try to think like a judge for a moment
40 minutes ago
there is a lot of silly banter here now (LOL there always has been).
at this point, it is just questions of law and jurisprudence which should guide your actions.
what do we know as absolute fact?
legal standards are at play.
there is great defeernce given to a debtor on a proffered plan.
HOWEVER, the rules are the rules.
Third party settlements must meet certain legal standards and the approval of the same must meet certain legal standards.
those standards - the debtor must show ESTABLISH BY EVIDENCE the settlement is reasonable and within business judgment.
there was no evidence offered other than opinions by witnesses that this is what they thought was right.
and legal claims must be judged by legal merit.
It is simply impossible to support a settlement without going through all of the claims, setting out the legal theories of recovery and defenses to the same, plus then going through the evidence which support and/or counter the bona fides of the claim.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT.
THAT WAS NOT DONE. AND SO THE BURDEN IS NOT MET. AND THE PLAN MUST BE REJECTED.
at is actually very simple when you think like a judge.
what do I have in front of me, what is required? if I don't have what I need then I must DENY.
the fear is reversal on appeal.
add in the propensity of a judge to do justice and weigh the equities.
then you know your answer.
: messages.finance.yahoo.com/...36931&tof=2&frt=2#636931
40 minutes ago
there is a lot of silly banter here now (LOL there always has been).
at this point, it is just questions of law and jurisprudence which should guide your actions.
what do we know as absolute fact?
legal standards are at play.
there is great defeernce given to a debtor on a proffered plan.
HOWEVER, the rules are the rules.
Third party settlements must meet certain legal standards and the approval of the same must meet certain legal standards.
those standards - the debtor must show ESTABLISH BY EVIDENCE the settlement is reasonable and within business judgment.
there was no evidence offered other than opinions by witnesses that this is what they thought was right.
and legal claims must be judged by legal merit.
It is simply impossible to support a settlement without going through all of the claims, setting out the legal theories of recovery and defenses to the same, plus then going through the evidence which support and/or counter the bona fides of the claim.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT.
THAT WAS NOT DONE. AND SO THE BURDEN IS NOT MET. AND THE PLAN MUST BE REJECTED.
at is actually very simple when you think like a judge.
what do I have in front of me, what is required? if I don't have what I need then I must DENY.
the fear is reversal on appeal.
add in the propensity of a judge to do justice and weigh the equities.
then you know your answer.
: messages.finance.yahoo.com/...36931&tof=2&frt=2#636931