AMC: The Super Bowl is on [a CourtScribes Hotline]
Tomorrow morning at 9:15am, I can't believe it's finally here
The AMC hearing is actually happening, and I can’t believe it’s finally June 29th.
Oh my g-d. Is this real? Have we really made it this far? Is that a light at the end of the tunnel? Is it … a train?
I’m exhausted and hyped and excited and overtired and wired and tired and really need to get to sleep so that I can get back up as soon as I close my eyes.
There’s no way I can livetweet a two-day hearing without literally dying … the hour-plus hearings in the Twitter matter were enough lay me up for days trying to keep up with the mad typing and hyperactive brain activity, but I will try to stay present, process what I can, keep you posted on the high points, and give the internet an update in the not too distant future, probably both tomorrow night in brief, and then Friday or Saturday in more depth, and then Sunday or Monday if I haven’t collapsed in a puddle of post-adrenaline hibernation at that point.
Today was the due date for exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendations on the Objections to the Settlement, and Rose Izzo’s were filed, along with at least a handful of others. And in the case that never sleeps (and boy, do I know the feeling!), Jordan Affholter filed what I can only characterize as another really interesting motion / letter / thing that once again — like that old 90s trope really does make me go “hmmmm” because after all the back and forth and the whatnot about the oops, whoops does Allegheny County Employee Retirement System, ya know, the plaintiff here, really own shares of AMC common stock, Jordan noticed that the statement that we were first looking at and worrying about whether or not it showed APE or AMC, well, once again … maybe no one bothered to ask why it says “CIM Investment Management” with something redacted before that? Now, there’s probably a Very Good Reason™️ for all this, for which someone will pat me on the head at some point and tell me, “Dear, Dear, this is The Way These Things Work™️” and well, we’ll see if that actually explains anything or what, but I really have to say that I do not blame all of these independently-minded folks for wondering what the heck is going on when nothing can ever just be simple. Because I know for a lot of them, their stock is held in their kids’ name or their ex-spouse’s name, or their deceased parent’s name, or some other similarly perhaps-sort-of parallel non-corporate universe kind of thing that we will find out is you know, “The Way Things Work” (maybe, idk) but … that would make me question … would it have worked the same way for them? Did they get the same kind of pass? Because I know of a couple of instances just off the top of my head where the answer was no. And that seems unfair.
But anyway. It’s late and this is a Court of Equity so the best we can do is hope that the Court does its best to sort it all out. I can’t begin to fathom the scope of the work that lies behind and ahead in this case alone, and it is — lest y’all forget — but an actual drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of the docket, but by volume of filings, it’s punching way above its weight, that is for certain.
For tomorrow, you can dial-in tomorrow and listen for yourselves to everything that is going on, so don’t feel like you will miss out. I’ve made a thread that I will use to keep updated with my thoughts on the hearing, so you can check back there or in the Notes tab for my intermittent missives, but don’t expect a blow-by-blow.
Courtscribes lines are here:
Public Line 1: (774) 267-3617
Public Line 2: (617) 829-7274
Public Line 3: (774) 267-7226
Public Line 4: (774) 267-7876
Public Line 5: (774) 267-7689
The schedule is as follows for Thursday:
9:15-9:20 — Counsel of Record: Introductions
9:20-10:45 — Plaintiffs' Counsel
10:45-11:00 — Morning Break
11:00-11:45 — Defendants' Counsel
11:45-12:30 — Objector Izzo's Counsel
12:30-1:30 — Lunch Break
1:30-1:45 — Robert C. Alonso
1:45-2:00 — Louis Ambeaux
2:00-2:15 — Capt. John F. Barton Jr./III
2:15-2:30 — Rickey Brogan
2:30-2:45 — Jahangelo Caesar
2:45-3:00 — Brandon D. Fox
3:00-3:15 — Afternoon Break
3:15-3:30 — Eric R. Goolsby
3:30-3:45 — Ashley Groggins
3:45-4:00 — Leanne Hains
4:00-4:15 — Owen Hains
4:15-4:30 — Christine Hernandez
4:30-4:45 — Wina Jean Holland
4:45 — Adjourn
If you dial in and there’s no noise on the line, it’s because the Court is on a break, or perhaps because one of the pro se objectors did not show up for their allowed time. The Court indicated in the order that the proceedings would be adjourned for the allotted time until the next time slot, in that event. Also, when you dial in, you will most likely hear a voice say “MUTED!” — that means that your line is muted, which is a good thing. It doesn’t mean that you are prevented from hearing things. For some reason, this is confusing to people sometimes, especially if nothing is going on at the Court at that point.
If you have questions or other comments, feel free to post them in the thread, and I’ll get to them if and when I can. No promises, of course, because it’s going to be a crazy day, but as always — I’ll do my very best.
Much love,
Chance
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.
Have the brief and in depth updates mentioned in this post come out? Really looking forward to them!