The part about assertions of ownership is a weird one. It's not uncommon to share services across entities, but typically there'd be an SLA or SSA in place to dictate the terms, reimbursements, etc. Safe bet that that doesn't exist here.
There's a funny little issue nested in the BSC action. Here's a hypo: If I send you an e-mail saying I'm going to feed your dog unless you tell me not to, you read the e-mail, don't tell me not to, and I feed the dog, can we agree that you wanted me to feed your dog?
Idk!
That's what's at stake here: SBF said ok I'm going to make Bahamian customers whole unless you tell me not to. Per Rolle aff., relevant Bahamian parties knew. They didn't respond. SBF did it. Ds now assert that BSC et al directed him to do it.
Sort of?
As an investigator, I can tell you where some juice might be: phone records.
Not responding to an e-mail isn't the same as having no comms with the sender. Everyone realizes this, right?
Nevertheless, not sure getting phone records would be poss., and calls not likely recorded.
ARGUMENT.
I. NO RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED WHILE JPL/COMMISSION SHELL GAME CONTINUES.
"An elaborate and intentional game is being played."
Easy there, Conan Doyle.
There isn't a whole lot in the OCUC objection that isn't already covered in the Debtors' objection. That's not a knock on the OCUC; the Debtors just did a super comprehensive job.