Something I wish to touch upon briefly. If you all recall last go around during the confirmation hearing our counsel did not submit 1 piece of evidence and relied on the cross examination of the witnesses along with the objections submitted to the court.
What is different this time?
We actually see and here our team and tps submitting evidence (emails, valuations of tax experts, HF trading records,meeting dates, etc..etc...)
The conclusion I can draw from this is that Susman knew the first por would not pass based on the objections from legal counsels as well as the other ones submitted by shareholders. (the testimony of Kosturos fumbling during the last confirmation hearing was just fun to hear.)
Anyways I just wanted to bring this point up. Also I was conversing with someone very close in my family who happens to be a lawyer. I asked him a general question about if it is normal for a firm to say "our evidence will prove" just like the Susmans firm made in there objection that was unsealed recently in regards to the Hedgies. I asked if lawyers ever write those words without having the clear proof of what they are claiming.
His response went like this: He said that in terms of a case when there is a jury lawyers might try to do this without full proof evidence because there is more wiggle room when a jury is concerned.
I then asked him about submitting that type of objection with those words to a judge. He told me that he never has seen that happening not only because the lawyers can get in trouble and sued by the affected parties if proven not to be true, but also the judge is less likely to let a statement like that fly without the evidence being submitted proving the statement.
Of course during our conversation he did say that in both situations lawyers can make mistakes and do try to prove the case, but what I took away was that it is less likely any lawyer would make such a bold statement " As our evidence will prove/show" without having the goods to back it up.
Take it for what its worth. The hedgies going down in flames in my mind is already a forgone conclusion even prior to any of them taking the stand. I think the e-mails, dates, and other evidence that our guys submitted puts a clear picture of what happened.
Ok guys Ive rambled on for a bit. I got some more of the hearing to re-listen to and collect my thoughts.
Also one more point before I go. I think it would be good not to focus so much on re-org numbers that were thrown around today. Yes maxwell served his purpose for discrediting the bs, but I think the main point was to show that since we are a reorg chap 11 this bs that the debtors are giving that its a shell then its not a shell then back again makes them look like fools on top of the fact that the hedgies want the stock instead of getting paid in full with cash as it currently stands.
Anywho back to lurking. Thought I would share my thoughts with those willing to listen and ponder over those few. points. Let me know what you think. Chao.
Ohh and all in my opinion of course ;)
Go TEAM!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
