Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Well, I was wrong about SLM's strategy. Here is a copy of SLM's letter to VC Strine sent this morning. In SLM requests a January trial date. I can't believe that Flowers et al. will now disagree given Strine's statements on Monday. See you in Delaware this winter . . . .
Final Addendum Thought: Reading into all of this and making a number of leaps, I think SLM was likely being obstinante in the negotiations (or not negotiating in good faith). Flowers took the opportunity to take the intiative (see the waivers here and here). Clearly, the parties could have reached some agreement that would help SLM manage its business for the next 4-5 months. That they didn't probably means that SLM was bluffing all along to get a fast on-the-record hearing because that would favor their position. When it didn't work, they decided to cave and go with a trial. Apparently, they have determined to live with the covenant restrictions and not force VC Strine to act based on his reading of the contract without other (parol) evidence. That seems a little strange given Strine's somewhat favorable remarks at the hearing; but perhaps this is marketing to Strine's comments about such hearings.