All part of the plan IMO. At some point in time the loan defaults and they grab what they can on a secured lender basis. Pretty cheap out for them. The loan was supposed to make them look like a white knight. unfortunately we know their intentions were not entirely altruistic. The loan was made at about the same time jpm was trying to extract itself as a defendent. If you go back and read you'll notice there was an issue of whether unitholders had "standing" to even raise this matter before the courts. technically, per trust indenture jpm was the only "person" allowed to sue pxd but because they were so badly conflicted they were going to "assign" their standing as trustee to the individual unitholders in exchange for a nominal bridge loan and our promise to drop them as a defendant. the judge saw thru this and ixnayed that plan. $3 million is a mere bump on jpm's butt. as of close of 2nd qtr they had EARNINGS of $7.7 bil. I don't think they're going to miss this money. if the attys argue for disgorgement of all previously "earned" trustee fees based on fraud / negligence / breach theories, i'm sure we'll be able to tear this note up and get some cash back.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
