Exactly, the answer I was gonna post to Chiron.
You cannot eat your cake and have it.
She said "She was going to rule based on evidence presented before the court". The Debtors did not present any evidence during the confirmation hearing claiming their analysis was covered under attorney client privilege and therefore, presented only testimonies during the confirmation hearing.
The Judge herself stated that the debtors were walking a fine line.
IMO, her opinion that if JPig gave the money back could cause their failure is gonna come back bad because how did she reach such a conclusion when JPig is paying out billions of dollars in bonuses.
The idea that she concluded or determined the success of litigation on critical issues due to complexity and threats by an adversary is going to make her look really bad. If we cannot resolve complex legal disputes in negotiations we are only left to the mercy of the court and she's not even giving us a chance to litigate but arbitrarily reached an opinion that success is doomed.
The Judge has done some good things here but that opinion was below par and hopefully Susman/Nelson can present a competing POR with actual evidence in court so that the adversaries can take their best shots and see if the plan is endures the test.
GLTY.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
