I am disappointed this is all you have to offer in response to my questions, but I guess I am not very surprised at this point:
1. Re: pg 65 of the Opposition - this is a letter dated 11/24/08 that states merely that PXD is considering a potential sale of the assets. It does not give actual notice of a definite sale, at a definite time and place, and also does not give notice that the sale would occur without Court approval (previously sought and withdrawn in June, 2008).
2. Re: pg. 70 of the Opp - this states that the potential sale would carve out (i.e. the assets sold would NOT be subject to) the claims raised in the "live petition" [the lawsuit] by MOSH Holdings. This does not mean that the Plaintiffs would have a diffferent status or treatment than the other unit holders. It means that the purchaser would not have to deal with the claims in the lawsuit [e.g. they would buy the assets free and clear]. How does this cite even prove your point? How does this overcome the Court's previous ruling that all unitholders must participate in an outcome?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
