This is a blatant lie.
Had that been their intent they should have added a provision in the PSPAs setting a cap to the transfer. They cannot claim they didn't know as he himself in the testimony declared that they knew about the DTAs except that they didn't know if/whether or when. The sneakiness is revealed in his own declaration.
He declares the intention was not to increase compensation to the Treasury yet this intention never made it to the black and white document? Was never translated into writing, into words? So by omission, the agreement achieved just that. It achieved what was not intended.
No problem, the judge can correct that and align things with the intention of the document.
Thank you, Mr. Ugoletti!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
