The latest from Legal Blog Watch
- Lawyer Pulls No Punches in Scathing Response to Judge's 'Half-Baked' Order to Show Cause
- AT&T and T-Mobile Completely Unimpressed With Each Other, but Would Still Love to Go Forward With $39 Billion Acquisition
| Lawyer Pulls No Punches in Scathing Response to Judge's 'Half-Baked' Order to Show Cause | Top |
| Via the South Florida Lawyers blog I came upon an extraordinarily misguided bold Response to a bankruptcy judge's Order to Show Cause filed by a Florida lawyer named Kevin C. Gleason. I don't completely understand the underlying ruling, but I don't think I really need to in order to get the point that Gleason really disagrees with the judge's "conduct" and conclusions. As SFL notes, Gleason's response "would have made a really great first draft" -- i.e., one that allows you to vent your anger before it is immediately shredded and deposited in the circular file. But Gleason decided to go with it as his Response to the Order to Show Cause. It appears that there was a subsequent hearing on the matter (on April 20) which must have been quite tense, but I have not seen any coverage of it. In any event, here are quotes from some of Gleason's Greatest Hits in his response, including the entire opening paragraph which sets the tone: -- Opening paragraph: In your fourth published example of "Ready-Fire-Aim" against this attorney, it is obvious that you have not reviewed the record in this case which does not support the purported findings of fact.... | |
| AT&T and T-Mobile Completely Unimpressed With Each Other, but Would Still Love to Go Forward With $39 Billion Acquisition | Top |
| When I was a practicing lawyer, I always found one part of the class action settlement process to be kind of amusing. That was the part where, after the parties agreed to, say, a $25 million settlement and submitted it for court approval, the plaintiffs' law firm (which to date had shown nothing but 100 percent confidence in its case) must now turn around and argue against its own case to show the judge that it had not settled the case for too little. As in, "$25 million is fair because the court has already dismissed most of our claims, and we may have a statute of limitations problem, and even if we litigate for years we might well get nothing, and it will cost us a fortune to continue, and the defendants might go bankrupt" and so on. The M&A equivalent of this intricate dance appears to be going on in AT&T's effort to acquire T-Mobile. As the Law & Disorder blog observes, AT&T filed a massive document with the Federal Communications Commission last week, arguing that AT&T should be allowed to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion because, well, T-Mobile is a pretty unimportant company with uncompelling products and... | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
0 comments:
Post a Comment