Bankrupt: On The Media's Fiduciary Duty To Rangers Fans
Michael Young indicates his confusion over the Rangers' on-going bankruptcy proceedings.Yesterday afternoon, Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal scooped everyone by posting breaking news about the Rangers' bankruptcy proceedings on Twitter. "Federal judge finds Texas Rangers impaired," he wrote, "likely means they can block the sale."
This wasn't quite right. Judge D. Michael Lynn, who's presiding over the Rangers' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, did not find the ballclub impaired. (Nearly four decades of Rangers fans might've agreed with him if he had, but that's beside the point.) And the Rangers were not going to block their own sale. Rather, the judge found the club's creditors impaired, along with its equity owners.
(At the prompting of a contributor at Lone Star Ball, Kaplan later corrected his "tweet"; the original is no longer online.)
Kaplan quickly moved on. "Said source close to creditors: 'This is great news. [...] Means plan is not confirmable,'" he reported. He made no other further information available. For an hour or two, there was no further indication from Kaplan regarding the context for his coverage. There was no explanation of the grounds for the judge's decision, or detail about Kaplan's source(s), or why he granted one source close to the creditors anonymity.
Meanwhile, Judge Lynn's memo was uploaded to the website Scrib'd, where anyone could peruse it. Within an hour or so of Kaplan's initial posting, "Unfair Park" -- the blog of the Dallas Observer -- had posted a link to the document, accompanied by an entry quoting Kaplan's messages, and the claim, "It would appear to be a good day for the creditors."
Soon thereafter, however, the Observer updated its story, adding the following:
A good Friend of Unfair Park, who happens to be a local bankruptcy attorney, summarizes thusly for those of us who were not smart enough to go to law school:
"If the creditors are happy, it's because Lynn didn't just completely pour them out. He is not going to confirm the plan as it now stands, but all Hicks has to do is amend the plan to pay the creditors interest on their 75MM.
Once the new plan goes on file, the two Rangers equity companies have to re-vote to approve it. In order to scuttle the deal now, the creditors have to figure out a way to take control of the Rangers equity companies so they can cast the vote the way they want. The involuntary bankruptcy cases that the creditors filed against the Rangers equity companies may eventually get the creditors some control, but not soon enough I'll bet. Later, I think Kaplan et al. will realize the creditors (Monarch) just won the battle and lost the war."
At the same time, Kaplan was engaged in an argument with another, legally trained reader from LSB, who -- having read the memo -- found it less of a victory for the Rangers' creditors than Kaplan's reporting implied. In response to the reader's observation that the judge's memo seemed to indicate that minor changes might resolve the situation, Kaplan replied, "Minor? Oh come on. The judge ruled the plan can't proceed without lender approval. End of story."
But, of course, it wasn't the end of the story. And with due respect to the good friend of "Unfair Park," the required modifications to the plan were not obviously limited to adding interest to $75 million dollars.
And the reports kept coming, fast and furious.
Buster Olney, about an hour after Kaplan's tweet: "The judge's decision today on the Rangers' creditors is viewed by execs in baseball as a big blow to the team's efforts to trade pre-Aug. 1." No word on which execs; no word on whether or how Olney had managed to poll a representative sample of informed decision-makers within an hour or so of Kaplan's tweet, and before most people had a chance to digest the judge's memo.
Craig Calcaterra, at about the same time: "Big loss for the Rangers in b[ank]r[u]ptcy court today. Decision could end any hopes of a move before the deadline." In his accompanying blog entry, he stated, "[The judge's ruling] means [the lenders] can vote to accept or reject the prepackaged plan that the team had come up with. Of course, the creditors have said they would reject the prepackaged plan, so unless something dramatic happens soon, they probably will." He made this assertion despite the fact that, as he admitted, he hadn't read the judge's memo in its entirety.
In lieu of that, Calcaterra referred readers to Maury Brown's website, and concluded, "That sound you hear is every Rangers fan in the world screaming bloody murder to the heavens above. Once they get done venting, however, they should refocus those screams at Tom Hicks because he's the one that got everything in such a mess to begin with."
What did Maury Brown's website have to say at the time? The headline read, "Judge's Ruling in Texas Rangers Bankruptcy Case Could Pave Way for Lenders to Block Sale"; the report opened, "The bankruptcy judge in the voluntary bankruptcy case of the Texas Rangers may have dealt a blow to the prospective ownership group led by Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan." Brown's piece cited Kaplan's earlier "tweet." Separately, he tweeted agreeably at Kaplan, "Yeah, this is no small deal. Mediation seems like best route for both sides. Plan would have to be amended greatly, otherwise."
Kaplan, for his part, posted his own story on the Sports Business Daily website (with no paywall); its headline was, "Judge rules Rangers' creditors have right to block sale of team." In this report, however, he also noted, "Lynn did not order the Rangers to pursue the Crane bid, and in fact ruled the club was not bound to take the highest offer." This was an aspect of the memo that had not received much attention on the afternoon, though it had been a central focus of coverage leading up to the judge's ruling.
Kaplan and Brown proceeded to give on-air interviews with Dallas-Fort Worth radio shows (the former with "The Hardline"; the latter with Randy Galloway) to explain their expert opinions on the day's events.
Meanwhile, the churn continued -- but with a twist. One or two hours after Kaplan's initial tweet, Evan Grant posted his first comments at the Dallas Morning News -- and struck a cautionary note. "First," he wrote, "Rangers business-side officials did not comment on judge's opinion today, so most of this is speculation of the purest nature." Similarly, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Barry Schlachter observed, "The decisions represented a partial victory for the lenders… [but] just how big the setback is remains to be seen."
Just more than an hour later, Grant returned with a copy of Eric Morath's coverage of the memo for Dow Jones. The headline: "Ruling does not give lenders ability to veto sale." Morath's reporting is also worth citing at length:
A U.S. bankruptcy judge said Tuesday that the Texas Rangers baseball team's Chapter 11 plan doesn't make lenders to the club's owners whole, but that doesn't give the lenders the right to block a sale of the franchise….
The judge said the plan must be modified to grant [the lenders] the same rights against the bankrupt entity, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, once it emerges from Chapter 11, as the lenders had before that entity filed. But since that entity likely will have sold its most valuable asset -- the Major League Baseball team -- the lenders' "rights may have lost much of their usefulness"...
[Lynn] said the lenders could pursue possible damage claims against the bankrupt entity and Hicks Sports Group following confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan. If the changes Lynn suggested are incorporated into the team's bankruptcy-exit plan, "the plan will be confirmable," the judge said in court papers.
Later, Maury Brown weighed in again, but with a considerably different tone. "Upon Further Review, Texas Rangers Bankruptcy 'Plan' Could Move Forward Shortly," his headline read. Brown's intro: "After further inspection, press reports regarding a U.S. Bankruptcy judge's ruling saying creditors had veto power over a 'prepackaged plan' that would exit the Texas Rangers from voluntary bankruptcy may not be as detrimental as initially believed."
For his part, Kaplan refocused on the appointment of William Snyder as Chief Restructuring Officer. He began by noting, "Other huge development of the day with [Texas R]angers: judge appointed a chief reconstruction officer to also vote on the sale: more in S[ports] B[usiness] D[aily] tom[orrow]." He later admonished Brown that the latter's latest entry reflected "the team spin, but for now [the sale is] blocked. And the real power has been shifted to this chief reconstruction officer."
In another post, Kaplan asked his persistent LSB interrogator, "What are you, a team plant?" and reiterated, "Believe what you want. Right now the sale is blocked and the CRO has a lot of power." But not long thereafter, he opined, "[The] judge will really try to resolve this…. But this may partly fall on the new CRO and his opinion" (emphasis added). And Brown came back with his own rebuttal: "But, there's ample text in the ruling that allows Debtors to reach certain criteria that blocks vote. Going to be tough."
So what are we to make of all of this? From a facts-about-the-sale perspective, I'm not going to venture an opinion. I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I have zero -- zero -- legal training. I've read Judge Lynn's memo a couple times now, and spent a fair amount of time talking about it with folks who seem to be knowledgeable, but I'm absolutely not in any position to make any definitive claims about the legal situation of the Rangers at this point.
(Before you read any further: reread that last paragraph.)
I don't think you have to be a lawyer, though, to follow the media chronology set out above -- and, in doing so, to realize something's not right. So I do have one strong opinion about today's events: the media coverage, especially of Judge Lynn's memo, left a lot to be desired.
I don't mean to paint the media with too broad a brush. I appreciate those reporters (mainly but not exclusively local) who, like Grant, cautioned readers that their analyses were speculative, and who emphasized that the ramifications of Judge Lynn's memo had yet to be properly contextualized. And I am equally thankful for those few journalists who, like Morath, not only appeared to have read the judge's memo thoroughly, but also included key passages of it in their reports, with enough context and depth for readers to start making sense of the ruling.
Unfortunately, those responsible takes were swamped by the coverage of those who, in their rush to get the story out first and fastest, made very questionable decisions. These were professionals -- people who make their living doing this sort of thing. And from them we saw reports that got basic facts wrong. We saw dependence on anonymous sources, with no stated rhyme or reason. We saw questionable assertions backed by little if any evidence. We saw reportage that more or less reversed course in the span of five hours.
And none of this happened because there were unexpected events that surfaced over the course of the afternoon. The news of the day was the judge's memo, and that was anticipated to be the case. The memo contained almost all of the new facts that (as I write this) have been reported and analyzed. That memo raised a number of obvious questions (both to my untrained eyes, and to a number of more trained pairs). But most of those who were quickest to report the story punted those questions for several hours -- even as they were publicly weighing in on the purportedly dire consequences of the judge's ruling for the Rangers.
Blurring breaking news with preliminary and tentative analyses is bad enough. Compounding the confusion by going live with incomplete information is worse. Adding ad hominem replies to readers to that mixture is toxic.
Look: I'm no Luddite. I'm (obviously, I hope) a fan of blogs. I think they have an important role to play in the media. I believe that even Twitter has its place in conveying key information. But the professionals who provide us with news have to do a better job of reporting in situations like these.
One reader here suggested that rather than post a piece like this, I should contact some of the reporters involved, and engage them in private, constructive, critical dialogues. That's a good suggestion, and I'm open to it. But after reading some of the responses to those who've already posed critical questions and perspectives, it doesn't seem sufficient.
The sale of the Texas Rangers is, on the grand scale of world events, a very minor issue – but that doesn't excuse journalists from reporting on it in a responsible, thorough, and professional manner. And if some don't, readers have no excuse for sitting by and letting it happen.
In short: the sound we should hear is "every Rangers fan in the world screaming bloody murder to the heavens above" – but for one day, at least, it's not just about Tom Hicks.
56 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (56)
Congratulations Joey, on a very compelling insight.
Now consider this, baseball, while a big part of life for most of us in this blog community and others like it, is in the larger view, not especially significant. So that the journalistic malfeasance shown by many of the professionals yesterday bears little consequence to our existence. But apply that same knee-jerk pack mentality, followed by aversion to admit wrong, to a press that brings you news of politics, world events, social issues, and economies, and you have a recipe for a largely misinformed populace who are treated as children who are to accept any and all "legitimate media" emanations as having been vetted, edited, and documented. Not so.
Though I have to take a break at times from blogs due to the raw nature of discourse at times I believe that to our society at large they have become not only an alternative view, but a necessary watchdog over the heretofore so-called mainstream media. While each independent blog may not offer 100% gospel 100% of the time, the abundance of information made freely available allows for the individual reader to collect enough pieces of the specific story lines he cares about to eventually arrive at the facts, or the truth, or both.
Keep up the good work.
Very thoughtful piece Joey. After spending all night reading as much info on this as I could find, I came to the conclusion that the Judge has said that the if the creditors are "better" taken care of the sale can go through. It's now up to Greenbery/Ryan to make that happen and we can end this. In the mean time,Yeah 9 in a row!!!!
Excellent post. Very insightful, organized, and supported. Many reporters and bloggers (not just who cover sports but who cover any topic) could learn a great lesson from what happened here.
Great piece Josh, ironic that the previous post praises Joey for doing thorough job correcting media errors and then gives credit to another author. lol. Just an observation not an ad hom attack on AS
Agreed: great post. You have me (and others) dead to rights on jumping the gun. I just put up a new post acknowledging that:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/top-posts/the-rangers-bankruptcy-decision-maybe-not-as-bad-as-it-seemed-yesterday.php
As a lawyer I should know better. As a blogger I should do better. I appreciate you writing what you wrote.
Very well said. Too often writers, even those who do this for a living, put more emphasis on being first instead of being accurate. Sadly it's a by product of today's fast paced news cycle and I'm not real sure there's a solution right now.
@JFitz,
the beauty of the blog, immediate response capability. I stand corrected. Seems I do this every time where Josh is concerned. I probably should have known as well by the fact that Josh was over at LSB for a large part of the afternoon, so that he was very much in the loop as to how events played out yesterday. Good catch.
Credit and thanks to Mr. Calcaterra as well.
Great piece, Josh. And a tip of the cap to Craig C. for acknowledging his mistakes.
Bankruptcy law is complicated and combinded with the pressure to be the first one out with the news it is understandable that many fell for the creditor's spin.
Good news for the Rangers is that the end is in site. Biggets fear is that Hicks will refuse to make the minor changes as requested by the judget. Now why would I fear that Hicks will screw this up at the last minute......................
Best question not asked.
What is the partners underlying responsibility to satisfy the debts of HSG? Once the Rangers are cut loose the outstanding debt will still be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely selling the Stars will not liquidate that debt.
So, is HSG a corporation or some sort of protected partnership or do the HSG partners remain PERSONALLY liable for any debt not satisfied by the liquidation of HSG assets?
Why do I think that BMFF Sr. will walk away from this train wreck he created with extreme wealth.
gosh, my 76 year old brain just cant handle all this.... I am confused.
My thinking is Hicks is trying to come out of this with his money secure and let the lenders be the losers. I thought it was his fault he went too far, out spending himself..
well I am ready to get back to baseball.. (hay James) we need a new manager... so we can be winners.. that should start something... even for a 76 year old "dummie" like me...
@Billy D. - If you're a dummy, so am I... but I think Jon's either answering our questio, or asking what I believe the 2 of us are confused about.
When I started reading this it sounded as if the bankruptcy judge has declared that Hicks cannot simply declare "BANKRUPTCY" (for those of you that are fans of The Office, you'll know what I'm talking about) and have all his debt forgiven thereby screwing his lendors.
To me, it sounds like the lenders now have the right to demand more money for the sale of the Rangers... and if that price is not met, they can take over the team and basically run it until they recoup the money lost by Hicks ineptness.
I'm probably way off base... and if so, would someone please explain it to me like I'm an 8 yr old (another Office reference).
Craig, I appreciate your response, both here and on Hardball Talk. And thanks to everyone for your comments.
Props to Joey on the article. Props to Craig on the accountability.
Epic.
This is great blogging. It's really nice to have the chronology of events and outstanding questions so clearly documented.
And, it's also really nice to have in-depth analysis on something other than Ian Kinsler and Rich Harden, who are both way overanalyzed on the more analytical boards.
Correction: I now realize Josh wrote the article. My apologies.
OK, this is simple. Greenberg/Ryan have won. The sale will go through on schedule. A new plan will be submitted that won't affect the sale, or the Texas Rangers. It will allow the creditors some minor relief against the Hicks subsidiaries that own the Rangers, and are broke anyway. Looks to me like it will be a done deal. That's my prediction, even though I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Great piece.
The baseball media in DFW sucks for the most part. The same guys who took a month before anyone reported about Salty's yips (or whatever - and it was the OKC paper that printed it first with any kind of investigation). The same guys who refuse to go and look into Washington's past to see if the coke in his nose last year was the really the first time. The same goofy media who said Matt Treanor was the team's MVP. And on and on and on.
Joey, Josh and everyone else who writes for this blog does a top-notch job, day in and day out and we are lucky to have them.
Just some comments here that I made at LSB.
Jon: HSG is owned by Hicks Holdings LLC. As an LLC the intent is to eliminate personal liability of the members so Hicks and others should not be personally liable for any shortfalls in paying back HSG's debt unless the creditors can pierce the corporate veil. Piercing the corporate veil is tough to explain but basically you prove the corporation didn't act separately from the members; i.e. the members just used the corporation as a shield and didn't use it as a separate entity (commingly assets, undercapitalized, etc). But the creditors aren't really being hung out to dry but their remedy is not the sale of the Rangers but going after HSG who agreed to the debt but only used the Rangers to secure a portion of the debt.
Pabloesque: no - more money to the creditors from the sale isn't the issue. My take on the ruling is the Plan tried to eliminate some liability of HSG once the sale is done. One beef the creditors have is the stadium lease was transferred shortly before the bankruptcy was filed and they have claimed that was fraudulent. My impression is the Plan said the Creditors with direct ties to the Rangers (as opposed to HSG) get $75MM plus interest and that's it. Judge said no, they have to have the opportunity to pursue other claims against HSG and that's probably the change to the Plan that needs to made.
Note: none of this is legal advice.
And for folks looking for a good discussion on the matter check out ab03's comments in the LSB post on this issue.
Great stuff Josh. Your chronology is really telling about not only the media but the true implications (in my opinion) of the Judge's decision. Kudos also to the media for taking a second look at things.
First, let me say that I am not an attorney and I don’t claim to be an expert in much of anything. Having stated this, I am very impressed with Judge Lynn. And not so much with the “Lenders.” What Judge Lynn’s ruling says to me is that: 1) the Rangers do not have to reopen the bidding, 2) he wants the sale to go through expeditiously, 3) he has provided guidance concerning how to make the “Plan” confirmable, 4) he’s not taking away any of the Lenders’ rights, but he hasn’t granted them much of anything either. And he did all of this in such a way that everyone says they are happy! In fact, the prompt statement from the Lenders seemed so happy, they will have a hard time going back now and saying that the Judge and his rulings are unfair. Maybe they should have studied everything a little more before issuing a statement. Right now, they are not looking too smart!
I read the opinion as quickly as I could, in order to help the Observer scoop the nationals. My quick analysis did not agree with Kaplan's but he at least seemed to have read the ruling. Everyone else-- including the Associated Press-- seemed to just parrot what Kaplan had said, without reading it for themselves or even crediting Kaplan for his opinion. I quickly wrote a little more about it this morning at
http://is.gd/d0Jw2
Excellent article.
-FuturePants
Ok,
Let me get this straight. HSG under pressure from Major League Baseball filed for voluntary bankruptcy. In the filing documents, the voluntary bankruptcy plan contained language that explicitly or implicitly, limited creditor rights under the loan contract between the creditors and HSG. The Judge the creditors where "impaired" because the plan cannot simply do away with portions of the legally binding contract between HSG and creditors. To rectify the situation, all HSG has to do is resubmit the plan with language insuring the enforcible parts of the original loan document is in the plan. Is this right?
If so, the appointment of a neutral party to oversee HSG seems to indicate that Judge does not want HSG to pull fast one. It also seems that the creditors ultimate target is not the Rangers per se but to go after HSG and perhaps build a case to pierce the corporate limited liablity protections and go after HIcks Holdings and Hick's personel assets. Or at least I hope so......
Oh, and one more thing, I will say that I am a practicing litigator and these bankruptcy issues are confusing to me, so it's not shocking that journalists would misinterpret the Judge's memo. However, the broad, blanket statements that some made (and are continuing to stand by), may be a little inappropriate. Time will tell.
Give that Maury Brown guy hell. Look for a detailed analysis shortly.
Very well written Josh! Keep up the good work.
Excellent, one of the best things I've read on a Rangers blog ever.
It was astounding yesterday to watch tweets go back and forth and see a guy like Kaplan not only get the story wrong, but also dismiss calls for clarification away as annoyances.
The coverage of this issues has had fans' emotions on edge. I've seen many unfair insults lobbed at guys like Calcaterra and Brown for what they reported, shooting the messenger, essentially. But yesterday the messengers fell down on the job a bit. It's good to see them keep updating with the details that were missing yesterday.
I'm heading over to Maury's Biz of Baseball site now to read his latest update, titled "The Brilliance of the Texas Rangers Ruling".
1) Josh: great stuff. Always good to see a rational approach in the middle of such irrational hyperbole.
2) Maury: you should be embarrassed at how you've covered this story. You are a one-sided hack with a blog and have constantly injected your personal biases into the story, making countless errors in the process.
The same guys who refuse to go and look into Washington's past to see if the coke in his nose last year was the really the first time.
Dude, you really have problems. It's a sick obsession.
I think this is RW's fault somehow.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
Gotta agree with TB. Best article I have read on ANYTHING in a long time. Well put together. Props to C. C. for being a man in this situation. It would have been easy to shrug this off.
I think this is RW's fault somehow.
Just wanted to throw that out there.Fire that guy.
Props to C. C. for being a man in this situation.
Word.
The Brilliance of the Texas Rangers Ruling
Only kidding about RW Rangers100. Just messing with you.
Rangers100: Your comment directed at Maury is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack. That's the kind of thing that Joey has expressly told us to avoid while commenting here at BBTiA. It's also one of the types of responses that elicited more criticism directed at Daniel Kaplan from Josh. Just chill out a little bit and tone it down. Please.
I agree with all of the comments about the great article by Josh! The reporting on this in some quarters has been atrocious. I'm an attorney with ten years experience, long enough to have a decent idea of what's going on when reading rulings and to understand that I may be missing big things between the lines. I heard several of the radio interviews and read the blog entries. Some may say that there are reporters in MLB or the Ranger's backpockets, but the clearest item revealed to me is that there is one "reporter" parroting and taking hook line and sinker what the creditors are saying. That seems to me a sure way to NOT get a story right.
@Dave H. - "Rangers100: Your comment directed at Maury is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack. That's the kind of thing that Joey has expressly told us to avoid while commenting here at BBTiA."
I don't care much for Rangers100 but outside of calling this Maury guy a hack, he didn't say anything that was wrong or offensive, or at least it wasn't offensive to me. I guess if I were Muary I might be offended... but it comes with the territory, no? What he said wasn't crude or racist... and once you get past his arrogance, he's pretty damn funny and usually spot on.
I'm not suggesting for 1 second that all sorts of cussing, personal attacks, crude/rude comments, etc... should be tolerated (we can go to DMN for that stuff)J but maybe we need to lighten up a bit.
BTW - whats the definition of "ad hominem"?
A question for Mr. Brown ...
What next?
As I read the various synopsis' that have been posted ... by those I would consider to be "credible" ... it appears that the "fixes" that the judge wants to see are fairly minimal ... & should be fairly easy to accomplish ... unless Texas Rangers Baseball Partners drags its feet in getting the changes approved ... which I suppose they could do, since the changes seem to be designed to increase TRBP's exposure to "possible future litigation" ...
Just wanted to read an informed synopsis of what the short-term future looks like as this thing goes forward ...
Thanks in advance ...
Pabloesque: Here's the Webster's definition:
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
This was an ad hominem circumstantial. This type of ad hominem basically attempts to discredit a person's argument by attacking a supposed personal bias. It's a logical fallacy that assumes that because a bias seems to be present that person's argument/work is always false (which isn't necessarily true).
I've seen attacks that are far worse than this one, but it fits the bill (at least by definition). Besides being hyperbolic, it was directed straight at one of the few writers who (along with Craig Calcaterra) actually retracted his first reports, apologized, and wrote a better informed response today.
Basically my response to Rangers100's comment was motivated by him going after Maury the way he did rather than Mr. Kaplan who hasn't retracted anything and has made similar "ad hominem" attacks when people have questioned his conclusions.
In case Josh hasn't heard it often enough, I just wanted to chime in with my own compliments on his excellent reporting...of the reporting. I thought it was fair and informative. Thanks to CC for being accountable.
To all the contributors at BBTIA, keep up the good work. I read you daily.
@ Dave H,
Terrific response to Pabloesque, and I couldn't agree more with the last 2 paragraphs.
joSH, my apology for the earlier fail on my part in attributing authorship to Joey. BBTiA continues, regardless of individual authorship, to spark intelligent and reasonable conversation often bringing in voices not heard from in other venues. Kudos to you all.
@Dave H. - I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying... and for the vocab lesson.. I evidently need it.
No problem Pabloesque. And I wasn't necessarily trying to correct you; I just wanted to give you the definition you asked for and got a little long-winded.
It sounds like the July 9th hearing has been postponed until the 22nd with a mediation set for July 16th. http://sbnation.com/e/1298885
Some mistakenly assume that filing for bankruptcy means they will lose their home. While this is possible, many states allow homeowners to keep their homes under certain exemptions. For instance, in the state of New York, homeowners can keep the first $10,000 of their home's equity. If the individual has more than $10,000 in equity, the property would have to be sold, but if the equity is less than $10,000, it cannot be touched. Many homeowners do lose their homes in the bankruptcy process, but it is not a guarantee.
The media do not have a fiduciary duty to Ranger fans.
I have always liked Outdoor movies, a child standing at the window, looked out from home to
the following. Will be able to see the staff busy figure, a huge white cloth has a child
hang up and soon will be able to see the movie.
replica hermes handbags|
Finish off a lovely and elegant evening appear as you carry this Dior Ultimate Rendez-Vous wholesale canvas bags together with your just about every ensemble. It truly is indeed a classic purse that could too instill a classic magnificence to your entire fa?ade, even letting you portray a goddess-like image when completely matched using a stunning gown or cocktail dress. replica designer handbags
by Jordan shoes, one of the hottest brands worn by celebrities and by the world. Stepping up the pace, he rolled out his eponymous street
wholesale jordan shoes
Cheap True Religion
China wholesale
Discount Bags & Handbags
wholesale basketball shoes
wholesale COACH handbags
wholesale GUCCI shirts
wear line, Christian Audigier, reflecting Christian? French-California perspective and drawing inspiration from his everyday lifestyle influenced by rock & roll and glam on the streets of Los Angeles.
by Jordan shoes, one of the hottest brands worn by celebrities and by the world. Stepping up the pace, he rolled out his eponymous street
wholesale handbags
wholesale ed hardy
wholesale air jordan shoes
cheap handbags
discount handbags
Discount Ed Hardy Jeans
Cheap True Religion
wear line, Christian Audigier, reflecting Christian? French-California perspective and drawing inspiration from his everyday lifestyle influenced by rock & roll and glam on the streets of Los Angeles.
by Jordan shoes, one of the hottest brands worn by celebrities and by the world. Stepping up the pace, he rolled out his eponymous street
wholesale jordan shoes
Cheap True Religion
China wholesale
Discount Bags & Handbags
wholesale basketball shoes
wholesale COACH handbags
wholesale GUCCI shirts
wear line, Christian Audigier, reflecting Christian? French-California perspective and drawing inspiration from his everyday lifestyle influenced by rock & roll and glam on the streets of Los Angeles.
by Jordan shoes, one of the hottest brands worn by celebrities and by the world. Stepping up the pace, he rolled out his eponymous street
wholesale handbags
wholesale ed hardy
wholesale air jordan shoes
cheap handbags
discount handbags
Discount Ed Hardy Jeans
Cheap True Religion
wear line, Christian Audigier, reflecting Christian? French-California perspective and drawing inspiration from his everyday lifestyle influenced by rock & roll and glam on the streets of Los Angeles.
discount designer clothes
discount coach bags
fashion mens ed hardy jeans
coach necklace
cheap designer jeans
cheap designer bags
wholesale jordan shoes
air jordans for sale
cheap running shoes
True Religion Jeans
My friendS told me that this blog is competitive. i will continue to read.
new jordan shoes
I have never read such a wonderful article and I am coming back tomorrow to continue reading.