Absolutely. The way I like to approach my thinking here is DAKP still has the flexibility and would ultimately want to do what is in their best interest. The only thing I'm unaware of is whether McKenzie gets paid to broker a deal; asset or equity based. Because then, he benefits in either scenario. If it were asset based leaving behind a shell, you'd think they would sell their shares by now. So, I'm thinking an equity deal is what benefits them the most. Additionally, an equity deal which keeps most things unchanged like keeping McKenzie on the board. The new buyer/entity can bring in some additional board members and of course have a new CEO in place. I think Suntrust Robinson and DAKP are pretty tight - there must be some common connection between them that goes back some time. I'm sure everybody involved in DAKP wants to keep this gravy train rolling with their salaries and of course get some new restricted stock at all time lows.
Here's an ideal scenario. A buyer comes in a scoops up the equity at or near current market capitalization- they then pay off the first tranche of $22M due Jan 2017. They then negotiate out of the current amended forebearance and keep the remaining debt due Dec 2017 on the books or pay it off as well. In that scenario, without an asset sale, BK and heavy debt on the books, the PPS immediately shoots up to the $1-$1.50 range reflecting the new value sans debt which in turn immediately pays back the buyer on paper. It's a no brainer IMO for a potential buyer. The flip side is that they can not find anyone and the assets get auctioned off. But again, the forebearance goes to 11/30.
