I hear ya.. However, the court could not legally seize "any money that was invested in notes or bonds that came from Pensioners funds who were under the control of the hedge funds to invest" that is what I am saying..
Example..
Aurelis has 600M in Notes and Bonds that are in invested. Aurelis uses money from funds that are under their control to purchase the notes and bonds.. Let's say 500M is from those funds. Aurelis likes the fact that they can buy these securities and decides to contribute 100M for company purchase... Under the Protections of ERISA, the EC can only sue for 100M (the Aurelis investment)
So let's compound that by 5, saying the Hedgies all together only invested 500M in the securities from their personal company money.. That is all the EC can sue for.. So, this court can not lay down a decision for 3B in disallowance if it affects the Pensioners who are protected under ERISA.. This is how I understand it.. Someone correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!
Debtor did not want to pursue the IT case, so therefore they were more than willing to let those claims go.. They may be liable for their indiscretions to the equity interests, but it looks like they may have struck a deal in cooperating for equity recovery.. Rosen did not want to give Equity a survival chance because his booses were telling him not to.. Rosen is a lawyer, he will do what his boss (client) tells him to. If equity survives and his boss tells him to work with them, then he will. If he wants the EC to have access to his "work product" so they can see the potential "causes of action" on the 3rd parties in the future, he will show it to them.. I am positive this has already happened..
I too adjusted my positions when the landscape changed.. GOOD MOVE!
Sometimes You Just Have to See the Light Thru the Trees !!!
