First, hearing from individual creditors, rather than attorneys, is VERY, VERY rare. Judge Rhodes acted as we sometimes wish all our public servants would: varying the rules to effectuate democracy.
Second, you could see by the reactions to arguments which matter and which do not. The judge is receptive to the suggestion that a plan that impairs pensions violates the state constitution. That issue is likely what is called a "core proceeding" and would be in the scope of his authority to decide. He may, however, refer it to the state court or the US District Court.
I saw nothing that indicated that he was receptive to any of the arguments about PA 436. Whether that law is in accord with the state constitution is outside of his jurisdiction. And I don't see the higher courts of Michigan receptive to that either.
It was good to let people have their say. I doubt it changes much, but people have a right to be heard.
Bookmarks