And even more specialized than a BK attorney, would be an attorney that deals specifically with the FDIC. A bk case involving the FDIC is far different than a standard bk case.
Even Bopfan had to correct her assumption (over the weekend) on why she's been screaming FC for months, only to find another argument to keep it going.
Regardless of if that argument is legit or not, this should show you a small fraction of the difficulty in determining how things will play out here in the case of FC, simply because the FDIC is not bound by the same legalities of a standard corporation.
Again... I don't doubt that Bopfan is on the up and up at all. It's more a matter of the specifics of this case as opposed to your run of the mill bk case.
All of that having been said... BOY WOULD I LOVE TO SEE THE FDIC have to pay out... BIGLY!
But I'm not for a second banking on it. If it happens, that's gravy. I sure would love to see my wallet oozing gravy.
"A couple of thoughts: Bopfan is not just any garden variety attorney; her area of specialization is bankruptcy law. Also, the bankruptcy attorney firm/team the caliber of Weil et al. would have filed the motion for the exclusivity extension weeks in advance as a matter of careful rather than careless practice. If the judge denied the motion for any reason whatsoever, the motion would have to be ammended and resubmitted. The absence of the motion to file for extension at this point strongly suggests that they do not need the extension. Also, the fact that a fraudulent conveyance action has not been filed in this matter by this time (four months into the proceedings), by a firm the caliber of the aforementioned, weighs in favor of a settlement construct."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
