{ "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": 45, "pageCount": 68, "prevPage": 44, "nextPage": 46, "slideType": "cite_precedent", "function": "cite_precedent", "density": "balanced", "nDataPoints": 0, "notes": "The slide highlights a legal precedent where the court opted for a formula approach despite arguments for an efficient market rate.", "elementsJson": [ "headline_text", "callout_box", "quote_block" ], "metadataConfidence": 1, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4/45", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-38d8804ef6d4#slide-45", "components": [ { "bbox": { "h": 0.13, "w": 0.84, "x": 0.08, "y": 0.22 }, "kind": "callout", "text": "The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling in the case of Prussia Associates, a limited partnership that owns and operates one hotel in King of Prussia, PA, shows that even if an efficient market is deemed to exist, the Court might still opt for a “prime-plus” formula approach", "attrs": null, "subkind": "primary", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "e995a71e-a0b5-45d7-9ed7-aa653974d810", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.1, "w": 0.34, "x": 0.48, "y": 0.75 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "Opinion of Judge Raslavich\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania\nIn re Prussia Associates\nApril 5, 2005", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "8e671d33-4ac4-44fe-adcc-5c87245bda85", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.25, "w": 0.64, "x": 0.18, "y": 0.41 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "“The Court is constrained, therefore, to conclude that, although this case presented an occasion upon which it indeed made sense to inquire as to what the relevant market rate of interest might be, the totality of the evidence presented did not permit a sufficiently informed conclusion to be drawn. Put differently, this case demonstrates that the mere existence of an efficient market does not guarantee that the short-comings of the coerced loan approach to rate setting, as described in Till, will automatically be overcome. The Court will thus fall back upon Till, and the formula approach, as the preferred means for setting the interest rate herein.”", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "cfcedff7-3743-4dfa-9f0d-13e2df1f0910", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "“The Court is constrained, therefore, to conclude that, although this case presented an occasion upon which it indeed made sense to inquire as to what the relevant market rate of interest might be, the totality of the evidence presented did not permit a sufficiently informed conclusion to be drawn. Put differently, this case demonstrates that the mere existence of an efficient market does not guarantee that the short-comings of the coerced loan approach to rate setting, as described in Till, will automatically be overcome. The Court will thus fall back upon Till, and the formula approach, as the preferred means for setting the interest rate herein.” — Opinion of Judge Raslavich, United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, In re Prussia Associates, April 5, 2005", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd953-14d7-73fd-9f52-1e237fb30f01", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.05, "w": 0.48, "x": 0.08, "y": 0.13 }, "kind": "title", "text": "In re Prussia Associates", "attrs": null, "subkind": "headline", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "06e38cbc-cdc4-46af-87cb-55fd6db2483d", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [ { "name": "authority-citation", "slug": null, "matchId": "f20b91c0-b4aa-4b3b-8a6d-da9d82ceacf1", "evidence": "Citing a specific legal case (In re Prussia Associates) to support a legal/financial argument.", "confidence": 0.9 } ], "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 }