I use hr block, and it while it helps, it is certainly lacking. There are several forms or worksheets you have to fill out manually. Also, for item 13, there are entries on 7 subsections (A - T5), yet the program only accepts 2 or 3. And for item 13, there are entries on 7 more subsections (A-Z9), and the program only accepts 3 or 4. Years ago when PGH was a canadian trust, you could opt to electronically transfer their k1 info, directly onto your electronic tax form. At that time, I used tax cut, which was cheaper than turbo tax. I dont think ETE or ETP does that.
After the hatchet job on LINE, which led to an SEC investigation that led to nothing, they have zero credibility.
What is the statutory interest rate that will apply to this judgment while under appeal and if ETP wins the appeal process, are they allowed to recover legal costs accumulated during the appeal from EPD?
Although there will be an appeal, with potential additional liability exposure to be determined by the Judge, I suspect EPD will eventually engage in more serious settlement negotiations with ETP to limit EPD's losses.
So, if there was just one question to the jury, then it would seem that this question would have asked the jury to decide if EPD broke off their partnership with ETP and how much ETP should get in actual and punitive damages.
Is that pretty much so??
As an aside, seems with just one question to answer, it should not take long for the jury to come down with their finding. It would seem that ought to take a day or so.
The Judge has issued orders refusing 13 of Enterprise's 14 jury interrogatories (questions for the jury) to answer. The one that was not refused was modified.
Generally speaking, due to the nature of the case/claims presented, I think ETP has an edge heading into jury deliberations. Indeed, EPD & EEP do not occupy the moral/ethical high ground here.
With jury deliberations to start today, March 3, 2014 - one would have to wonder if the combatants took advantage of the weekend break to settle this lawsuit.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Perhaps you may not have seen the article on this topic in the Dallas Morning News.
Judging from this article, it would seem to me that the defendants, Enterprise and Enbridge, would want to settle with ETP over the week end before the jury commences deliberation.
Since Yahoo will not let us post a link, here is the whole story: What are your thoughts on this.
Multibillion-dollar pipeline fight between energy giants goes to jury Monday
By MARK CURRIDEN and NATALIE POSGATE
The Texas Lawbook
Published: 27 February 2014 09:10 PM
Updated: 28 February 2014 10:25 AM
Two energy giants “secretly and cold-bloodedly” conspired to exclude Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners from a multibillion-dollar partnership to build an oil pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to Houston in 2011, lawyers for ETP told Dallas jurors.
“They stole something. They did it intentionally. They did it maliciously and they did it because they are greedy,” ETP lead lawyer Mike Lynn said in closing arguments.
But David Beck, the lead lawyer for Houston-based Enterprise Products, told jurors that ETP’s lawsuit is “nothing more than a partnership by ambush.”
Thursday’s closing arguments capped an intense four-week trial that featured two dozen witnesses and thousands of internal documents from the three huge oil and gas corporations.
The key technical question for jurors is whether ETP and Enterprise legally formed a partnership or joint venture in 2011 when they teamed up to consider building the oil pipeline.
Enterprise subsequently formed a similar deal with the Houston unit of Canada-based Enbridge.
Enterprise contends it had no legal partnership with ETP and points to four documents issued by the two companies that state there wasn’t. For example, an April 27, 2011, agreement signed by ETP and Enterprise reads, “Nothing shall be deemed to create or constitute a joint ve
Sentiment: Strong Buy
You are correct. I checked the online docket. After filing various jury instructions, jury interrogatories, and objections to same, the Defendants have filed briefs in support of a Motion for Directed Verdict. No response from Plaintiff ETP yet; however, that would not be unusual because more often than not these things are argued orally, not via briefs.
However, given that the Court denied all of the Defendants arguments contained in their Motions for Summary Judgment as "meritless," it seems highly unlikely the Court will grant the directed verdict motions. Possible, yes; likely, no. Thus, the case will probably go to the jury at some point.
Sorry for the confusion. When I originally checked the docket, the directed verdict motions had not yet been posted by the Clerk of Courts yet.
When I checked with the court coordinator on this case, I was told that the case has not gone to the jury yet. Am I missing something here or do you have a more reliable source?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Barrons is no longer a valuable source of information - just a paid shill for the hedge funds. They will be out of business soon enough.
Perhaps. The equities of the situation favor ETP. It is as basic as making a deal and going back on your word.
The other thing is that the trial judge, in one of his orders, apparently denied the defendants' motion for certain evidence from FERC to be admitted. That evidence, according to defendants, would have established that ETP's damages are lower because the amounts that could be charged are lower.
If the defendants are arguing damages should be lower (not just about "we're not liable because..."), that's a bad sign for the defendants. If you're getting to the point of talking about damage amounts with jurors, many jurors believe that's a tacit admission of liability and it is not whether you owe, but how much.