No Jursidiction - Oklahoma Bankruptcy Court, Crazy Thinking

FICTITIOUS ALLEGATION:

Federal Bankruptcy Court will be engaged should some stated event trigger jurisdiction under the 1981 filing for which Horseshoe Development Corporation’s Parent Corporation filed. HDC being an asset of or subsidiary of the Parent Debtor Corporation, Gulf Shores, Inc.

INVESTIGATION THE FICTITIOUS CONCLUSION

Identify how someone might have come to this conclusion as a way to understand why it is or is not correct. Spoiler alert: It is NOT CORRECT

Concern the 1980s bankruptcy court could possibly have jurisdiction over an Arkansas corporation, HDC seems preposterous and unfounded.

The source of these perfosterous and unfounded allegations has not been identified, but the false, misleading and preposterous information has been communicated by Josh Jackson and Bo Chevallier as early as 2019 in their communication to Matt Bishop, outside counsel who qustioned both Josh and Bo on more than one occasion as to the perposterous notion that Gulf Shore's 1980 Bankruptcy would some how give the OK Federal BK court jurisdiction over Horseshoe Bend's amenities.

It is alarming how one could conclude such a thing in the face of professional questioning. Subsequent suggestions of seeking assistance from multiple Bankruptcy Counsel only goes to highlight the concern of mismanagement of funds. If the MRID did in deed seek advice from multiple Bankruptcy Counsel when they should have sought advice from a Business Org/Trust counsel, thousands of dollars were likely wasted as? When the allegations are clearly false and incorrect.

b. The property trust that was created at the time of the MRID was intended to hold the gifted assets for the benefit of the Horseshoe Bend property owners, with Charles Pursifull as the initial trustee. Working backward, trying to reach the incorrect conclusion/allegations, propose the following two possible scenarios:

(1) There may have been some confusion around the role of the trustee. Perhaps there was a belief that the trustee of the trust is the trustee in the bankruptcy court

OR – and this is a stronger error

(2) A mistaken belief the Grantor = the bankruptcy court. This comes from the wonky language in the first paragraph of the trust agreement

CHARLES PURSIFUL, Trustee of Horseshoe Development Corporation, in Proceedings for Reorganization of Corporations under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. BK-74-554 (hereinafter “GRANTOR”), and RON ANDERON, GORGE LOGAN and HAROLD PLAND, Commissioners for and on behalf of “municipal Recreational Facilities Improvement District No. 80-01 of the City of Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas” (hereinafter “COMMISSIONERS” and “DISTRICT”),

The court is clearly not gifting the property owners amenities, so the grantor is Horseshoe Development Corporation. Based on the newspaper accounts I’ve read at that time, the court went to great lengths to remove HDC and the amenities belonging to the property owners of horseshoe bend from the bankruptcy proceedings, I find it highly unlikely there is anything to trigger Horseshoe Bend back to a 1980’s Federal Bankruptcy court for which they were not a party in the first place.