Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.
Message: Here are some highlights I found interesting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
for the Northern District of California
the course of this case and the Committee itself sought the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee
.
Later, the Committee and Debtor offered competing plans of reorganization
.
After considerable
e
ffort, the Committee and Debtor negotiated the Joint Plan
.
That document displaces Daniel
Leckrone from management, replaces
him with
Swamy
Venkidu
.
It also displaces the entire
TPL board, replacing it with Committee
-
sponsored members.
Even if there were
cause to appoint a trustee, the mechanism the Committee and Debtor
have employed to deal with this case vitiate that cause
.
Whatever transgressions or failings
Moore attributes to Daniel L
e
ckrone, TPL, and Alliacense, are ameliorated by the appointment
of
Swamy
Venkidu to act as CEO
.
Swamy
Venkidu will answer to a TPL board that is
composed of members selected by the
C
ommittee itself
.
His
job is to run TPL in a business
-
like
way to ensure that creditors are paid what has been promised under the Joint Plan.
The TPL
board is authorized to remove
Swamy
Venkidu if he does not perform adequately
.
In the court’s
view, this procedure
—
which has been vetted and approved by creditors
—
is far preferable to the
appointment of a chapter 11 trustee
.
Such an appointment wou
ld cause disruption, additional
cost, and delay, as a trustee would need to be brought up to speed on the complexities of the
case
.
The new management of TPL already knows how the company functions, the challenges it
faces, and its realistic prospects for
reorganization
.
Given the complexity of the Joint Plan,
Swamy
Venkidu’s oversight by the Committee, and the delays already inherent in this case,
granting the Motion would be a singularly poor idea.
Finally, Moore is wrong to complain that Debtor has fail
ed in its obligation to monetize
the MMP Portfolio
.
According to the contingent proof of claim Moore filed, Moore contracted
with TPL to monetize that portfolio
.
His co
-
inventor also sought to monetize that portfolio
.
Due
to the conflicting claims, Moore,
TPL, and Patriot settled their differences by creating PDS
.
Thus, it is PDS that is responsible for monetizing the MMP Portfolio, not TPL
.
Alliacense
,
admittedly, is responsible for overseeing litigation in connection with that portfolio, but it
should do
so under instruction from PDS, not TPL
.
To the extent Moore has complaints about
the MMP Portfolio monetization, he should address them to PDS
2 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply