In the courtroom.
12-05-2023, 05:40 PM
#381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,522
Airline Pilot, Judicial Expert, Peter Lynch clone….. what else? 😑
12-05-2023, 05:43 PM
#382
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
i was at court today.
Unimpressed with jblu's closing; doj put on a good performance, best to date.
Didn't feel great leaving the courtroom.
Chatted it up with other attendees. Singled out one woman i really wanted to talk to since i'd seen her every day i attended.
She ended up being an antitrust atty who attends these things regularly. She stated it's 80% chance of ruling with doj. The other two attys agreed it appeared to be a doj victory.
I painfully sold a metric $hitton of save stock after that conversation and am now out of the stock.
I really wanted to hear something different from the other attendees.
I still think it's a coin flip and is a reasonable merger but i couldn't justify my extreme overweight position. All the best to you guys.
Unimpressed with jblu's closing; doj put on a good performance, best to date.
Didn't feel great leaving the courtroom.
Chatted it up with other attendees. Singled out one woman i really wanted to talk to since i'd seen her every day i attended.
She ended up being an antitrust atty who attends these things regularly. She stated it's 80% chance of ruling with doj. The other two attys agreed it appeared to be a doj victory.
I painfully sold a metric $hitton of save stock after that conversation and am now out of the stock.
I really wanted to hear something different from the other attendees.
I still think it's a coin flip and is a reasonable merger but i couldn't justify my extreme overweight position. All the best to you guys.
trying to goose your short position! Was her name kathy wood? She is usually wrong.
12-05-2023, 06:15 PM
#383
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
LOL!
JBLU's closing arguments were meh.
I was extremely disappointed with Mr Shores' response to the Judge's pointed question on whether or not more divestitures would be satisfactory to JBLU. He took a couple of minutes rambling on about this and that before meekly saying yes, that'll work. Contrast that with the same question asked of the DOJ attorney - 'no your Honor, there are no divestitures that will solve this problem'. No hesitation, just a rapid concise answer to the Judge.
JBLU's closing arguments were meh.
I was extremely disappointed with Mr Shores' response to the Judge's pointed question on whether or not more divestitures would be satisfactory to JBLU. He took a couple of minutes rambling on about this and that before meekly saying yes, that'll work. Contrast that with the same question asked of the DOJ attorney - 'no your Honor, there are no divestitures that will solve this problem'. No hesitation, just a rapid concise answer to the Judge.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
12-05-2023, 06:55 PM
#384
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: NK CA
Posts: 840
The B6 lawyer was probably not in a position to give a blanket yes on further divestitures, which is something only the company can decide. Wasn't there, but a smart concise answer would probably have been something along the lines of "JetBlue would be open to considering all fair proposals..." and leave it at that.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
12-05-2023, 07:08 PM
#386
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 36
The B6 lawyer was probably not in a position to give a blanket yes on further divestitures, which is something only the company can decide. Wasn't there, but a smart concise answer would probably have been something along the lines of "JetBlue would be open to considering all fair proposals..." and leave it at that.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
12-06-2023, 12:26 AM
#388
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
By the way, it's Cathie Wood and SARK is a triple short ARKK if you feel saucy. SARK is down 89.3% YTD.
12-06-2023, 05:44 AM
#389
That/It/Thang
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,921
The B6 lawyer was probably not in a position to give a blanket yes on further divestitures, which is something only the company can decide. Wasn't there, but a smart concise answer would probably have been something along the lines of "JetBlue would be open to considering all fair proposals..." and leave it at that.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
Since he has apparently asked this question previously, it sounds more like he was taking a final temperature of both sides. This is a bench trial, not a jury trial, so it's unlikely that a passionate summation is what will ultimately sway his decision any more than a less elegant closing argument. He has the data provided, case law provided, and the law as written.
Now the waiting game.
So you have a judge that basically says over and over again that he is not inclined to put a full injunction on this merger, asks multiple times what they think of a court asking for more divestments, asks both sides, and one side still says no
I don’t think the judge appreciated that kind of unwillingness.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
