{
  "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4",
  "docSlug": "7d738951d1e5",
  "documentTitle": "General Growth Properties (GGWPQ)",
  "authorId": "01_Pershing_Square",
  "authorName": "Pershing Square",
  "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor",
  "presentationDate": "2009-05-27 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "portrait",
  "aspectRatio": 0.77272725,
  "pageNumber": 43,
  "pageCount": 68,
  "prevPage": 42,
  "nextPage": 44,
  "slideType": "cite_precedent",
  "function": "cite_precedent",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 0,
  "notes": "The slide cites the legal precedent established by Justice Stevens in the 2004 Till v. SCS Credit Corp case.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "quote_block"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4/43",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4#slide-43",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "Thus, unlike the coerced loan, presumptive contract rate, and cost of funds approaches, the formula approach entails a straightforward, familiar, and objective inquiry, and minimizes the need for potentially costly additional evidentiary proceedings.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd953-14d7-73fd-9f51-f540ce0d7747",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.12,
        "w": 0.32,
        "x": 0.49,
        "y": 0.745
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "Opinion of Justice Stevens\nSupreme Court of the United States\nTill v. SCS Credit Corp\nMay 17, 2004",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "d803e79c-bd1e-4a4a-9edd-3a372bf33eeb",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.25,
        "w": 0.625,
        "x": 0.188,
        "y": 0.328
      },
      "kind": "quote",
      "text": "Thus, unlike the coerced loan, presumptive contract rate, and cost of funds approaches, the formula approach entails a straightforward, familiar, and objective inquiry, and minimizes the need for potentially costly additional evidentiary proceedings.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "pull-quote",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "d037c58b-480b-46e3-bcd5-41ff59da4edc",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "quote",
      "text": "“Thus, unlike the coerced loan, presumptive contract rate, and cost of funds approaches, the formula approach entails a straightforward, familiar, and objective inquiry, and minimizes the need for potentially costly additional evidentiary proceedings. Moreover, the resulting ‘prime-plus’ rate of interest depends only on the state of financial markets, the circumstances of the bankruptcy estate, and the characteristics of the loan, not on the creditor’s circumstances or its prior interactions with the debtor. For these reasons, the prime-plus rate best comports with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.” — Opinion of Justice Stevens, Supreme Court of the United States, Till v. SCS Credit Corp, May 17, 2004",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Authority citation",
      "toolSlug": "authority-citation",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd953-14d7-73fd-9f51-fb51a385a405",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.25,
        "x": 0.083,
        "y": 0.135
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "The Logic of Till",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "04c27fd9-5ed9-4da7-9ca5-e42f20fe7f5a",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "authority-citation",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "f09aca17-c49f-40c6-b3a1-bf12f072162a",
      "evidence": "Citing Supreme Court opinion to establish legal validity of a position.",
      "confidence": 1
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 68,
      "from": 35,
      "beatId": "169e941d-9840-4b8e-a722-5cc6448c842f",
      "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
      "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
      "beatName": "Solution (Provide relief)",
      "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-solution-provide-relief",
      "evidence": "The presentation proposes a solution for reorganization, providing relief for secured creditors.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "parentBeatName": "Resolution",
      "parentBeatSlug": "resolution"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 50,
      "from": 36,
      "name": "Hypothesis Test",
      "slug": "42-hypothesis-test",
      "bestFor": "Strategy validation, due diligence, research presentations",
      "matchId": "e2c1c744-9c7e-466a-b9b5-c6482f4a63d4",
      "evidence": "The presentation tests the hypothesis that re-pricing GGP's debt to Till-mandated rates would allow for a more favorable reorganization.",
      "position": 1,
      "objective": "What if GGP's debt were re-priced to Till-mandated rates?",
      "structure": "The Hypothesis -> Test 1 (Supports/Refutes) -> Test 2 (Supports/Refutes) -> Conclusion (Validated/Pivoted)",
      "confidence": 0.7,
      "description": "State a hypothesis upfront, then systematically prove or disprove it with evidence"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}