There was a hearing today on this motion by the Feoffees. In the hearing, we discovered that there were some changes to the plan (as outlined in Exhibit A) right up to the last minute for which we do not have details. Some of these were intended to address the concerns of the newly chosen lawyer for the New Feoffees.
Attorney Sheehan went first for the Feoffees and stated their opinion that this plan was allowable within the terms of the Agreement for Judgment and that a major reason they were coming before the court at all was for “transparency”.
Judge Sahagian wondered aloud how to treat this motion from a procedural perspective since she thought that the case was over and she had already signed the Agreement for Judgment.
Attorney Perry then spoke for the School Committee who had voted 6-1 the night before the hearing to oppose the motion. His main point seemed to be that the order of events laid out in the Agreement for Judgment (whereby the New Feoffees would take control and handle all the unit closings) was significant to the School Committee who did “not trust the Feoffees”.
A ruling was promised quickly, likely by week end.