I know that I’m trying to find only positive things here, but anyway……
Let’s See: I don’t know whether, I’m not going to accept the debtors argument or the committee’s argument regarding delay here being a negative, I’m not sure how quickly the debtor honestly can proceed with its proposed plan, but at any rate I think there is sufficient time, should be sufficient time for the EC to conduct whatever investigation it feels is relevant. So, I will deny the motion.
I would like to think she is telling Rosen and the SH’s that this plan sucks.
And asking John Clarke of FDIC
THJMW: “You want to remind us of what you said then.”
We said that there were still significant open issues with the parties to the proposed settlement that we would continue to have discussions with those parties, we have not yet resolved those issues and there are other conditions to settlement that still haven’t been satisfied, but we’re working with the goal of trying to achieve all that and get the proposed settlement agreed to and presented to this court. Thank You.
Again, I would like to think the “other conditions” as being SH’s
Good luck all