The movant’s papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant’s standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.Boy, that denial came in less than 24 hours. Do those Jones Day lawyers realize they are charging US taxpayers by the hour: at this rate we will never get the chance to really pay them the $900/hour they deserve. What efficiency... And again, what a way to prevent inquiring into contractual rights, yet again. Seems like White & Case is cursed to not make any headway in this case ever.
For the reasons provided above and those articulated by the objectors at the hearing, the Court finds, after weighing the harm to the movant and the harm to the estate, that the movant has not established their burden to impose a stay on the proceedings pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 5011(c).
Most interestingly, however, was the response of Indiana Treasurer Richard Murdoch, who swore not to invest any more capital in the debt of companies receiving federal aid... Maybe that's the only remaining way to stick it to the administration... Then again, it would likely take Geithner's Heidelberg Specials roughly 30 seconds to print enough cash to replace all the pension funds' cash contributions to the TARP alliance.
Publish at Scribd or explore others:
Sphere: Related Content
Bookmark this post with:
