InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

WithCatz

07/07/11 8:14 AM

#317243 RE: Lebosco #317242

Correct. But let's assume it plays (had played) out.

1) Rosen files a motion to quash - immediately stopping today's TPS 30(b)(6) until this motion could be heard.
2) TPS files a counter to that (objection)
3) Hearing would be at the next Omnibus on 7/28
4) TPS would need to file a "Motion to Shorten" in order for them to get their 30(b)(6) done before the confirmation

In due logic -- would you think that THJMW -- given her stated stance on 'late filed depositions' -- would do all of the following -- all would be required:

a) Approve the "Motion to Shorten" and hold an emergency hearing -- sometime before confirmation beginning on 7/13.
b) In that hearing, approve TPS's motion for a 30(b)(6)
c) Allow for TPS to hold their 30(b)(6) before confirmation
d) OR - Allow for potential (likely) delay of confirmation so that the 30(b)(6) could be done by TPS.

My conclusion is no. TPS effectively had scheduled their 30(b)(6) for today, and in the last hearing, the judge effectively neutered that due to the way it would have had to play out.

...Catz
icon url

cicimici83

07/07/11 8:26 AM

#317245 RE: Lebosco #317242

last day to get some cheapies, pps could fly tomorrow. hope i get my shares @0.118 today.

down baby down.
icon url

ID Supermoney

07/07/11 8:57 PM

#317499 RE: Lebosco #317242

Probably they got the list they wanted of witnesses.


We’ve still not seen from the
pg 118
1 debtors a list of witnesses they intend to call at
2 confirmation. We think it’s our right as a party to a
3 contested matter to be prepared to meet whatever evidence they
4 put on.
5 We have raised issue -- we have asked for witnesses on
6 issues that were raised in our objection that do not overlap
7 what the equity committee is going to do, at least our
8 understanding from the notice of what they’re going to do.



And then cancelled the depo!

ID