Zurück
The Texas boys are ticked TOO. They want the documents (depository access) also.
The docs haven't hit KCCLLC yet, so in my impatience, I pulled their main filing. All the other appendixes as well as a motion-to-shorten should show up soon.
www.mediafire.com/?nljvgnzwidy
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Docket 4869
Motion to Compel The Texas Group's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Debtors and to Exercise Its Right to Participate in General Discovery Available to all Parties Filed by American National Insurance Company, American National Property and Casualty Company, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company, Farm Family Life Insurance Company, National Western Life Insurance Co. Hearing scheduled for 7/8/2010 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #4, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 7/6/2010. (Migliore, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
--------------------------------------------------
If I read it right, Texas boys had a fight with WMI over discovery, where WMI finally said "uh, no, we won't give you access to the depository because you didn't file a claim."
And the Texas boys are saying, bullshit, we *are* a party in interest since your f'n POS GSA causes our claims in District Court to be extinguished, therefore, *YOU*, Debtors, MADE us a party in interest.
Eg, you can't have it both ways. You can't use the Bankruptcy Court to screw us, wipe out our District Court claims, and at the same time, also deny us access to the documents.
Apparently their argument is that since their claims in District Court are extinguished by the POS GSA, then that automatically makes them a "party of interest". They quote some case stuff about that.
I find it more interesting the about-face that apparently occured.
The Texas boys were provided a confidentiality agreement by WMI to get access to the documents, signed it, returned it, and _THEN_ WMI decided, "never mind, you can't have access"
Had to have pissed off the Texas boys big time. Being lead/strung along and then rebuffed. Next day, this filing. They were rebuffed on July 1st. Filed July 2nd.
I'm going to make a rhetorical observation as well.
*IF* the Texas boys are successful in showing THJMW that they are a party-in-interest and get access to discovery (depository) documents, based on the fact they are an affected party in the POS GSA through the non-consenting release of their claims....
*THEN* it would follow that there are other parties in the shadows, that may also have similar beefs with the "releases" being proposed. And, it would (may) also follow that they could come forward under the same logic that the Texas boys are using, and ALSO be granted access. Eg, this is a slippery slope for Rosen and crew. Gigabytes of data, poured over by angry parties coming out the woodwork.
But, this may be the exact argument that Rosen may try to use. Eg, in order to keep control of the confidential nature of the documents, that they should only be provided to those who are "directly involved" in the case, not these "tangential involved" parties. Sounds kinda hollow to me, but we'll see what Rosen's arguments are soon enough.
The docs haven't hit KCCLLC yet, so in my impatience, I pulled their main filing. All the other appendixes as well as a motion-to-shorten should show up soon.
www.mediafire.com/?nljvgnzwidy
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Docket 4869
Motion to Compel The Texas Group's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Debtors and to Exercise Its Right to Participate in General Discovery Available to all Parties Filed by American National Insurance Company, American National Property and Casualty Company, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company, Farm Family Life Insurance Company, National Western Life Insurance Co. Hearing scheduled for 7/8/2010 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #4, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 7/6/2010. (Migliore, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
--------------------------------------------------
If I read it right, Texas boys had a fight with WMI over discovery, where WMI finally said "uh, no, we won't give you access to the depository because you didn't file a claim."
And the Texas boys are saying, bullshit, we *are* a party in interest since your f'n POS GSA causes our claims in District Court to be extinguished, therefore, *YOU*, Debtors, MADE us a party in interest.
Eg, you can't have it both ways. You can't use the Bankruptcy Court to screw us, wipe out our District Court claims, and at the same time, also deny us access to the documents.
Apparently their argument is that since their claims in District Court are extinguished by the POS GSA, then that automatically makes them a "party of interest". They quote some case stuff about that.
I find it more interesting the about-face that apparently occured.
The Texas boys were provided a confidentiality agreement by WMI to get access to the documents, signed it, returned it, and _THEN_ WMI decided, "never mind, you can't have access"
Had to have pissed off the Texas boys big time. Being lead/strung along and then rebuffed. Next day, this filing. They were rebuffed on July 1st. Filed July 2nd.
I'm going to make a rhetorical observation as well.
*IF* the Texas boys are successful in showing THJMW that they are a party-in-interest and get access to discovery (depository) documents, based on the fact they are an affected party in the POS GSA through the non-consenting release of their claims....
*THEN* it would follow that there are other parties in the shadows, that may also have similar beefs with the "releases" being proposed. And, it would (may) also follow that they could come forward under the same logic that the Texas boys are using, and ALSO be granted access. Eg, this is a slippery slope for Rosen and crew. Gigabytes of data, poured over by angry parties coming out the woodwork.
But, this may be the exact argument that Rosen may try to use. Eg, in order to keep control of the confidential nature of the documents, that they should only be provided to those who are "directly involved" in the case, not these "tangential involved" parties. Sounds kinda hollow to me, but we'll see what Rosen's arguments are soon enough.
