I'm sure they didn't commit perjury and certainly didn't intentionally falsify documents, but given that one of their Annual Reports showed their AMC Common Stock holdings to be in their bottom 10% performing, one can imagine a whole where they sold it, then when they were asked whether they held any at a later date, someone checked the statements, which -- to the human eye -- certainly make it seem like they do, then no one until Jordan bothered to check the CUSIPs, and ... here we are? It's not an impossible world to ponder.
They probably did sell, just not their whole position. Most of these funds index match when they are this big. A little of everything is in the basket. Not going to deny a possible world where a fat finger happened, but I dunno. I guess we'll find out by Friday.
Does Zurn write all these responses and orders by herself? Or does she provide an outline and have clerks to help write and pull in citations?! I feel bummed on her behalf that she has to produce so much high quality content in such a short amount of time. I mean, maybe she’s just super humanly efficient, but I don’t know how she gets in enough sleep and self care with the volume of text she outputs.
The judges and their clerks all work together in varied and different ways, but Zurn undoubtedly -- like the other Vice Chancellors -- cranks out an insanely high volume of absolutely impeccable work on her own, as do each of her clerks. It's mind-boggling how the three of them (each of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellors have two clerks per each) can accomplish what they do. Vice Chancellor Cook said at last week's Bench and Bar that he estimates that today's clerks perform the same amount of work that he performed in a year as a clerk in the mid-aughts in a single quarter now. 😱
Looks like they borked something when they uploaded the additional documents last night (or actually this morning with that letter with the dial-ins that you linked in your comment). Thanks for catching it, I think I fixed everything for now. Let me know if anything else looks wonky.
Trying to wrap my head around this. So it seems that VCZ is saying that she reads the alleged wrong on the fiduciary claim as fairly said to be August 3rd, 2022, so therefore proper standing would require having held the stock from August 3rd 2022 through date of conversion? If that is the case, then would the proposed settlement be awarding relief to parties without standing, i.e. that the class is too broad?
See footnote 3 of VCZ's letter: "see also TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021) (“Every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages. ‘Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not.’” (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 466 (2016) (Roberts, C. J., concurring)))"
I am having trouble thinking about which way this cuts. Does this mean the proposed settlement class is too large (i.e., anyone who bought between August 3rd and held through conversion)? If so, does that mean significant delay because parties would potentially have to renotice a new settlement that excludes the overbroad class?
Something tells me Allegheny didn't commit perjury for the lolz, but none the less something to keep us entertained while waiting for the R&R.
I'm sure they didn't commit perjury and certainly didn't intentionally falsify documents, but given that one of their Annual Reports showed their AMC Common Stock holdings to be in their bottom 10% performing, one can imagine a whole where they sold it, then when they were asked whether they held any at a later date, someone checked the statements, which -- to the human eye -- certainly make it seem like they do, then no one until Jordan bothered to check the CUSIPs, and ... here we are? It's not an impossible world to ponder.
They probably did sell, just not their whole position. Most of these funds index match when they are this big. A little of everything is in the basket. Not going to deny a possible world where a fat finger happened, but I dunno. I guess we'll find out by Friday.
Does Zurn write all these responses and orders by herself? Or does she provide an outline and have clerks to help write and pull in citations?! I feel bummed on her behalf that she has to produce so much high quality content in such a short amount of time. I mean, maybe she’s just super humanly efficient, but I don’t know how she gets in enough sleep and self care with the volume of text she outputs.
The judges and their clerks all work together in varied and different ways, but Zurn undoubtedly -- like the other Vice Chancellors -- cranks out an insanely high volume of absolutely impeccable work on her own, as do each of her clerks. It's mind-boggling how the three of them (each of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellors have two clerks per each) can accomplish what they do. Vice Chancellor Cook said at last week's Bench and Bar that he estimates that today's clerks perform the same amount of work that he performed in a year as a clerk in the mid-aughts in a single quarter now. 😱
Multiple links are resolving to this document, which doesn't appear to be the correct one in the context of the sentence/paragraph in at least a couple places: https://www.blbglaw.com/news/updates/2023-04-03-blbg-secures-additional-shares-for-amc-stockholders-in-landmark-recapitalization-settlement/_res/id=Attachments/index=2/June%2021,%202023%20-%20Plaintiff%20Allegheny%20County%20Employees'%20Retirement%20System's%20Response%20to%20The%20Court's%20June%2020,%202023%20Letter.pdf
What the heck?!? That's what I get for not creating my own short links...
Why must I do everything myself, she mutters...
Looks like they borked something when they uploaded the additional documents last night (or actually this morning with that letter with the dial-ins that you linked in your comment). Thanks for catching it, I think I fixed everything for now. Let me know if anything else looks wonky.
Trying to wrap my head around this. So it seems that VCZ is saying that she reads the alleged wrong on the fiduciary claim as fairly said to be August 3rd, 2022, so therefore proper standing would require having held the stock from August 3rd 2022 through date of conversion? If that is the case, then would the proposed settlement be awarding relief to parties without standing, i.e. that the class is too broad?
See footnote 3 of VCZ's letter: "see also TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021) (“Every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages. ‘Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not.’” (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 466 (2016) (Roberts, C. J., concurring)))"
I am having trouble thinking about which way this cuts. Does this mean the proposed settlement class is too large (i.e., anyone who bought between August 3rd and held through conversion)? If so, does that mean significant delay because parties would potentially have to renotice a new settlement that excludes the overbroad class?