Comments on Fear and Greed Blog: A Different Interpretation on Chrysler

I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in
2009-12-22T21:56:59.955-05:00
I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in a post yesterday.

Lawrence D. Loeb

But Mr. Loeb, I'm rather disappointed in your...

2009-12-18T13:04:46.444-05:00

But Mr. Loeb,

I'm rather disappointed in your reply.

The Sale Order was entered on June 1st. By it's very wording no stay was available for 10 days thereafter.

Justice Ginsberg apparently erred by extending the stay and the new SCOTUS order effectively vacates her extension.

You stated:

"I think we’re trying to dissect a paragraph and see more than is there."

I'm seeing exactly what's there. The Sale Order was entered on June 1st. The Sale order states unequivocally that no stay is available for 10 days after the order is entered. That's what is written. That's the the fact of the matter. If you'd like to assume the order means something other than what it say, than you ought to make that clear. But I'm not the one reading things into the passage which aren't there in reality.

"In your comment today, you seem to believe SCOTUS vacated the 2nd Circuit retroactive to June 2nd; but they didn’t SAY that. All they did was vacate the opinion and say that retrying now would be meaningless as the sale is closed."

But they didn't SAY that either.

It'a amazing that you critique me
for applying my analysis without an exact quote from SCOTUS, then go on to issue your own interpretation as if it was a quote. That's a neat trick.

But my implication is based on the facts - the Sale Order prohibited a stay as of June 1st. That's the facts. There's no argument otherwise.

You fail to confront the facts of the case and facts of the order. I'm not impressed. It's your blog. You can have the final word. I've said my peace.

Leo Donofrio

Mr. Donofrio: I think we’re trying to dissect a p...

2009-12-17T22:15:54.397-05:00

Mr. Donofrio:

I think we’re trying to dissect a paragraph and see more than is there.

We know, for a fact, that Justice Ginsburg stayed the sale until the 10th so that she could consider extending the stay for an accelerated appeal; so there was a stay.

I really don’t believe the stay was the issue.

The mootness, as I commented after the close of the sale, would come from the closing of the sale and the lack of a cause under 363(m) – no charge of a lack of good faith.

Once the sale was closed, it was hard to see what relief would be available if Indiana won. I, at the time, questioned whether the Court could rearrange the ownership after the sale (since the sale would be a done deal). You, yourself, noted that such relief would have “changed the entire sale drastically.”

In your comment today, you seem to believe SCOTUS vacated the 2nd Circuit retroactive to June 2nd; but they didn’t SAY that. All they did was vacate the opinion and say that retrying now would be meaningless as the sale is closed. The hearing was June 5th. I don’t think SCOTUS was looking to set the actual clock back. I think, to them, the mootness was due to the June 10th close.

To me, that means they didn’t want the 2nd Circuit opinion to be precedent, not that they were questioning the stay.

I’m not sure how, or why, you are focused on the stay as the issue. I believe the only issue is 363(m) and (I’m hoping) to avoid similar cases in the future.

Lawrence D. Loeb

Mr. Loeb, I have replied to your analysis in full...

2009-12-15T18:01:28.721-05:00

Mr. Loeb,

I have replied to your analysis in full at my blog. I do not have comments enabled, but should you reply here, I will update my blog with your further analysis. I am very interested in continuing the discussion.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/further-analysis-of-the-scotus-decision-for-in-re-chrysler-dated-dec-14-2009/

Regards,

Leo C. Donofrio

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Comments on Fear and Greed Blog: A Different Interpretation on Chrysler

I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in 2009-12-22T21:56:59.955-05:00 I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in a post yesterday.Lawrence D. Loeb

But Mr. Loeb, I'm rather disappointed in your...

Mr. Donofrio: I think we’re trying to dissect a p...

Mr. Loeb, I have replied to your analysis in full...

I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in
2009-12-22T21:56:59.955-05:00
I responded to Mr. Donofrio's comment in a post yesterday.

Lawrence D. Loeb