Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
sorry, should have mentioned that Storm Cat did not get satisfactory bids for there asset sale, to my knowledge.
just watching this action, with a small bid in, if anyone was desperately trying to get rid of shares now, they're not selling to me.
Storm Cat Energy (USA) Seeks Approval of Bidding Procedures for Sale of Substantially All Assets
December 4, 2008 · 1 Comment
Storm Cat Energy (USA) Corporation filed a motion yesterday seeking court approval of bidding procedures to govern the sale of substantially all of the assets of the debtors (or, alternatively, a merger or recapitalization). The bidding procedures are required by the company’s post-petition financing agreement with its debtor-in-possession lenders. The company reports in the motion that it began the process of trying to sell all of its assets approximately six months ago.
The company’s proposed bidding procedures would require bids to be received at a date to be set, but no later than January 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (Mountain). The company further requests that any bidders be required to provide a deposit equal to 5% of the proposed purchase price. Finally, the proposed bidding procedures require that an auction (if necessary) be held no later than February 16, 2009.
http://netdockets.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/storm-cat-energy-usa-seeks-approval-of-bidding-procedures-for-sale-of-substantially-all-assets/
Protecting Your NOL Carryforward with a Poison Pill
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
As a result of the recent downturn in the economy, many companies have been incurring significant operating and tax losses. At the same time, corporate stock values have plunged. This confluence of events creates the potential for a company to lose the potentially valuable future tax benefits that may be realized from federal tax net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards.
Over an extended period of economic weakness, NOL carryforwards can become one of the largest assets on a company’s balance sheet. Under normal circumstances, the NOLs can serve to offset future taxable income, resulting in tax savings as the company begins to be profitable. However, current tax laws impose significant limits on the ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income in the event of an ownership change. Thus, a company can be in a situation in which one of its largest assets can become impaired if ownership changes. Recent steep declines in equity markets have made it less expensive for investors to acquire significant percentages of a company’s publicly traded stock, aggravating the risk of a possible limitation.
Section 3821 limits a loss corporation’s ability to use its tax net operating losses following an "ownership change." An ownership change is triggered if one or more 5-percent shareholders of the loss corporation increases their ownership in the aggregate by more than 50 percentage points during a testing period.2 Once an ownership change has occurred, the amount of NOLs that the corporation may use to offset taxable income in any year is limited to the "Section 382 limitation" resulting from the ownership change.3 Thus, corporations with large NOL carryforwards are concerned with monitoring shareholder shifts that might trigger an ownership change and impair the NOL asset on their books. Boards of directors of publicly traded companies with large NOL carryforwards are increasing their efforts to protect this asset, and some companies are adopting "poison pill" plans to restrict the ability of shareholders to take actions that could trigger a Section 382 ownership change.4
Poison Pills
Since the 1980s, corporate America has used "poison pills" as a tool to discourage hostile and unsolicited investors from taking large stakes in a corporation’s publicly traded stock. Most corporate poison pills take the form of a stockholder rights plan where purchase rights are distributed to existing shareholders, entitling them to acquire one share of common stock (or a preferred stock equivalent) for each share owned, at a specified purchase price that exceeds the market price on the date of adoption. The key deterrent effect of the plan is realized if any investor (herein the "hostile investor") acquires beneficial ownership of more than a specified trigger amount. In that event, in exchange for payment of the purchase right’s exercise price, all shareholders other than the hostile investor are permitted to purchase shares of common stock (or preferred stock equivalents) having a fair market value equal to two times the exercise price. This effectively allows the public shareholders to buy common shares at a 50 percent discount, while denying the hostile investor the same benefit. A trigger of the poison pill will thus significantly dilute the percentage of the company’s common stock owned by the hostile investor, making it more expensive for the hostile investor to acquire control of the company.
Typically, the anti-dilution rights in a poison pill are set to be triggered once a shareholder acquires beneficial ownership of more than a 10, 15 or 20 percent stake in the corporation. Since Section 382 is concerned with tracking the increases in 5-percent shareholders, many of the NOL poison pills have a lower triggering percentage ranging from 4.75 to 4.99 percent. These lower threshold triggers are designed to deter further acquisitions by stockholders whose share purchases or sales might affect the ownership change calculation. Some NOL poison pills include additional provisions imposing an outright prohibition against exceeding the threshold percentage of beneficial ownership without obtaining pre-approval for a proposed share acquisition.
Some loss corporations have been reluctant to adopt rights plans with low triggering percentage levels, fearing it will discourage future investment in their stock. The existence of a low percentage trigger, as exists in NOL rights plans, is thought by some to dissuade institutional investors from taking a position in the stock. To avoid an unwanted trigger of the rights plans and encourage investment, some companies have included discretionary controls in the plans. Many shareholder rights plans also provide for automatic termination of the plans if the board determines that the NOLs have been fully used to offset taxable income. Other plans include rules allowing a board to waive the application of the discount purchase provisions upon a triggering acquisition at the discretion of the board.
Rights Plans under the Option Rules
Under Section 382, an option to acquire stock is treated as exercised if the exercise would result in an ownership change.5 The regulations provide an extensive set of rules for option attribution. Generally, the option attributions rules reverse the presumption that an option is deemed exercised, if doing so causes an ownership change, and treats only options issued for a principal purpose of avoiding or accelerating the impact of an ownership change as deemed exercised and counted as stock under Section 382. These attribution rules can bring about unfortunate results when a seemingly benign equity issuance can be counted for Section 382 owner shift purposes. For example, the shareholder rights distributed to the existing shareholders under a poison pill are considered options under the regulations and thus, an analysis must be performed to determine whether or not they would be considered exercised for Section 382 purposes.
In Revenue Ruling 90-11, the IRS ruled that certain rights issued to shareholders to acquire loss-corporation stock at a reduced price pursuant to a poison pill adopted to fend off a hostile takeover are not subject to the option attribution rules.6 The ruling holds that such rights would be exempted from option attribution as long as the loss corporation could redeem the rights for little or no consideration without shareholder approval, a standard provision in poison pills. Although the ruling holds that the distributions of rights did not constitute stock for Section 382 purposes, corporations implementing NOL plans need to be careful when drafting their poison pills and work to ensure that rights to be granted under such plans do not carry with them attributes of equity ownership that would cause the rights to be treated as outstanding equity.7 These can include the right to vote, a seat on the board, a deep in the money exercise price, etc.8
contd.
http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1508
NG prices are at the same point as the beginning of the year. prices may be looking up.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG/W
wow, there is nothing to be found on the 'net for SCUEF. just the reference in an article a few posts back.. pretty quiet.
...so the creditors have to stick with the business or lose out. NG prices will bounce back at some point imo.
In connection with the Reorganization Cases and as contemplated by the DIP Credit Agreement, the Borrower
completed a process to sell some or substantially all of the assets of Storm Cat (USA) and the Subsidiaries. The auction did
not attract any bids that would have materially reduced the indebtedness of Storm Cat (USA). The Company is in
discussions with its creditors regarding a potential restructuring of the outstanding indebtedness and recapitalization of the Company
Apr 6 2009
For the long haul- I'm thinking NG will be the energy of the future.
We have lots of it that is available at fairly reasonable rates. The industry (via gov regulation) is getting cleaned up. Good changes IMO.
The reserves are currently high and manufacturing is down. Cold winters can be a factor but manufacturing is a huge factors.
Some plants will use 1 bcf a day when they are operational.
The other thing is that our coal reserves can be made into natural gas, (CO2 sequestered and injected in the ground).
When energy was peaked at the highest prices during the last couple years- coal gasification was right on the line of being justifiable.
Point being is that the coal can also support an NG infrastucture via gasification (if needed).
NG has the power to run a bus, garbage truck, big equipment etc...., is clean and plentiful. Alternative energies can not do so practically.
do you see any upside for NG prices in the next year or so? do you think it'll take a change of administration? tia
eg
Energy Secretary Steven Chu Should Be Fired for NatGas Views
by: Michael Fitzsimmons April 09, 2009
Any U.S. Energy Secretary that says he's "agnostic" about natural gas transportation should be fired. Period. Secretary Chu, Nobel Prize or not, is turning out to be just another incompetent policy wonk. Here's the story as reported by Platt's.
Also, Platt's reports in Wednesday's "Gas Daily" that Honda (HMC) has pulled the plug on the Canadian manufacturer of the "Phill" - Fuelmaker. This is the home garage refueling appliance that I have written so much about. This is terrible news for the NGV market and for the US middle class who so desparately need to be building an infrastructure alternative to foreign oil. This would be a great opportunity for an American company to swoop in and buy the IP for the "Phill". It's amazing to me that a company with the resources of Honda:
1) didn't leverage the advantage of the "Phill" and package it with purchases of the Honda Civic GX
2) don't realize the strategic advantage they had over every other automobile manufacturer with their Civic GX and Phill products.
The war on the middle class continues unabated... these twin headlines are very disturbing
http://seekingalpha.com/article/130321-energy-secretary-steven-chu-should-be-fired-for-natgas-views
YW, I've been watching the chart - looks interesting to me seems to be getting some volume; watching for news here....
Poor mgt may also be a part of it.
I know the guy that was running Black Diamond over at Buffalo- nuff said.
The Pennsylvania and Louisiana gas development are also a factor, manufacturing being shut down etc...
Also- the deeper the wells the more water issues seem to arise.
As the wells migrate to the north/west they get deeper.
Lots of factors but thanks for sharing the article. I missed that in the paper and I haven't heard anything floating around "the circle" in the powder river basin area.
Small CBM operators flirt with bankruptcy, blame regulations
DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER Star-Tribune energy reporter
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e780aaa9-fbf4-5585-bd78-778f0acc6ba4.html
Posted: Sunday, August 9, 2009
..Black Diamond Energy Inc. is shutting in nearly 300 coal-bed methane wells in the Powder River Basin, according to the company's president, Eric Koval.
S&T Bancorp of Pennsylvania, which received $109 million in federal bailout money, recently called in the operator's debt of some $30 million.
With the price of natural gas down 35 percent since December to about $3 per thousand cubic feet, it doesn't pay to keep the wells in production, according to Koval. He said his employee roster of 43 has been cut in half during the past year.
"I have guys crying - tears in their eyes - showing up in my office pleading for work," Koval said. "It feels like we've been regulated out of business. It's not one particular thing. It's the Chinese torture of death by a thousand cuts."
Another coal-bed methane operator, Storm Cat Energy USA, is under bankruptcy protection but says it continues to operate some 400 wells in the basin and expects to come out of bankruptcy by the end of the year.
While larger operators with bigger budgets say they're temporarily shutting in production to ride out the low commodity price, several small independents say they can't survive without cash flow. The situation has prompted state and federal regulators to increase reclamation bonding requirements, further adding to the financial plight of these small companies.
"The problem we have is it doesn't look any better on the horizon. It doesn't look like it's going to get any easier," Koval said. "For smaller independents, the regulation is too difficult to overcome at this point."
However, some say the escalation of regulatory requirements is not entirely to blame for the industry's woes.
Critics say the industry was given a pass early on when coal-bed methane first emerged as a commercial enterprise in the basin. In the late 1990s, the industry was allowed to dump production water on the surface with minimal management requirements. Federal officials in 2003 opened public lands to 50,000 wells with only an "adaptive management" approach to protecting sage grouse.
"The industry is just being asked to pay the costs that society has borne for them either through the government or private landowners," said Steve Adami, board member of the landowner group Powder River Basin Resource Council.
Monitoring and scientific studies have since proved more environmental mitigation was necessary all along. Critics say the industry was given a false indication that capital costs would remain low, and only now are operators being forced to pay the true cost of business, which includes more environmental protections.
"The bigger problem is just a sluggish economy and reduced demand for natural gas," Adami said. "That's a bigger problem than any regulation."
Cost and regulation
The costs of environmental management and permitting have gone up every year for several years.
Koval said permitting expenses - including wildlife surveys, cultural artifact surveys and a long list of other requirements - can add up to about $30,000 per well. It can take up to two years for federal regulators to approve a plan of development, which delays return on investment.
One key permitting cost increase came in 2007 when the George W. Bush administration tacked on a $4,000 processing fee for each well on federal minerals.
Bureau of Land Management officials note that the natural gas boom in the Rocky Mountain region forced the agency to more than double its staff at some field offices. In fact, for several years the BLM Buffalo field office was under a mandate to process permits for a minimum of 3,000 coal-bed methane wells annually.
Buffalo field office assistant manager Paul Beels estimates the actual cost of federal analysis and permitting averages more than $5,000 per well. The coal-bed methane industry currently holds 2,065 active permits, according to BLM officials. The industry has allowed some 112 permits to expire so far this fiscal year.
Regulatory requirements and expenses have risen at the state level, too. Last year, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission increased its bonding requirement from $3 per foot of well depth to $10 per foot. Koval said that shrinks the amount of credit available to a small producer, if he can get any additional credit at all.
Further adding to the coal-bed methane industry's troubles is the fact that it used to enjoy a yearlong drilling season. But drilling is now squeezed into seven months because the industry has drilled out most private and state leases and is now beholden to more stringent federal stipulations regarding sage grouse and nesting raptors.
Water management remains an overriding concern in the industry.
Large volumes of water are pumped from coal seams in order to produce the methane. The industry pumps about 600 million barrels of water from coal aquifers in the Powder River Basin each year, according to the state. Some of the water is used in irrigation and to water livestock, but a majority of the water is not put to a specific beneficial use.
Koval said that early on in the play, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality allowed his company to discharge production water on the surface. Then the agency stipulated no on-channel discharges and eventually required expensive groundwater monitoring.
Steve Degenfelder, senior vice president of exploration for Casper-based Double Eagle Petroleum, said the increasing cost of regulation went relatively unnoticed because of strong natural gas prices during the recent boom.
"When the price of these commodities goes down, the permitting costs do not," Degenfelder said. "Over the boom period we let a system perpetuate itself, and that's going to be more of a burden when prices are low."
Degenfelder explained that the rising cost of permitting is difficult to pass on because oil and natural gas are commodity markets.
"Producers eat it," Degenfelder said.
Risks and reclamation
Koval said he regrets not liquidating assets two years ago when it seemed things couldn't get worse.
"The rules keep changing," Koval said. "Literally, the ground moved under our feet, and it continues to do so."
The PRBRC and other groups critical of the industry counter that, if anything, regulators have been too lenient toward coal-bed methane operators.
One key piece of evidence is a 2005 report by the Western Organization of Resource Councils that suggested some 84 percent of oil and gas facilities in the BLM's Buffalo field office area were found to be out of compliance with reclamation rules.
Beels said that since the report, his office has increased site inspections by 2,000 annually. The office issued some 447 written orders for non-compliance in 2005, and now the office issues about 200 annually.
"We feel that our compliance rate has gone up," Beels said.
Members of the Powder River Basin Resource Council have expressed concern that some coal-bed methane operators might not be able to meet their reclamation obligations because of financial duress.
In a May 12 letter to BLM Buffalo Field Manager Duane Spencer, the group suggested that the cost of interim and final reclamation on leases held by a number of small operators far exceed money put up by the companies under the BLM's "blanket bond" requirement.
Mike Worden, supervisor of petroleum engineering at the BLM Buffalo field office, said he is reviewing the bonds and facilities of several companies to ensure they have adequate bonding. The BLM may require individual companies to provide bonding well above minimum requirements if the agency deems it necessary.
If a company cannot meet the BLM's bonding requirement, the agency can take legal action to revoke its federal leases.
"That hasn't happened yet," Worden said.
A particular concern would be a company under financial duress that only holds coal-bed methane wells in a depleted field. Worden noted that the only depleted areas in the basin are where coal seams are relatively shallow and the cost of plugging wells is inexpensive.
He said, in general, the operators who control depleted coal-bed methane fields are also developing new fields, so they have a stake in meeting interim reclamation requirements.
"The majority of stuff we have going on is still very active, so they've got a long life ahead of them," Worden said.
Contact energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer at 307-577-6069 or {M7dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Read his energy blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.
BY THE NUMBERS
*As of September 2008, a total of 29,719 coal-bed methane gas wells had been drilled in the Powder River Basin.
*As of summer 2008, the industry had produced a cumulative 2.9 trillion cubic feet of gas - about 11.6 percent of the estimated 25 trillion cubic feet of proven coal-bed methane reserves in the basin.
*The industry drilled an average 300 wells each month in 2008. The industry drilled one well in May this year, and no wells were drilled in June.
www.trib.com for a video report on coal-bed methane well reclamation inspections.]]->
just looking at one of SCUEF's last pr's.. A&M is also helping in Lehman bk now; not the whole of Stormcat went bk - only US subsidiary.
DENVER, Colorado and CALGARY, Alberta – November 10, 2008 – Storm Cat Energy Corporation
(AMEX: SCU; TSX: SME) today reported that all of its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries filed for a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. Storm Cat Energy Corporation was not
included in the U.S. bankruptcy filing, nor did it file an application for creditor protection under the
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada.
Storm Cat is in negotiations with its existing lenders to secure sufficient debtor-in-possession (DIP)
financing. Under Chapter 11, and assuming the DIP financing negotiations are successful, Storm Cat
expects it will continue, without undue interruption, its operations in the ordinary course of business,
and intends to file a reorganization plan with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court as soon as practicable. As
previously reported, the Company has engaged Parkman Whaling LLC for the purpose of assisting
the Company in exploring strategic business alternatives as well as Alvarez & Marsal, a turnaround
and restructuring firm, for the purpose of assisting the Company with its restructuring efforts.
scu starting to look interesting again. In at .048. Now .0689. I expect more upward movement in the following weeks ahead.
go read the news why don't you, its done, time to leave, try mmr or lei
why is this tanking everyday
Congrats on SCU.
At least the MMR deal worked out, it ended up 14% on the day. Just need about 100 more days of that lol.
I got lucky enough to see the news and bail at .13 after buying at .15 .... Still gonna keep an eye on this 1 though. GL all
Its time to leave the party with whatever you can salvage. You win some and you lose some. I am have put the remainder in MMR. Have fun kids....................
This is a 5 star stock on Motley Fool. Ive found that site pretty kool. Bought a buncha SCU today anyway. GL
Chart is starting to look like it might break up to .18 and over. If it grabs .19 and the oil price starts going back up - this could be very nice.
We seem to have reached a new trading range off the low @ .13. A lot of share have changed hands in the last month, with new investors comes new enthusiasm. If your trading this you can play on that.
Chart looks sort of interesting to me now. Looked at this one a year ago and passed. Now? Hmmmm.......
The volume has spiked! and so has the stock up as high as 25% today. Looks like averaging down is beginning to pay off here. Still have a long way to go but I will take what I can get.
Unless the volume comes up pretty quick here, it looks like a dead cat bounce, don't be sucked in here.
My .12 target for this one getting close
Yes MOSH worth twice as much as SCU.
SCU now trading at .15.
Happy trading!
Anybody think this goes sub-penny? I'm on the sidelines, but once thought about taking a large position. Glad I didn't. Now I'm wondering if there will ever be a good time to buy.
Of course, we may be saying that about google one day at the rate it's going.
SCU is down again. It was down yesterday too. It will probably be down again tomorrow. No one is buying. Where is that great news you said would be out? Wasn't it from a "reliable" source? Looks like DEAD MONEY!!
Happy trading!
.19. Happy trading!
Now at .24 and no one is buying. Happy trading!
I've been watching the category and this company closely for about two years. My primary short term concern with all the coal bed producers is the level of debt carried versus the options readily available now, to the companies and their financiers both, in the financing market, which are slim to none.
A secondary longer term concern is the future price of nat gas, in an environment in which coal bed production isn't cost effective relative to the growing development of lower cost production from shale. Shale wells are more expensive to drill, but lower in long term operating cost, while having potential for vastly larger per unit production over a similar life time. Even a presently viable base of coal based production doesn't make current investment sense if there are lower cost, higher volume producers in the market competing for investors attention. Longer term implications for the market arise from a continuing growth in shale based supply at lower production cost.
Similar market impacts are being felt by the companies who were too early to market in shale plays, who bought up tight and nonproductive shale leases, like AOG did, and now are on the hook for developing and operating properties with a lot less potential than the newer shale based finds.
I expect what you might see here is something similar to the trajectory followed by POIG. The outcome there was that the lender stepped in, settled on the debts by stripping out all the most valuable producing assets, then tossing the remaining and largely useless properties back to the company, which following a massive reverse split, is now trading about where it was before the real value was excised. SCU has a similar risk... that the lender could simply take the shale based production, toss the coal bed problem back to the company, and leave it to flounder.
The reality for SCU is that it looks like they "could" make it... if they did what they need to do. If they eliminate costs, fire everyone and terminate development operations, and costs are reduced to a level that enables PROFIT from the production they have, they might be able to weather the financial storm the current market imposes. If the lender accepts that as a plan, they could survive intact. If they are unwilling to do that... see POIG.
I don't see that the management here have done anything in particular wrong, other than to have some bad luck on timing, and to have not quite made the transition to shale production early enough. I think the market has a tendency to focus on the upside of the new shale based gas finds without noting that they contain a duo of negative value implications for a lot of existing production from tight shales and coal beds.
Ouch! Down again. No one is buying and you're very, very quiet. Happy trading!
SCU down 10%. Downtrend resumes as per my post on friday everning. Death spiral continues. Energy prices up big today but SCU is down. Not good. Hope you all sold on thursdays one day dead cat bounce. Happy trading!!!
SCU did not finish in the green today despite a huge market rally which shows yesterdays rare positive close was nothing more than a dead cat bounce. Death spiral still intact. Should continue lower next week. Hope some of you used yesterdays little bounce to get out and minimize further losses.
This one is even better. It reminds of those huge roller coasters on the way down.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCU&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Nice looking charts, eh? Your portfolio has been obliterated. Enjoy your day if you can.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&p=&a=&c=&s=scu+pxd
SCU just dipped below .30. What a free fall. It just doesn't end.
SCU is in trouble. The downtrend has been terrible. No one is buying at these levels which tells you things are not good.
SCU gonna get a lot uglier yet. Oh it might have a few up days in between but overall trend is going to continue down
Followers
|
19
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
497
|
Created
|
10/03/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
STORM CAT ENERGY CORPORATION is focused on the pursuit, exploration and development of large unconventional gas reserves from fractured shales, coal beds and tight sand formations.
Storm Cat Energy Corp.
1125 17th Street
Suite 2310
Denver, CO 80202
United States - Map
Phone: 303-991-5070
Fax: 303-991-5075
Toll Free Phone: (877) 867-6228
Web Site: http://www.stormcatenergy.com
Email Address: info@stormcatenergy.com
O/S: As of November 5, 2007, there were 81,078,570 common shares outstanding.
Other Boards for SCU, SME.V
Toronto: http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/forum.asp?symbol=SME&table=list
Sedar Filings:
http://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00016305
Please Note:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
STORM CAT ENERGY CORPORATION’S US SUBSIDIARIES
FILE FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION IN USTORM CAT EXPECTS TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS IN ORDINARY COURSE
DENVER, Colorado and CALGARY, Alberta – November 10, 2008 – Storm Cat Energy Corporation
(AMEX: SCU; TSX: SME) today reported that all of its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries filed for a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. Storm Cat Energy Corporation was not
included in the U.S. bankruptcy filing, nor did it file an application for creditor protection under the
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada.
Storm Cat is in negotiations with its existing lenders to secure sufficient debtor-in-possession (DIP)
financing. Under Chapter 11, and assuming the DIP financing negotiations are successful, Storm Cat
expects it will continue, without undue interruption, its operations in the ordinary course of business,
and intends to file a reorganization plan with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court as soon as practicable. As
previously reported, the Company has engaged Parkman Whaling LLC for the purpose of assisting
the Company in exploring strategic business alternatives as well as Alvarez & Marsal, a turnaround
and restructuring firm, for the purpose of assisting the Company with its restructuring efforts.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |