No. None of that SHOULD change your perspective on the NATURE of events that have YET to occur ?
The presumption that "putting the properties up for sale" means there IS already a "done deal" in the works that does and only can screw MOSH unit holders... is likely incorrect.
Even if that IS the only purpose THEY have in the effort.
I don't have any problem with your seeing the elements of the issues you see in black and white, only in terms of good guys and bad guys, but I'm not seeing a larger potential benefit exists from preserving the black and white possibilities as the only potential considered in how you might arrive at useful outcomes.
If there is going to be a settlement... instead of a trial that proceeds to a decision, appeal, and eventual resolution... there needs to be a process which it occurs. That process, by definition, won't be one in which only one side wins everything.. so that process is unlikely to happen along lines that defines everything in black and white. I've been pretty clear in pointing out that I disagreed, as I still do, with those here who were claiming an early settlement was probable, and perhaps imminent. I still expect that any settlement MOSH finds useful will prevent them making the deal.
What I've pointed out about the "sale" is that the offer to sell doesn't appear to me to be as fully controlling of others rights or market choices or market behaviors as has been postured. I don't think that JPM putting the leases on the auction block fully defines what MIGHT occur in the future that might condition the market. I don't see that the sale being proposed in any way alters the liabilities assumed by those who hold them now. I expect the move COULD be a necessary first step and a precursor to enabling a settlement... but still don't see that as the only or most probable outcome.
So, I choose to see it as containing some seeds of new potential, along with the risk you see... without seeing that the effort forces the judge to accept any aspect of the risk of the effort as it is postured now...
I don't expect she should or will accept any effort that IS postured only for the purpose of undermining the case, the court, or manufacturing evidence in any way that only imposes a purposefully limited set of market functions in an agglomeration... with the intent that the market function entrained prevents properly parsing the various elements of value in the price obtained. The fact is that the price the properties might get now, under the sale as proposed, will mix positive values tied to the potential in the property, with negative values that are ONLY a function of risk in considering past PXD/JPM mismanagement. It isn't reasonable to allow any sale that intentionally imposes proper market recognition of the cost of their ongoing mismanagement on MOSH unit holders. That PXD/JPM might be "motivated sellers" now shouldn't be allowed to create a market judgment on the value of "the properties"... rather than a market judgment on the value of their effort related to the properties. So, there is a reasonable question to ask about what the properties would be worth WITHOUT their presence clouding the real value.
I expect it should be possible to structure an effort to allow the market to function to properly parse all that... and as long as PXD/JPM intend a sale to be an end to future liability that doesn't impact liability already incurred... they shouldn't have any interest in any effort in conditioning what survives any sale that has no interest for them.
If the only purpose of the sale as proposed is to impose the result of PXD/JPM past efforts to suppress or destroy the ability to have the value be recognized... and have that result in value destruction be imposed on unit holders now... yes, that is a negative that the judge should prevent. And I expect she will if that is all that is being proposed.
Every change involves risk and opportunity... and I don't see that the effort they have made involves only risk for unit holders, and only potential benefits for them.
You get one result if the property is sold as a "problem" they need to get rid of, and you shouldn't expect that it will get the best price now, sold without any method for parsing the various components of the value there is. The fact is that a large part of the LACK of value the property might have at auction now, is tied to the elements of value and risk inherent in the legal process itself. That doesn't mean that the market function can't be made more useful than it seems it is being made by what they have proposed... so, while the judge might just stop the process from going forward, she might also act to enable a more functional result from the effort to have the market value the property... by properly dividing the elements that PXD/JPM would prefer be married... to ensure the market result values various component elements properly.
I do not support the idea that their effort to put it to market will give the only proper result in value if it is presented as a unitary package as it is presented.
I think you'd get different results, for instance, if what were being sold assumed MOSH survives and retains the interests being sold for them in order to benefit MOSH... with the purchase consisting, basically, of replacing PXD as operator, while PXD retains all the liabilities of their past performance.
So, I expect there is a lot more flexibility than others see, with a lot of ability for the judge to stop the current sale, if necessary, but also to direct a future sale, in which the elements are put in balance in a way that allows the market to properly parse the various component elements of value...
If JPM/PXD have decided to terminate their participation in the partnership, why should they care what survives their exit, in terms of some new partnership that preserves the MOSH interest intact, while selling the other shares in interest for MOSH benefit ?
If they are selling their share for MOSH benefit, and are terminating their participation in the partnership, why would they care what else happens to MOSH in the future ?
I think it is more than a rhetorical point... and don't see why the judge wouldn't enable a sale that isolates the various contributions of value that way... to ensure the pricing mechanism of the market is fully enabled in parsing all the elements of value.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
