sorry for the ancient reply. Sorry for the ancient reply. So much has happene since then. jake2b on twitter under handle @sboho is who did this though. wont seem to let me reply in full the post. ill try half here. and half.
I owe credit to u/theorico for a great post today providing analysis for the Cohen defendants counter claims in the pump and dump lawsuit. It made me revisit Docket 29, the Lazard engagement and the Kurtz declaration, which I had been looking back on periodically. As I have said before, I firmly believe Lazard is the epicentre of planning for this company. Today I want to present what I had been working away at with Docket 29.
In essence, legalese is like a secret language that lawyers use to confuse the average reader. Part linguist, part magician, they turn simple ideas into complex incantations that only they can fully understand. I joke of course, but it is with merit to bring it up as a good lawyer will use language to communicate specific requirements, outcomes, and only those things. Truly, you could say that interpreting the language can tell you more with what it does not say, rather than what it does. And so this brings me to Docket 29. I have a feeling I cannot shake that Lazard is intimately involved with the company’s efforts to revitalize and restructure and I have been relentlessly looking for ways to disprove myself and put the obsession to rest. But the more I look into it, the more obsessed I become. Let us look through some key points I have highlighted in Docket 29 and break them down with surgical precision.
Either this is the ultimate expression of obfuscating any logical anything, “the ultimate bear trap” as some have said, or I am losing my marbles.
r/BBBY - Lazard and Legalese: The ultimate bear trap? The most artistic use of the English language and tinfoil-level plausible deniability.
Kurtz declaration
So this docket aims to convince the Judge that he should allow Lazard to remain BBBY’s investment bank and financial advisor throughout bankruptcy. As such, you would think that the onset of the document and background information would be related to the services they are providing the company, so that the Judge would approve them.
So Mr. Kurtz states his role with Lazard, what they are and what they do. Again, you are asking the Judge to approve you providing services to the company and in this document you are beginning by saying you provide merger and acquisition services, raising money and providing consulting and advisory services on restructuring. Then in point 4 he really does not want to confuse anyone by again stating they assist with corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, divestitures (when a company disposes of some or all of its assets by selling, exchanging, closing them down, or through bankruptcy), restructuring, …wait. Special committee assignments?
Like when in the cooperation agreement, the company and Ryan Cohen agreed to form a Strategy Committee with two of his added board members?
“Immediately following the execution of this Agreement, Ms. Bowen and Mr. Rosenzweig shall be appointed to serve as members of the Strategy Committee of the Board (the “Strategy Committee”)…”
@paperplate Reddit is blocked on my network –– can you cross-post please?
sorry for the ancient reply. Sorry for the ancient reply. So much has happene since then. jake2b on twitter under handle @sboho is who did this though. wont seem to let me reply in full the post. ill try half here. and half.
I owe credit to u/theorico for a great post today providing analysis for the Cohen defendants counter claims in the pump and dump lawsuit. It made me revisit Docket 29, the Lazard engagement and the Kurtz declaration, which I had been looking back on periodically. As I have said before, I firmly believe Lazard is the epicentre of planning for this company. Today I want to present what I had been working away at with Docket 29.
In essence, legalese is like a secret language that lawyers use to confuse the average reader. Part linguist, part magician, they turn simple ideas into complex incantations that only they can fully understand. I joke of course, but it is with merit to bring it up as a good lawyer will use language to communicate specific requirements, outcomes, and only those things. Truly, you could say that interpreting the language can tell you more with what it does not say, rather than what it does. And so this brings me to Docket 29. I have a feeling I cannot shake that Lazard is intimately involved with the company’s efforts to revitalize and restructure and I have been relentlessly looking for ways to disprove myself and put the obsession to rest. But the more I look into it, the more obsessed I become. Let us look through some key points I have highlighted in Docket 29 and break them down with surgical precision.
Either this is the ultimate expression of obfuscating any logical anything, “the ultimate bear trap” as some have said, or I am losing my marbles.
r/BBBY - Lazard and Legalese: The ultimate bear trap? The most artistic use of the English language and tinfoil-level plausible deniability. Kurtz declaration
So this docket aims to convince the Judge that he should allow Lazard to remain BBBY’s investment bank and financial advisor throughout bankruptcy. As such, you would think that the onset of the document and background information would be related to the services they are providing the company, so that the Judge would approve them.
So Mr. Kurtz states his role with Lazard, what they are and what they do. Again, you are asking the Judge to approve you providing services to the company and in this document you are beginning by saying you provide merger and acquisition services, raising money and providing consulting and advisory services on restructuring. Then in point 4 he really does not want to confuse anyone by again stating they assist with corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, divestitures (when a company disposes of some or all of its assets by selling, exchanging, closing them down, or through bankruptcy), restructuring, …wait. Special committee assignments?
Like when in the cooperation agreement, the company and Ryan Cohen agreed to form a Strategy Committee with two of his added board members?
“Immediately following the execution of this Agreement, Ms. Bowen and Mr. Rosenzweig shall be appointed to serve as members of the Strategy Committee of the Board (the “Strategy Committee”)…”
Maybe.