News Focus
News Focus
Followers 4
Posts 256
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/27/2008

Re: MikeWhite post# 18117

Wednesday, 02/18/2009 6:57:44 PM

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:57:44 PM

Post# of 27567
I am disappointed this is all you have to offer in response to my questions, but I guess I am not very surprised at this point:

1. Re: pg 65 of the Opposition - this is a letter dated 11/24/08 that states merely that PXD is considering a potential sale of the assets. It does not give actual notice of a definite sale, at a definite time and place, and also does not give notice that the sale would occur without Court approval (previously sought and withdrawn in June, 2008).

2. Re: pg. 70 of the Opp - this states that the potential sale would carve out (i.e. the assets sold would NOT be subject to) the claims raised in the "live petition" [the lawsuit] by MOSH Holdings. This does not mean that the Plaintiffs would have a diffferent status or treatment than the other unit holders. It means that the purchaser would not have to deal with the claims in the lawsuit [e.g. they would buy the assets free and clear]. How does this cite even prove your point? How does this overcome the Court's previous ruling that all unitholders must participate in an outcome?

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today