Dude -- This piece from your link is interesting:
In most cases, examiners perform their investigations under less than optimal circumstances:
* Available information can be incomplete, disorganized, inaccurate, or nonexistent;
* The debtor is usually understaffed, and the staff available is not competent to handle the conditions; and
* Because of concern with the potential for unfavorable findings and conclusions, the debtor may be reluctant to provide certain information.
An examiner has no direct authority to compel a debtor to furnish information. He or she should attempt to make the debtor aware of the potential benefits to be gained from the work to be done. Among a debtor's motivations for cooperating with the examiner are:
* To influence the examiner's findings and conclusions;
* To avoid incurring the displeasure of the court for appearing obstructive; and
* To end any disruption, caused by the activities of the examiner, as soon as possible.
If the debtor refuses to cooperate, the examiner can report this intransigence to the court. The court response can range from compelling the debtor to produce documents, imposing a trustee, dismissing the case from Chapter 11, or ordering that the bankruptcy be converted to Chapter 7. A capable examiner will seldom, if ever, need to rely on the court to compel the debtor to cooperate. Generally, the examiner's best ally, if the debtor is unreasonable, is the debtor's attorney. The attorney will normally counsel his or her client vigorously against any actions likely to prejudice the court.
I hope JPM or FDIC pi**es of THJMW.
