There may be a very valid reason the POS POR 6+ opinion did not come out this past week when many surmised that it was going too. Keep in mind the Judge refused to rule on a few "case altering” decisions in her last opinion on 1/7/2011 and let me zero on the one that is most important. The fact threat TPS keeps challenging whether or not the "event happened” is very troubling to the court, if the court ruled due to the fact that there could be fraudulent conveyance, preferential transfer, assets separated from liability or other very positive aspects that would make A>L, which is very troubling to approving this mess. That is why Rosie wanted to get approval of his POR before this ruling and before ruling on the claims, so he could cancel out equity first and then rule on these issues. Now very smartly so, Parker keeps delaying the claim after Equity so positively proved their case to many in this court, so the court cannot convolute the insider trading case with the claims which most of us know and was even admitted in court by Rosie himself that have no merit.
With Starke having truly cornered the court by discussing cases with the court about the court not being able to “equitably moot” this case which the court argued for and against Starke until Starke made it clear your Honor, you have to read the entire statement which is posted below proving his case and all of the other cases he cited. No doubt, when Starke appeared to push the court further than ever before, knowing full well this may be his last chance, I feel he not only made his point but also cornered this court on the TPS issue. There is no hiding from this issue now as why would this court should even hold a hearing on it. It was/is very that Starke forced this Judge to talk too much and she as much as ruled on the issue already. Now she may have had her opinion already written and had had to go back and change things since Starke pointed out this one sentence that they were ignoring to make the case ok in the court’s eyes. When the opinion does come there will be no dodging this issue again unless and hopefully the whole mess is denied.
THE COURT: Well, I don't think it says you can't moot
20 the appeal. It says I cannot enter an order that changes my
21 prior order, enlarges or modifies.
22 MR. STARK: It actually says beyond that, Your Honor.
23 The applicable quote that Judge Shannon cites in VII Holdings
24 which is replete within all of these cases and if Your Honor
25 will allow me, a court may quote, "enforce an order or judgment
1 appealed because in implementing an appealed order, the Court
2 does not disrupt the appellate process so long as its decision
3 remains intact for the appellate court to review" closed quote.
4 Your Honor, right now what they want to do is take the
5 TPS securities, hand them over to JPMorgan, give them a 363(m)
6 excuse that says we can no longer ever get it back if Judge
7 Sleet reverses Your Honor. That is exactly contrary to what
8 every case -- and there's many cases talking about -- and the
9 binding precedent of cases talk about what the divestiture rule
10 says. The enforcement exception does not swallow the rule.
11 That issue is now his, his alone. Your jurisdiction is now --
12 is enabled on plan stuff but those TPS securities must be
13 reserved in an escrow pending the ultimate resolution of that
14 appeal.
