I am sorry, but lets put some relevance into things:
1. the vast majority of Bass's damage was to the former unit holders
due to:
1. misrepresenting the status of projects they highlighted as
basically dormant.
2. claiming the FUND is operated as a ponzi scheme.
3. making claims that Bass knew were false - we know it due to
discovery. Bass was raising a fund to take over the assets.
this claim is funded by the fund, but does not belong to the fund.
thats a huge point. once a verdict comes and damages are
established, the fund should get refunded that money.
2. the trust itself has a claim regarding Bass trying to destroy its
commercial relationships (and succeeding as well) and trying to take
over the assets.
3. I have no idea if the udf people have a valid claim (I think they do,
but that is the debate now).
A Notes:loss of value for those who did not sell their units is not
established. what is a loss of liquidity? how much is it worth?
does the trust getting damages cure damage to unit holders who did not
sell their units?
We do not know the real damage here, but I would venture to put a
range of $100M - $200M in actual loss of value pre damages.
I would put also a number of $100M of actual damage to the trust based
on loss of margin, whatever losses from unscheduled realization of
loand in order to pay down debt quickly. that might be another debate
as to loan value, but the range of dispute will not be high. trust
damages could be high as well.
disclosures not being there have been addressed by SEC. this could be
a duplication unless something new is presented. loss reserves are something that goes between an auditor and its client. the severity of
loan loss will be interesting as by now we know the right numbers most loans were resolved at. we now have the wisdom of experience on our side. we can not judge an opinion based on knowledge at the time, but
it will not get ignored when you hear an expert opinion and you have the eventual resolution value.
AI
