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.
I think one of the problems, though, is that we throw out all things that are improperly couched in the wrong legal terminology, the inaccurate legal standard, etc., when obviously we can substitute the proper details. I can think of good reasons to apply lower standards to the objectors here, not higher ones, tbh, especially on this timeline.
I actually don't think the objectors were subjected to a higher legal standard here, but the hour is getting late and you are going to have a long day following the case so will let it lie.
Good luck once you get to 1:30PM today and the conspiracy theories start flying.
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.
All incredibly fair points. And admittedly the language of the final demand was way off the reservation.
I think one of the problems, though, is that we throw out all things that are improperly couched in the wrong legal terminology, the inaccurate legal standard, etc., when obviously we can substitute the proper details. I can think of good reasons to apply lower standards to the objectors here, not higher ones, tbh, especially on this timeline.
I actually don't think the objectors were subjected to a higher legal standard here, but the hour is getting late and you are going to have a long day following the case so will let it lie.
Good luck once you get to 1:30PM today and the conspiracy theories start flying.
Have the brief and in depth updates mentioned in this post come out? Really looking forward to them!
Nope ... there's just going to be the in-depth one, and I'm grinding through it...
Chance, is there any update to the schedule for Friday, given the no shows from the lineup yesterday?
No. VCZ said we would sort today’s schedule out this morning, to some degree. But no change at this point.
OK, would appreciate an update if you hear some new deets.