrams. Waske and Wu implied to Judge Abrams that she should call one because of the clip cottonisking posted. They want Abrams to ask Fail 3 questions. That was a slick move.

Thus far, they argued on it and did everything else with it but bring up that provision of the POR. If they bring it up, it will APPLY TO ALL of the subordinated debt with a guarantee.

At that point it's more than just our 1.25 billion it's all the guarantees. That is also relevent because an error that size can blow up this entire BK.