Replies to post #2582 on BPZ Res. Inc. (fka BPZRQ)

[Levronefullblown]

It should never have gotten to this point, the fact that it has proves that the Texan court has been bought. I don't have much faith in the Peruvian government, as I haven't seen anything too concrete. Our main hope lies in the class 3 holders. Then there's the possibility of a holder being a powerful druglord, that would be awesome as they have a real chance of getting through to these criminals. GLTA.

[Levronefullblown]

Also the US doesn't operate under civil law, but common law, which would have been to our advantage had the judge not been bought.

The authors show that in developed countries that follow the civil law (as opposed to common law) tradition -- such as France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy -- "tunneling" routinely occurs, not in spite of an evolved legal code governing corporate behavior, but because of it. Courts sanction such deeds "not through neglect or incompetence, but using specific legal logic."

The authors note that in common law countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, laws protecting shareholder rights tend to focus on broad, basic principles, such as fairness, and to offer judges considerable discretion on whether some sort of disputed transaction illegally benefits majority shareholders. By contrast, the civil law countries are more rigid, emphasizing the "predictability" of their laws toward unscrupulous behaviors. This in turn "may invite (corporate) insiders to creatively structure unfair transactions so as to conform" simply to the "letter of the law."

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep00/w7523.html


If by some chance, the statement is rejected, BPZ can either cancel the entire process or undergo a cramdown, where they will have no choice but to modify their plan. Personally, I would prefer the former over the latter.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cramdown.asp