Jump to content
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Perhaps I'm just too jaded ... I'm not a lawyer.  I have ready many court decisions over the years.  Bad habit formed after taking college constitutional law course.  From what I've seen, courts justify decisions to get a fair result as much as they interpret existing law.  I could see somehow the commerce clause interpreted this whole situation effectively feels unworkable.   
    • I don't know which is more frustrating, a CO who doesn't realize it owns the unit, or a former CO who thinks it still owns the unit.  Once a CO gives up its charter, it isn't their unit anymore.  They don't own it.  It belongs to someone else.  It is not their unit under a different format.   
    • My rebuttal is that this is a bankruptcy issue and one of the responsibilities of the court is to make BSA a viable  entity (as a corporation) post bankruptcy.  It could not be viable in financial sense if they are left with with potential lawsuits from prebankruptcy in the post bankruptcy period.  There was a deadline to file a claim and if you did according to the judge (all claims prima facie) then they have legal standing.  If you have legal standing you have the right to vote.
    • The same way that California can impose higher emissions standards than other states. The Supreme Court has said that the commerce clause does not mean states cannot impose requirements on businesses doing business in that state PROVIDED it treats its own "domestic" businesses the same. For example, if California's emissions rules said "All cars manufactured outside of California are not required to meet the emissions standards; all other cars must" that would violate the commerce clause. It's sometimes called the dormant commerce clause: states are free to enact their own tort laws SO LONG AS they hit every company from everywhere equally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause First question, does NY opening up its statute of limitations impact interstate commerce? Sure. Second question: does it have as its PURPOSE to discriminate against commerce from other states? In other words, is NY picking on BSA because BSA is in Texas? No. Third question: does it have as its EFFECT to discriminate against commerce from other states? In other words, even if NY didn't mean to pick on BSA because BSA is in Texas, is that the result? Again, no. That ends the discussion. But the fourth question (we didn't get to) is even if NY could be shown to be discriminating against BSA because it was based in Texas, is there some justification for picking on Texas? Etc.
    • No.  It's not that they are "as invested".  It's that it's just too hard to figure out right now and the answer is being kicked down to the future to clarify.   Again ... "As invested" ... Emotionally absolutely.  Morally yes.  The question is legal standing is not clear.  That's the debate.  If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful.  ... Current legal actions (voting on settlement) can't be based on possible future legislative action.  The debate is can it be based on probable legal standing as it's too difficult at this exact moment.  ... but ... if it's clear they don't have right to funds, they don't get a say.  ... that was the reason for the comment about Uruguay votes.  ... there is a ridiculous aspect to those without legal rights voting on a settlement.    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...