Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc (CE) (AAIIQ) 銘柄情報

That's definitely a hail mary on Boeing's end lol

All up to the appeals court now

Boeing Can't Nix Maintenance Co.'s $2M Jury Trial Win
By Hannah Albarazi

Law360 (May 11, 2020, 10:45 PM EDT) -- An Alabama federal judge on Monday denied Boeing's request to toss a now-defunct maintenance company's $2.1 million breach-of-contract win against the defense contractor, saying jurors saw sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Boeing breached their deal by bidding solo on a $1 billion-plus Air Force contract.

U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor shut down The Boeing Co.'s bid for judgment as a matter of law, finding there to be sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favor of Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc., which sued Boeing in 2011 alleging that it caused AAI to go belly up by stealing trade secrets and pulling strings with corrupt Air Force officials to cut it out of a major plane servicing contract that its survival depended on.

Judge Proctor said a reasonable jury could conclude that Boeing breached both the memorandum of agreement and the nondisclosure agreement it entered with AAI — formerly known as Pemco.

The judge said a reasonable juror could also conclude "that Boeing's evidence that it could not have used AAI's information was not credible, and in preparing its solo bid, Boeing in fact used Pemco's proprietary information to compete with AAI."

The judge agreed with AAI that the verdict should not be disturbed.

AAI launched its legal battle against Boeing in 2011 shortly after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. AAI claimed it provided Boeing with proprietary information under a 2005 agreement to jointly bid on a contract, only to have Boeing pull out of the deal and win the contact on a solo bid. AAI alleged that Boeing cheated to get the contract and pointed to a DOJ investigation as proof.

In 2006, Boeing agreed to pay $615 million to settle U.S. Department of Justice probes into allegations of a yearslong arrangement between Boeing and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management Darleen A. Druyun. The DOJ accused Boeing of illegally obtaining and using competitors' information to win contracts worth billions of dollars from NASA and the Air Force.

Druyun, who eventually pled guilty and served nine months in prison, repeatedly made decisions on behalf of the USAF that overwhelmingly favored Boeing, then left to take a $250,000-per-year job at Boeing.

One of the deals Druyun allegedly skewed in favor of Boeing while at the USAF was the 1998 contract for maintenance of the Air Force's KC-135 tanker fleet. Those contracts have been AAI's lifeblood going back to 1969, but for the 1998 contract Druyun allegedly arranged to have the KC-135 maintenance work bundled with maintenance for the A-10 Warthog, with which AAI had no experience.

That led to the 1998 contract going to Boeing, but just a few years later the USAF ordered Boeing to hire AAI as a subcontractor to perform the work on the KC-135 tankers. The two companies teamed up to submit a bid on the next contract in 2005, but Boeing canceled their agreement to jointly bid on the contract for maintenance of the Air Force's KC-135 tanker fleet after the military branch reduced the anticipated scope of the project, AAI said.

Both companies ended up bidding separately, and Boeing was awarded the contract in May 2008, even though AAI's submission was about $15 million lower, according to AAI.

In 2017, Judge Proctor sanctioned Boeing, finding that its employees destroyed documents related to its long-running dispute with AAI over the $1 billion-plus U.S. Air Force contract, and said he would allow a jury to assume the information deleted could have hurt Boeing's case.

After nearly a decade of litigation, in March a jury awarded AAI nearly $800,000 for a violation of the bidding agreement and another $1.3 million for a violation of a nondisclosure agreement. The award was far less than AAI's 2011 estimate that the damages exceeded $100 million.

Boeing argued that the jury's verdict had been based on improper jury instructions, inadmissible evidence and "claims on which Boeing is due judgment as a matter of law."

Boeing argued that AAI failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that Boeing breached either the memorandum of agreement or a nondisclosure agreement

On Monday, Judge Proctor noted in his opinion that AAI had presented sufficient evidence to the jury that Boeing's termination of its memorandum of agreement with AAI was a breach of contract because Boeing's participation in the program with AAI was still practical and financially viable.

The judge also concluded that Boeing's arguments that AAI failed to prove that it misused any of AAI's proprietary information and that its alleged conduct caused it damages are without merit.

Representatives for Boeing and AAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

AAI is represented by J. Michael Rediker, Joshua D. Lerner, Peter J. Tepley, Meredith Jowers Lees and Rebecca A. Beers of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PC and Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight LLP.

Boeing is represented by R. Thomas Warburton and J. Thomas Richie of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston, Kasdin Miller Mitchell and Alexia Brancato of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. et al. v. The Boeing Co. et al., case number 2:11-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--Additional reporting by Ryan Boysen and Rick Archer. Editing by Emily Kokoll.

More filings...

If you have time anyone to explain why 575 seemed a reversal of Proctor's previous decision requiring payment? And what does he imply by including "SHALL have and recover from Defendants The Boeing Company, Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc and Boeing Aerospace Support Center in the sum of $2,506,970.20 with interest as provided by law, and their costs in this action

..................................................................

.S. District Court
Northern District of Alabama (Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-03577-RDP

Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc et al v. Boeing Company, The et al
Assigned to: Judge R David Proctor
Case in other court: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, CV-11-903218
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute
Date Filed: 10/07/2011
Date Terminated: 03/03/2020
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Date Filed # Docket Text

03/25/2020 581
Transcript of JURY SELECTION Proceedings held on 2/10/2020, before Judge R. David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Risa L. Entrekin. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due 4/15/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/23/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

03/25/2020 582
Transcript of Proceedings VOLUME I held on 2/10/2020, before Judge R. David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Risa L. Entrekin. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due 4/15/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/23/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

03/25/2020 583
Transcript of Proceedings VOLUME II held on 2/11/2020, before Judge R. David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Risa L. Entrekin. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due 4/15/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/23/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

03/25/2020 584
RESPONSE to Motion re 575 MOTION to Stay Execution on Judgment Pemco's Response to Boeing's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment filed by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Lees, Meredith) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

Current docket entries
Looks the both sides are appealing as expected and the case will go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals


03/02/2020 570 
ORDER pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1871(b)(2), as amended, the Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to pay the jurors in this case an additional $10 attendance fee for each day he/she was required to attend court in excess of ten days. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/28/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/03/2020 571 
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Any post-judgment motions are due at the time required by FRCP. Costs taxed against Defendants. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/3/2020. (KLL) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/18/2020 572 
MOTION Entry of judgment by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc. (Daniel, Laurie) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/20/2020 573 
Opposition to re 572 Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by Boeing Company, The. (Warburton, Reed) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/20/2020 574 
FINAL JUDGMENT 572 AAIs Motion for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiffs Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc., Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc - Birmingham, and Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc SHALL have and recover from Defendants The Boeing Company, Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc and Boeing Aerospace Support Center in the sum of $2,506,970.20 with interest as provided by law, and their costs in this action. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/20/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/23/2020 575 
MOTION to Stay Execution on Judgment by Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Boeing Aerospace Support Center, Boeing Company, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Appeal Bond)(Warburton, Reed) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020 576 
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 1126-3561413 (ALND B4601104955). Appeal Record due by 5/6/2020. (Daniel, Laurie) Modified on 3/23/2020 (KEK). (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020 577 
NOTICE of transmittal letter to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (KAM) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020 578 
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 576 Notice of Appeal (KAM) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020 579 
BILL OF COSTS by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc. filed by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Tepley, Peter) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/24/2020 580 
TEXT ORDER The court is inclined to grant Boeings Motion to Stay Execution on Judgment. 575 Boeing has attached an Appeal Bond to the Motion. [575-1] If there is any opposition to the Motion, it SHALL be filed on or before 5:00 pm on Wednesday, March 25, 2020. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/24/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 03/24/2020)

Boeing should focus more on begging for a taxpayer bailout than on this lawsuit IMO

Boeing Plans To Fight $2M Verdict For Breached Bid Deal
By Rick Archer

Law360 (March 20, 2020, 7:01 PM EDT) -- The Boeing Co. on Friday said it intends to ask an Alabama federal judge to stay enforcement of a $2.1 million verdict for breach of contract with a now-defunct aircraft maintenance company, saying it plans to appeal what it claims are legal errors in the case.

Responding to a motion by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. — formerly known as Pemco — asking for entry of a judgment on the March 2 jury verdict, Boeing said it intends to both file for a stay of execution and an appeal of the verdict.

"Boeing does not consent to the entry of any judgment against it for all of the reasons previously stated on the record, including, among other things, that the jury’s verdict is based on improper jury instructions, inadmissible evidence and claims on which Boeing is due judgment as a matter of law," it said.

AAI sued Boeing in 2011, shortly after Pemco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, alleging that Boeing was directly responsible for the bankruptcy by stealing trade secrets and pulling strings with corrupt Air Force officials to cut AAI out of the $1.3 billion plane servicing contract that its survival depended on.

Pemco claimed it provided Boeing with proprietary information under a 2005 agreement to jointly bid on the contract, only to have Boeing pull out of the deal and use the information to win the contract despite submitting a bid $15 million higher than Pemco’s.

Earlier this month, a jury awarded AAI nearly $800,000 for a violation of the bidding agreement and another $1.3 million for a violation of a nondisclosure agreement.

Boeing's motion Friday did not give additional specifics about its objections to the verdict, but at trial U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor denied a motion arguing the jury should not be instructed that it could "draw an adverse inference" from the deletion of information related to the case from a Boeing employee's computer. Boeing said AAI had failed to establish that the information was intentionally deleted or that Boeing could have reasonably anticipated litigation over the contract.

Counsel for Boeing and AAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

AAI is represented by J. Michael Rediker, Joshua D. Lerner, R. Scott Williams, Peter J. Tepley, Meredith Jowers Lees and Rebecca A. Beers of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PC and Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight LLP.

Boeing is represented by R. Thomas Warburton and J. Thomas Richie of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston, Kasdin Miller Mitchell and Alexia Brancato of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. et al. v. The Boeing Co. et al., case number 2:11-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton and Sarah Martinson. Editing by Stephen Berg.

Yeah, the legal fees on both sides are piling up for sure. But it's probably a lot higher on Boeing's side since the use the most expensive big law firms from Washington. So I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a settlement somewhere to save legal fees on both sides.

I think it takes ~1 yr for the outcome of an appeal.

You should be careful in owning $AAIIQ. I'm actually not sure it's worth anything.

Kaiser Group ($KGHI) bought out the right to sue Boeing from $AAIIQ a while back when $AAIIQ went through bankruptcy. $KGHI gets 90% of the net litigation proceeds so $AAIIQ only has a small stake of 10% of the lawsuit (That's what the press release is referring to)

Note, the boys already have well over 20 mil in fighting this, so they will have to get a really big number before any money trickles down

Thanks. Just now got that .... and loved to see that 100 MM figure. Wonder how long BA can drag this one out.

I had thought they (BA) would be better off bringing an offer of around 40/50 mil ..... I have that as 1/2 value of "made whole" based on stock value during the beginning period of BA trickery. Thinking legal takes 1/2 with 20/25 mill left for stock holders.

Any thought on this line of thinking?

thanks again,
bidaskme

Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. Announces Litigation Success Against Boeing

BIRMINGHAM, AL / ACCESSWIRE / March 10, 2020 / Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (OTCM:KGHI) announced today that the lawsuit (Case Number: 2:11-cv-03577-RDP) filed by Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. (OTCM:AAIIQ), formerly known as Pemco Aviation Group, Inc., against The Boeing Company, claiming that Boeing breached its agreement to team with Pemco for the KC-135 Recompete Competition and subsequently used Pemco's proprietary information in its bid for the work, was won by Pemco on February 28, 2020 with a unanimous jury verdict.

Michael E. Tennenbaum, Chairman of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc., said, "The long and expensive litigation with The Boeing Company resulted in a jury verdict on February 28 that was totally in favor of Alabama Aircraft Industries, but limited damages to $2.1 million. We expect Boeing to appeal this verdict, but we will be appealing the damages limitation set by the Court. We think that we should have had the opportunity to claim at least $100 million in losses.

He continued, "We expect that the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will agree with us and believe that a second trial for higher damages will be held. We believe we deserve to win, but the result remains uncertain."

Shareholders of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. and Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. are encouraged to study the AAII bankruptcy record, as well as the terms of the Litigation Trust. Litigation costs to date are well over $20 million.

This press release contains forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Statements contained in this press release which are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements may address issues that involve significant risks, uncertainties, estimates and assumptions made by management. A number of factors could cause actual results to be materially different from any future results. There can be no assurance that such factors or other factors will not affect the accuracy of such forward-looking statements. Kaiser undertakes no obligation to update these statements following the date of this press release, except as required by law. In addition, Kaiser, through its senior management may make from time to time forward-looking public statements concerning the matters described herein. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting the best judgment of Kaiser's senior management based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and are subject to the factors described herein.

CONTACT:

Doris Sewell
Chief Executive Officer at Kaiser Aircraft Industries, Inc.
doris.sewell@kaiseraircraft.com
205-914-9832

SOURCE: Kaiser Group Holdings

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kaiser-group-holdings-inc-announces-152000654.html

I think they have to file leave to appeal in this court. Then it goes to the 11th circuit court of appeals to be heard

Hello to Paullee and cheddartart and anyone else following this AAIIQ thread .......

Can you folks enlighten me as to how to follow AAIIQ in their Appeal.

Is there a specific court to address the appeal?
Have they gone ahead with an Appeal?

Thanks for any input as to continuing with this drama.

bidaskme

Costs are taxed against Defendants.


to my understanding these are very nominal amounts

- - -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, }INC., et al.,}}Plaintiffs,}}v.}CIVIL ACTION NUMBER} 2:11-CV-3577-RDPTHE BOEING COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.}CLERK’S COURT MINUTES

This action commenced for trial on February 10, 2020, before a jury and the court, the Honorable R. David Proctor, United States District Judge, presiding.

At the conclusion of all the evidence, on February 28, 2020, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on each claim in the total amount of $2,132,038.00.

Costs are taxed against Defendants.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.

Any post-judgment motions are due at the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ---Dated this 2nd day of March, 2020.

Not really, it was probably about a year ago

i'll try to look around

The court of appeals will decide.

It probably won't be the same jury since the appeals ruling could be some time away.

The damages awarded on friday was just the $$ estimated spent Alabama Aircraft spent to make the new proposal after Boeing kind of screwed them so AAII gave this amount.

The real $$$ is the other damages they wanted that they will have to win on appeal like the $$ profits that would have been made if they had won the contract. That could be 10-100s of millions but hard to have an exact estimate for sure

hello cheddartart,

nice to have you with us.

Do you ( or Paulee ) know who decides the appeal.

It sounded like the jury was to give the Dollar amount for being made whole ... or does the Judge. and ... Is the same jury brought back to consider the appeal ??

bid .10
ask .1099
last .115
vol 104,900

Hi guys. I've been following this a bit and I'm glad to see others are too.

Yeah, they have to win the trial first (like they just did!) and then they can appeal the other motions to get the big bucks.

This is just the first step for them from my understanding. But the awarded damages now kind of sets the floor and any appeals won will be gravy.

And appeals should be way (relatively) faster than the like decade long trial here lol

Do you have the motion # or the ruling itself?

They got what they asked for, but the Judge ruled against the big bucks in pretrial motions. They now have to go back and appeal that.

.08 on 10K ask .11 on 5K 84,000 shares traded

low .95 h .11

bid 10k on .08 ask 0.11 on 5K

Verdict Form

questions 1: Yes (for Pemco) $ 788,510

Question 2 : Yes ( for Pemco) $ 1,343,528

so say we all RL 2/28/2020

That is it ???

Where is " being made whole "

anything on damages ?

I have not heard anything yet, nor has Mr Market

Pacer just got update 569 jury verdict for Pemco on both.

Nothing about appeals as get.
It appears your source is superior to Pacer in timing
release.

Stock hasn't moved?

going to open 569 to see what that says, have you seen it?

Paulee,

Many, Many Thanks.

Way out of the loop on "jury Instructions" and for that matter
the whole trial.

Under number 9. at the end C. " you must award Pemco such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate it for any damages you believe it sustained as a direct result of any breach." ..... That returns a plaintiff to its precontractual position by putting a dollar value ......and reimbursing expenditures....etc.

Great news .

My take is they get the @ 3mil reimbursement of expend. and ??? dollar amount to be made whole .

Were do you get your wonderful on-time ifo.

Many many Thanks

oh, YES got the email

Just got word – We won both counts!

but that's not a lot of $. My understanding there will be appeals to throw out some of the judges former rulings where the big bucks were.

What do you hear ?

just sent again to mark-ets


let me know, because they are not being kicked back on my side

Paulee,

No. Did not come thru at outlook

........// .com

I just checked this morning 3/2 and no problems like
blocks etc..... ???

appreciate your efforts.

thanks,

mark-ets

Did you not receive yesterday, I thought I put it together

hi paulee,

I was robo scanned many years ago. Learned not to put any info
on one line while on a public post board. Advised to break into parts as scanning robos do not decipher. By putting 1 3 5 7 together you'll have it.

thanks

Thanks 2. 4. and 6. not counting


1. mark-ets
2. jury gets note books.
3. @
4. cannot take them home.
5. outlook
6. give questions for judge to bailiff
7. .com

try 1 3 5 7

thanks, bidaskme

I have a copy of the jury instructions, if you want to give me an email address I'll be happy to send them to you

not a word

hi Paulee,

The Jury Instructions come before the start ... so jury is set
and the actual presentation are now to go forward ....

who knows for how long.

My feel is (IF) things tilt positive for Pemco ......
then ..... B begins to feel out a settlement.

Less than the opening Pemco claim but enough to make this old Bag Holder smile.

any interp from 360?

will they want to close it and go home. Two weeks of trial time was more than I thought.

jury instructions given yesterday 2/27 ... we're at the gate ...
my money is on the little guy did not look at the details as they
are most likely standard.

Date Filed # Docket Text

02/24/2020 560 TEXT ORDER re 559 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Before the Court is a 559 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of attorney Laurie Webb Daniel. The Motion 559 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. On or before February 28, 2020, Attorney Daniel SHALL pay the requisite fee for admission. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/24/2020. (JLC) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020 561 TRANSCRIPT - EXCERPT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF AVRAM TUCKER held on 2/24/2020, before Judge R David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Risa L. Entrekin, Telephone number 205-278-2066. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due 3/16/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/26/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2020. (KEK) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020 562 TEXT ORDER GRANTING 559 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Laurie Webb Daniel added. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/24/2020. (JLC) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/25/2020 563 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Trial Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc. (Rediker, J) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/20/2020 559

MOTION for Leave to Appear Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Rediker, J) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

I hear the plaintiffs are still presenting their case.

that's the best I have

looking into "court reporter(s)"

sign up is fuzzy but old reports that are available (yrs back)
are very thorough. Surprisingly, cannot find any in current time frame. I like your 360 as they give a (their) interpretation.

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/10/2020 555 Jury Strikes of Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham, Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services Inc filed.. (KLL) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
02/10/2020 556 Jury Strikes of Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Boeing Aerospace Support Center, Boeing Company, The filed. (KLL) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
02/11/2020 557 TRIAL BRIEF on the Implied Duty of Good Faith by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham. (Rediker, J) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
02/13/2020 558 TRIAL BRIEF on Spoliation Jury Instructions by Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc, Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc Birmingham. (Rediker, J) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

thx,

that's a story I haven't heard before

i know nothing, i know nothing.

Sorry to say but no. Am searching the Birmingham news groups to see if anyone is reporting on the trial. Many Birhams had an interest (jobs-etc.) at one time.

I'll check PACER late each day but doubt that source will report on the trial testimony.

Wonder if AAII can squeeze
in some of the ex-AF officer who was hired by B after his
'service' that included being part of the B wins decision.
Remember as a court inquiry of that time loomed he was found shot to death in his car at the B facility. B's Security handled initial investigation of the 'scene' prior the police. Suicide.
Lots of speculation followed ...

anyways , thanks for your inputs here ... Good Luck!

know anything about the trial ?

add a little mortar (hopefully):

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/06/2020 551 ORDER denying 542 Motion for Relief and Sanctions to Rectify Boeing's Rules Violations and to Facilitate an Expeditious Trial. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/6/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
02/07/2020 552 TEXT ORDER; This matter is SET for a Telephone Conference 1:15 p.m. today, Friday, February 7, 2020, to discuss the parties' objections to deposition designations. Counsel are DIRECTED to dial-in to the conference by calling 866-434-5269 at the scheduled time. The access code is 6022965. A Court Reporter will be present. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/7/2020. (JLC) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
02/07/2020 553 Joint MOTION to Unseal Document by Boeing Company, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Warburton, Reed) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
02/07/2020 554 ORDER GRANTING 553 Joint MOTION to Unseal Documents. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/7/2020. (JLC) (Entered: 02/07/2020)

Building blocks are starting to look a little weaker

Boeing Ducks Sanctions Over Docs In $1.3B Deal Suit
By Kevin Penton

Law360 (February 7, 2020, 5:53 PM EST) -- An Alabama federal judge has rejected a bid by Alabama Aircraft Industries to sanction Boeing for allegedly being unforthcoming over certain documents in a suit over a $1.3 billion U.S. Air Force deal.

U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor rejected arguments by AAI that Boeing was misleading when responding to information requests on whether the documents it provided were a “true and complete set,” according to Thursday’s order.

While AAI shared correspondence with the court that demonstrated its “desire” to get Boeing to stipulate which documents were and were not part of a certain batch of data, the company did not show when it actually asked for it, Judge Proctor found.

“AAI has not presented any request which specifically requested this particular information, nor did it seek relief from the court requiring this particular information in a timely manner,” the order reads.

AAI launched its legal battle shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2011, alleging Boeing was directly responsible for its bankruptcy because it stole trade secrets and pulled strings with corrupt U.S. Air Force officials to cut AAI out of the $1.3 billion plane-servicing contract.

Boeing canceled their agreement to jointly bid on the contract for maintenance of the Air Force’s KC-135 fleet after the Air Force reduced the anticipated scope of the project, AAI said. The companies ended up bidding separately, and Boeing won the contract in May 2008, even though AAI's submission was about $15 million lower, according to the complaint.

AAI sought the sanctions against Boeing in January, arguing that the company had refused to be clear on what information it had either protected and sequestered or discarded after the deal was terminated, according to its motion.

Boeing responded several days later, arguing that it had disclosed all the requested information to AAI and that it had always been clear that some of the documents it produced had also been handed over in response to previous requests.

“Throughout this litigation, when AAI has asked for information, Boeing has provided it,” Boeing’s response said. “Boeing has also made clear throughout that it has produced the same sequestered documents at issue here both in response to early requests for production and again in a sequential bates numbered production, as a courtesy to AAI.”

Boeing also argued that the documents in question were produced in 2014, meaning AAI could have raised the issue years ago instead of waiting until the eve of trial.

“Boeing did nothing wrong in discovery, and its refusal to enter into an eleventh-hour stipulation about documents produced half a decade ago does not turn this dispute into an emergency,” Boeing wrote. “Simply put, there is no emergency here and no basis for sanctions.”

Michael Rediker, an attorney representing AAI, declined to comment on Friday.

Counsel for Boeing could not be reached for comment Friday.

AAI is represented by J. Michael Rediker, Joshua Lerner, R. Scott Williams, Peter J. Tepley, Meredith Jowers Lees and Rebecca A. Beers of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PC.

Boeing is represented by R. Thomas Warburton and J. Thomas Richie of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston, Tia Trout-Perez, Alexia Brancato and Kasdin Miller Mitchell of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. et al. v. Boeing Co. et al., case number 2:11-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--Additional reporting by Emma Cueto and Sarah Martinson. Editing by Gemma Horowitz.

Update: This article has been updated to include a decline to comment from an attorney representing AAI.

kinda sounds like Sgt Shultz

I did nothing wrong, I did nothing wrong

Boeing Fights Aircraft Co.'s Sanctions Bid Over Documents
By Emma Cueto

Law360 (February 4, 2020, 4:58 PM EST) -- Boeing has hit back against a bid for sanctions in a suit that accuses it of cutting a now-defunct aircraft maintenance company out of a $1.3 billion U.S. Air Force deal, saying Monday that it had been fully forthcoming during discovery.

One week before trial is set to begin, Boeing told the court that it had disclosed all the requested information to Alabama Aircraft Industries and that it had always been clear that some of the documents it produced had also been handed over in response to previous requests.

“Throughout this litigation, when AAI has asked for information, Boeing has provided it,” the Monday response said. “Boeing has also made clear throughout that it has produced the same sequestered documents at issue here both in response to early requests for production and again in a sequential bates numbered production, as a courtesy to AAI.”

Boeing also argued that the documents in question were produced in 2014, meaning AAI could have raised the issue years ago instead of waiting until the eve of trial.

“Boeing did nothing wrong in discovery, and its refusal to enter into an eleventh-hour stipulation about documents produced half a decade ago does not turn this dispute into an emergency,” Boeing wrote. “Simply put, there is no emergency here, and no basis for sanctions.”

AAI launched its legal battle in 2011, shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, alleging that Boeing was directly responsible for its bankruptcy because it stole trade secrets and pulled strings with corrupt U.S. Air Force officials to cut AAI out of the $1.3 billion plane-servicing contract.

Boeing canceled their agreement to jointly bid on the contract for maintenance of the Air Force’s KC-135 fleet after the military branch reduced the anticipated scope of the project, AAI said. The companies ended up bidding separately, and Boeing won the contract in May 2008, even though AAI's submission was about $15 million lower, according to the complaint.

AAI previously asked the court to sanction Boeing in July 2016, alleging that there was solid evidence Boeing’s chief financial officer at the time instructed staff to delete certain emails related to Pemco even after written directions were issued by Boeing to collect and send such information to its law department for preservation, AAI claimed.

Boeing argued in response to that sanctions bid that AAI had failed to establish that Boeing had a duty to preserve documents during those years, as it had no reason to anticipate litigation from the bankrupt company. In addition, Boeing said, AAI had no proof that a single document was missing that is crucial to the case.

U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor found in March 2017 that Boeing employees did destroy documents and said he would allow a jury to assume the information deleted could have hurt Boeing's case.

Counsel for the parties did not respond Tuesday for comment.

AAI is represented by J. Michael Rediker, Joshua D. Lerner, R. Scott Williams, Peter J. Tepley, Meredith Jowers Lees and Rebecca A. Beers of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PC.

Boeing is represented by R. Thomas Warburton and J. Thomas Richie of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP; and Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston, Tia Trout-Perez and Alexia Brancato of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. et al. v. Boeing Co. et al., case number 2:11-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

--Additional reporting by Sarah Martinson, Daniel Wilson, Natalie Olivo, Bonnie Eslinger, Christopher Crosby and Ryan Boysen. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

question 1, do you know anyone who died on a 737 max,
or did you ever have a trip cancelled on a 737 max :)

* now 548 dockets ... what fun it would be to hear jury selection.

fingers have been X'd for a long time, but really upset with the judge who ruled they could not argue certain damages because their were waived in the
contracts. That really sucked.