Replies to post #55162 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[downsideup]

I don't think so...

First, the filing is from CLYW/Turrini's/Daic's lawyer, and all it postures is a quibble with the judges instructions to the receiver, and to the instruction he provided to others bound by his ruling.

It has been misrepresented here as being a request made BY the receiver, rather than as what it is, which is management's obvious attempt to force a "solution" they've crafted to benefit themselves on the receiver.

Second, it seeks to supplant their judgement for the judgement of the judge and the receiver prior to the receiver even having accepted his appointment, and prior to his having even had an opportunity to consider how best to deal with CLYW.

Without considering the merit of the arguments, I'd expect it will be dismissed as improper for that reason. On that basis, I'd expect the judge to deny the request outright, as it addresses issues to the judge that are things that should be directed instead to the receiver. If that request for change is to be properly made, it should have come from the receiver, not from Turrini and his lawyers.

Still, it was timely filed, as it had to be, as odds are it is a last chance for them, as one of the first acts the new receiver will likely take is going to be seeking new counsel for the company under his guidance... or, at a minimum, supplanting prior management's interaction with counsel with his own direction.

The filing appears it may border on violating the judges orders that no one other than the receiver will posture as having any position of authority in relation to CLYW, from the time of his order, so, it leaves open a question about who directed "CLYW's counsel" in the making the filing, even in that it clearly does require exercising some improper authority over the expenditure of CLYW monies in making it happen as a "CLYW" filing. That it is styled as an "appeal" may not matter... as much as do the obvious problems with it.

A third issue clearly exists as the filing is being used as a vehicle for posturing a threat that it appears is being made by Drago Daic to rescind his prior actions or fail to perform his obligations as required... which I expect the judge will not find is a very compelling incentive to re-address the subject of the filing with a favorable view.