InvestorsHub Logo

Mutz

05/06/10 7:26 AM

#195748 RE: ptolomeo #195742

Excellent analysis and I'm in complete agreement with you.

chaarles

05/06/10 8:37 AM

#195755 RE: ptolomeo #195742

Nice post ptolomeo, I also share your feelings.
In answer to your question, to approve a settlement they need approval from the UST, the judge and the EC.
And that will not happen, also other creditors will object to the POR.
When the POR is rejected and the exclusivity period ends, then it is our time.

speculator777

05/06/10 9:24 AM

#195766 RE: ptolomeo #195742

How I see things.
Where are all of the people who were saying that time is on our side and is our greatest asset? Am I correct in that it still appears that the parties want a settlement by July 20th? The extra 150 days that the examiner would have provided would have allowed for searching every nook and cranny for assets, fraud, collusion, etc. Now we have these problems.

1. The judge assumes all parties will be forthright with the Docs.
2. The assumption the docs will be complete(none missing).
3. A hastened time period for Sussman to find all assets, fraud, collusion.

The shortened time frame is really going to hurt commons in maximizing its due recovery, we lost the asset of time for discovery and negotiations.