AeneA
Pochi ma buoni
Docket 4063 e seguenti
Qui c'è bisogno di Paolo e della sua competenza nelle procedure del ch11, perchè non riesco a capire su cosa si contende.
La questione è cominciata con uno scarno docket, il 4063:
"NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 9014-2 of the Local Rules of the
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the hearing on the Debtors’ Motion Pursuant
to Section 502(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3) for the Establishment of
the Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof and
Approval of the Proof of Claim Form [Docket No. 3654], scheduled for June 24, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.,
will be an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses may testify.
Dated: June 22, 2009
New York, New York
/s/ Shai Y. Waisman "
Poi, dal 4065 in poi, sono cominciate le opposizioni, con Barclays in testa, di diversi "pezzi grossi" :
"OBJECTION
1. The Debtors’ Notice does not comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule
9014-2, which specifically provides that, with certain enumerated exceptions, “[t]he first
scheduled hearing in a contested matter will not be an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses
may testify.” Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2 (emphasis added).
Pursuant to subsection (a), the
Court may permit the presentation of evidence at the first scheduled hearing in a contested
matter. It is not for the Debtors to unilaterally decide whether an evidentiary hearing would be
appropriate less than 48 hours before the scheduled hearing. The Debtors’ Notice does not
indicate that the Court has granted permission to make the first hearing on the Motion an
evidentiary hearing. Nor do any of the other exceptions identified in subsections (b) through (f)
of Local Rule 9014-2 apply.
2. Barclays further submits that it would be manifestly unfair to allow the
Debtors to present evidence, whether in the form of witness testimony or otherwise, on less than
48 hours notice. The Debtors’ Motion was originally filed on May 26, 2009 on notice of
presentment with an objection deadline of June 12, 2009. After more than 75 objections and
joinders were filed in opposition to the Motion, the Debtors unilaterally adjourned [D.I. 3948]
the hearing on the Motion from June 17, 2009 to the June 24, 2009 omnibus hearing. Despite
having had plenty of opportunity prior to today, the Debtors did not indicate that they intended to
present evidence at the first hearing on the Motion (nor apparently sought permission to do so).
To permit the Debtors to do so now, on less than 48 hours notice to all interested parties, would
be manifestly unfair. Less than 48 hours notice, on a matter that is not an emergency, would not
permit pre-trial discovery of the Debtors, nor permit the objectors, who are scattered all over the
world, to have witnesses to present at the hearing for their affirmative case.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Barclays respectfully requests
that this Court (i) hold that the Notice was filed in violation of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2,
(ii) direct that the first hearing on the Motion to be held on June 24, 2009 shall not be an
evidentiary hearing, and (iii) and grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just or proper. "
Sarei curiosa di capire qual è la differenza fra un hearing normale e una evidentiary (prove?? ma di che?) hearing , visto che gli altri sono così contrari.
Qui c'è bisogno di Paolo e della sua competenza nelle procedure del ch11, perchè non riesco a capire su cosa si contende.
La questione è cominciata con uno scarno docket, il 4063:
"NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 9014-2 of the Local Rules of the
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the hearing on the Debtors’ Motion Pursuant
to Section 502(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3) for the Establishment of
the Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof and
Approval of the Proof of Claim Form [Docket No. 3654], scheduled for June 24, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.,
will be an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses may testify.
Dated: June 22, 2009
New York, New York
/s/ Shai Y. Waisman "
Poi, dal 4065 in poi, sono cominciate le opposizioni, con Barclays in testa, di diversi "pezzi grossi" :
"OBJECTION
1. The Debtors’ Notice does not comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule
9014-2, which specifically provides that, with certain enumerated exceptions, “[t]he first
scheduled hearing in a contested matter will not be an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses
may testify.” Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2 (emphasis added).
Pursuant to subsection (a), the
Court may permit the presentation of evidence at the first scheduled hearing in a contested
matter. It is not for the Debtors to unilaterally decide whether an evidentiary hearing would be
appropriate less than 48 hours before the scheduled hearing. The Debtors’ Notice does not
indicate that the Court has granted permission to make the first hearing on the Motion an
evidentiary hearing. Nor do any of the other exceptions identified in subsections (b) through (f)
of Local Rule 9014-2 apply.
2. Barclays further submits that it would be manifestly unfair to allow the
Debtors to present evidence, whether in the form of witness testimony or otherwise, on less than
48 hours notice. The Debtors’ Motion was originally filed on May 26, 2009 on notice of
presentment with an objection deadline of June 12, 2009. After more than 75 objections and
joinders were filed in opposition to the Motion, the Debtors unilaterally adjourned [D.I. 3948]
the hearing on the Motion from June 17, 2009 to the June 24, 2009 omnibus hearing. Despite
having had plenty of opportunity prior to today, the Debtors did not indicate that they intended to
present evidence at the first hearing on the Motion (nor apparently sought permission to do so).
To permit the Debtors to do so now, on less than 48 hours notice to all interested parties, would
be manifestly unfair. Less than 48 hours notice, on a matter that is not an emergency, would not
permit pre-trial discovery of the Debtors, nor permit the objectors, who are scattered all over the
world, to have witnesses to present at the hearing for their affirmative case.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Barclays respectfully requests
that this Court (i) hold that the Notice was filed in violation of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2,
(ii) direct that the first hearing on the Motion to be held on June 24, 2009 shall not be an
evidentiary hearing, and (iii) and grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just or proper. "
Sarei curiosa di capire qual è la differenza fra un hearing normale e una evidentiary (prove?? ma di che?) hearing , visto che gli altri sono così contrari.
