Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt's avatar

Giving Affholter's wild accusations any credence is a bit much.

CIM is an investment advisor and as such their name showing up on a statement for a client is not any more nefarious than the statement also stating the name BNY Mellon on it. To make accusations and demand "irrefutable proof" (whatever the heck that is, because even death penalty cases only require beyond a reasonable doubt) is a bit much for me. Also, Affholter misconstrues the question the court asked and Allegheny's response. The court asked for "confirmation" not "proof" as they already had sworn testimony that Allegheny owned the shares, yet Affholter cries that "proof" that satisfies him was never provided.

And to be clear, having stock held in your child's name and claiming you are the shareholder is far more confusing than having the name of an investment advisor on your brokerage account. Also, it would seem for the sake of the objections where you are dealing with thousands of people, a streamlined approach is a necessity whereas in terms of a class representative where you are dealing with a couple of people there is no need for such a streamlined approach.

Also, is this not a derivative action where the VC has a fiduciary duty to the Corporation as well? Would that not mean that any order she gives should be one that enables the process to complete timely (given the liquidity concerns here)? Treating the objectors, who number in the thousands the same as the class representatives is perhaps just not a reasonable approach as it would have likely delayed things increasing the liquidity issues AMC faces, which would seem to run counter to the fiduciary duty of the VC.

Expand full comment
What the Fox Say's avatar

Have the brief and in depth updates mentioned in this post come out? Really looking forward to them!

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts