InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 116
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/07/2010

Re: jmbell42 post# 5757

Wednesday, 01/04/2012 3:23:24 PM

Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:23:24 PM

Post# of 8307
How about this theory,

the Judge MW couldn’t see why the debtors should pay from their share, the $337 award transferred out by the BOD fiduciaries, even though this was never argued (unless I’m mistaken)

And since the Judge in all her wisdom ruled against clawing back the award (or something to that effect) she now can pretty much say “you go after the BOD and their O&D insurer”

and not allow releases, regarding the breach against the warrant holder and thus leave this out of the POR #7.

If not then we should argue this in objecting to the POR because it is not within the law to allow the release from liability for their breach of fiduciary duty.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.