I never said the entire thing was clear, quite the contrary. I suggest you use some of the those lawyering skills and look back as some past posts.
I always get a kick when a 'lawyer' comes forward doing his best with a gotcha question. Motions for summary judgment....wastes of time....defeated by a mere scintilla of contrary evidence. I guess I needed to back up and explain the derivative of the potential liability in my earlier response to you. LOL
There's all kinds of lawyers. I usually don't pay any attention to them. Unless they practice BK law.
And I always get a "kick" when a non-lawyer comes forward doing his best gotcha "legal advice" schtick when he's clearly not a lawyer, but he HAS stayed at a Holiday Inn.
Take, e.g., suggesting that one file a Rule 60 Motion where not applicable/appropriate. You did advise that one should file a Rule 60 Motion regarding the sham sale of Anchor to JPMC (where all liens were cleansed by a §363 sale), didn't you?
See, I thought that there was something about a "final order" . . . that little thingy . . . . The problem is, that a little legal knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
You probably think that you know a lot of law . . . your attitude is one of arrogance, superiority (and yet you come across as somewhat insecure with your need to constantly tell everybody how smart you are, and how you know so much more than everybody else).
People that are secure in themselves generally don't have a need to point out how much better, smarter, superior they are to everybody else. They know it, they feel it, and know that the NEED to constantly repeat it would only serve to show their insecurities. Kinda like any city that refers to itself as "World Class." I got news for those cities: if they truly are "World Class," there's no need to mention it, as others already know.
This is why I already gave your props for being the "Smartest Guy in the Room." So that you wouldn't feel the need to come back here and continue to "rub salt in the would" as you so eloquently put it, last night. I already told you that you won. I'll even go so far as to call you a "World Class" non-lawyer. How's that for props?
Tellingly, you get a certain amount of satisfaction in metaphorically rubbing salt in others' wounds. Your words, not mine. That's not quite very sporting of you, my good chap, now is it?
So, go pay attention to your bankruptcy lawyers. You probably won't find very many here. You'd be better served sniffing BR and trolling WG&M offices (instead of the DIMEQ MB). I hear that WG&M does practice some BK law (sarcasm), although their ethics are a little "different" than what I would expect from professionals that are bound by the law to represent THEIR clients' interests, and to not conflict themselves, to not serve 2 masters (or worse, as has been the case with BR.
Then you can report back to us to tell us how much more you know about the law than we do, and seeing how many legal terms and phrases you can manage to drop into a conversation in any given post. Because that will really show us how much smarter and superior you are to the rest of us.
Regards.
Ps: since you really seem to know so much more than the rest of us, would you kindly tell the unwashed masses here how ambiguity ("clear as mud") in the Agreements at issue, would play out in JMW's court? You know, a BK court which I'm sure you're quite familiar with.
That "clear as mud" ambiguity would certainly help the Drafter(s) of the Agreements (and their Successors), right? This ambiguity must certainly be a great thing for WMI/WGM/A&M . . . us non-BK lawyers could certainly learn a lot from you.
Thanks in advance!
AI
