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.
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.
Uh, yeah. I thought you were hiding behind the moot doctrine.
Why? Why not just contact a class action law firm to represent all shareholders. Pay only on a percentage of share value IF they're successful. If they don't collect in your favor it will cost you nothing. If the class action firm is successful they collect payment from you of like 30%. That's why this all seems like a façade, else they would have class actioned years ago.
No discussion on L2 bk being ok'd? Looks like everyone is happy cept tstrq common. Board dead? Everyone gone except for pranksters? RIP
Real question is, who is JFK007. Born today. And even if it wasn't a ruse, would he have been talking about preferred. common were canceled.
>>1.4 has not exited bk just yet<<
Ray I think you'll find the 1.4 was never in bk so it won't be exiting at all. The 1.4 license was held in terrestar 1.4 Holdings, LLC., which is under Terrestar Holdings, INC.. Neither was ever a part of the bankruptcy directly.
Hawkeiz doesn't seem to be answering where the "few hundred million" is coming from. Does anyone know what he/she is refering to? TSC First Day Motion and Orders (Docket #5 and Terrestarcorprestructuring.com ) clearly states on page 3:
>>
Total Assets (Book Vaule): $184,708,260.91
Total Liabilities: $494,506,694.18<<
Does anyone have any idea as to where the "few hundred million" figure he refers to comes from? We need to straighten it out so we know correctly where we stand. Does it exist or not?
Wow, a post that makes sense. Appears unbiased and real. IMO the first line " I cannot provide you any information that would indicate any residual value to shareholders. " is pretty much saying shareholders get zip, as in no residual value thereby he can't "indicate" any.
I'm with you. I've sold the vast majority of my shares but I've held a few ( far less than 100K )in hopes of some drastic change that will put us in some money. If not, oh well :(
AS far as new issues for the new company, although as it stands I can't believe current equity will get anything, I think unsecured credit and preferreds will have to receive shares of newly issued as compensation for not being paid debt.
All just my opinion.
> they will have a few HUNDRED Million left over <
LOL, are you not paying attention? Please tell us where this "few hundred million left over" is coming from. Enlighten us please.
> Big news next week <
Yeah, LOL, like the "Big court hearing" last week.
Both can't be true
> As for TSC, though I am only tangentially involved in the case to the extent it implicates interests of creditors in the TSN case, my understanding is that the equity will go to the preferred stockholders and the common equity will be wiped out.<
or:
Post 1502 in the stickynotes states, " That would put us just over $1 per share. "
Which is one is accurate, the lawyer or the poster?
> why would commons be in trouble with a debt free company with a steady income <
What assures you current common will be carried into new terrestar?
Also, you fail to indicate if the "steady income" exceeds the future monthly expenses.
Please share that information.
contradiction -
post #8106 - "Yes, the bankrupt part "TSN" will be divested in the chapter 11. TSC will reemerge from the bankrupcy with cash in its pockets"
post #8109 - " there is will be no distribution for old equity. Thus, old equity will be extinguished and your shares will have no value."
They can't both be correct. Which one is correct in standing?
"Would you be willing to tell us how many shares!!!"
Dont really understand why you put the three exclamation points after such a personal question. Answer is no. I could respond with any number and you'd never know. I will say it REALLY isn't that many. Definitely not in the same arena as some posters here have "claimed" to own. I'm surprised you're keeping track.
>> This thing is gonna go huge! <<
Again with the "huge"? Speculation at best. Hopefully we see great things, but why not just keep it real to what we know. Do you see something that you >>KNOW<< to verify your statement " This thing is gonna go huge!" ? If yes, then please by all means share. If not, you're only setting people up for disappointment and then they sell out and/or leave.
"divest"
Verb 1. divest - take away possessions from someone; "The Nazis stripped the Jews of all their assets"
deprive, strip
unarm, disarm - take away the weapons from; render harmless
expropriate - deprive of possessions; "The Communist government expropriated the landowners"
clean - deprive wholly of money in a gambling game, robbery, etc.; "The other players cleaned him completely"
Or now as in, " it is expected that this ownership interest will be divested through TSN’s chapter 11 proceedings."
>> we will know answers soon. <<
WE all ready know the answer. THey are ABL so they were removed from TSN's bk and we're included in TSC's bk. Been known (public records) for months.
I looked back at posts 3950 to 4000. Sure are a lot of names that don't seem to be here anymore. Only been two weeks.
Maybe. Maybe they thought they'd never get 1.4Billion. AS it turned out DISH stalking horse bid was so high no one else even bothered to qualify as a bidder.
Why would the judge approve the bonuses? They had to get 1.4 B, but they only got 1.375 B. Why would the bonus be paid?
ANd if the bonus isn't qualified to be paid, but people are anticipating for it to be paid (via your post) but see that it isn't paid, isn't that going to create a negative impact on the stock...waiting for something to happen (bonus pay) that's already known it didn't qualify to happen?
Your quotes:
" In a public statement by the judge he said that the sale was in the best interest of creditors and shareholders", and
"The judge spoke in reference to the bankruptcy of TSC in the news release when he said in best interest of blah, blah, bla/shareholders. Has to be some merit to the validity of commons remaining intact for a judge to make a public statement like that. "
-----
No where, at any time, did Judge Lane state "shareholders" were getting anything. You made the same claim in post #5478 and #5508.
Post #5478 you stated: "The sale was only approved by the judge so that equity would get some $$$. THe first plan left equity with nothing. This sale and terms of the reorg plan take care of equity(common shares). "
However, post #5508, your acclaimed "proof", clearly states:
" "It sounds like a good result for the case," Lane said. "
There's othing stating shareholders getting squat!!!
IMHO you're reading something into this that isn't there. At no time have I read anything where Judge Lane states equity is in the money. ANybody have something quoting Lane stating equity is in the money?
"Well from reading a couple of posters on this board "
Are you covering your bases? Sounds like you're saying in your post "other people say" "other Q stocks" ">>> "hide income and earinings"<<<.....
Sounds to me like your taking a roundabout way of accusing those in charge of the current company(s)of hiding assets from the court. Is that what you are implying?
At least tell the guy the whole truth. In spite of all the hype they tried to spew on this board, the hearing was so lackluster they let everyone know IN ADVANCE there's no reason to come all the way down to the courthouse.
The following is included in both bk agenda's for July 18, 2011 listed for all to see PRIOR to the hearing. You'll find it in:
Terrestar Corp - TSC Docket # 126
Terrestar Netwks - TSN Docket # 692
>>>>> In light of the brief and uncontested nature of the Agenda, parties are invited to attend the Hearing telephonically through Court Call". <<<<<
Still people believe hype and anticipate. LOL
Par for the course. No objections preceeding, nothing that wasn't expected and priced in.
>> and moving LightSquared services to another set of frequencies — those belonging to companies Dish Network bought — could solve the problem. <<
How are they going to move LS services to the 2GHz DISH bought? Are they implying the FCC is going to reject DISH license so LS can use it? Tim Farrah (TMF Associates) had pointed out there may be a lawsuit from Falcone if things don't go Falcones way. Is that how the FCC plans on covering themselves?
>> HUUUGE Hearing on 18th July! <<
HUUUGE overstatement.
>>TSTRQ is gonna go big! My advice to all side-liners is to get in before the train leaves tomorrow. Hearing at 10am, news will leak by 1115-1130 imo. Big gains coming<<
I own a coupla shares of TSTRQ. Checked. No "big gains".
>>TSTRQ will be .06 by the end of day. To much good news coming out from today's court date.<<
LOL, well, I guess that ship has sailed.
That puts you at buying a little less than 1 out of every 4 shares sold today, assuming you mean 600K total, and NOT an additional 600K over and above the 500K you said you were planning on buying in post 7750. Good thing you were here. No telling where the pps would have been today without ya.
GLTA
Maybe they don't "sticky post" because of your claim:
">>>I have found<<< a clear and obvious source of revenue for TSTRQ that hasn't been shown yet but will, when the new financials come out.
Not only is this info in the 10K which I would assume everyone reads prior to investing in this stock, but also, this info has been discussed ever since I came on this board (not necessarily by me), so quite likely it was discussed even prior.
TAke a look at messages #6323, 6493, or #6370 for examples.
Kinda like Columbus claiming to have discovered America and Leif Erikson and the Indians looking at each other saying, "what did he discover? We knew it was here all the time".
"all we know is there is another asset.. 1.4 ghz spectrum that is worth a lot of cash "
Respectfully, what do you base that statement on? TSN' assets which included the 2GHz license which is of far greater value than the 1.4 only received ONE BIDDER. The 2GHz license was alledgedly worth 2-4 Billion just by itself. Why do you think the 1.4 is worth a lot of cash? And please, nothing about the spectrum shortage because any "spectrum shortage" would have displayed itself in the TSN (2GHz spectrum) auction where it sold for less than 50% of its supposed value.
It was discussed before. 1.4 Holdings is the holding company for the 1.4GHz license. One Dot Four is an affiliate of Harbinger.
From the 10K:
>>"One Dot Four Corp. During September 2009, we entered into a Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement with One Dot Four Corp., an affiliate of Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., which, along with its affiliates, is a significant investor in the Company, to lease certain 1.4GHz spectrum for use throughout the United States. The initial lease term continues through April 2017, renewable, at lessee’s option, for two additional terms of ten years each, subject to FCC renewal of the licenses and to early termination under various conditions. We received $3.0 million towards spectrum lease payments during 2009 and recorded $2.3 million as spectrum lease revenue in the consolidated statement of operations. "<<
I follow, but according to the article the appeals court reversed the ruling:
"Reversing the rulings of the bankruptcy court and the district court, the Second Circuit rejected this argument. It held that where a class of unsecured creditors votes to reject a
plan, the absolute priority rule bars distribution of “any property” from a debtor’s estate—including property encumbered by a secured creditor’s lien—to existing equity
on account of its prepetition interest."
As I understand it, the gifting is/was a no-no.
"Secured creditors have a gifting option towards equity holders of TSTRQ over unsecured(Just like DBSD Case)"
I think you have that backwards. The link someone posted a day or two ago from Herrick.com concluded with:
"The court’s decision appears to bar “gifting plans” in the Second Circuit. While it did not expressly prohibit every possible gifting stratagem, the thoroughness and tone of the
opinion makes it appear highly unlikely that the court would be sympathetic to attempts to circumvent the “absolute priority rule” through gifts to junior debt classes. This
decision does not indicate whether a gift from a serious creditor under an agreement made outside of a plan violates the absolute priority rule."
Doesn't that mean Gifting won't be happening?
I agree with Common. The post at the top of the this TSTRQ board (yellow area, post #4998) is a link to Reuters article. It states $1375 million as price being paid for assets of TSN. Article also states they're asking to pay off $1260 million secured debt to avoid interest charges. That leaves $115 million left for unsecured, preferred, and anything and everything that comes before common. No phone call is going to change that despite what posters attempt to claim as "fact".
Might want to also add from TSC "First Day Motion and Orders" under "Declaration" pg.8:
"The TSC series A Preferred and TSC series B Preferred had a mandatory redemption date of April 15, 2010 at a redemption price of $1080 per share, or approximately $450,578,385 (as of December 31, 2010).
> he talked about, the fact that tstrq received, 1.4 billion. <
I believe you will find that is an incorrect statement. It is not a fact that tstrq received 1.4 billion. I'm sure if Mr Pries responds to the other posters request for feedback he will attest to its inaccuracy.
> I will try to help your.<
LOL, yeah, ok, you help me. Please start by answering the questions in my previous post:
"Do you have something to indicate DISH "purchased" TSTRQ? If so, please show us. Otherwise I stand by my statement, "TSTRQ wasn't purchased by DISH".
If you don't have anything that indicates DISH purchasED TSTRQ, perhaps you have something that indicates DISH is in the process of buying TSTRQ, or DISH is seriously looking at buying TSTRQ. If so, please share with the rest of us. "
I see you've changed from what the original poster said:
"Since TSTRQ was purchased by DISH" (past tense, and TSC)
to
"dish is in the process of buying TerreStar NETWORKS"
LOL, Yeah I get it.
Do you have something to indicate DISH "purchased" TSTRQ? If so, please show us. Otherwise I stand by my statement, "TSTRQ wasn't purchased by DISH".
If you don't have anything that indicates DISH purchasED TSTRQ, perhaps you have something that indicates DISH is in the process of buying TSTRQ, or DISH is seriously looking at buying TSTRQ. If so, please share with the rest of us.
No, not "yet". DISH is in the process of buying the assets of Terrestar >Networks<. Terrestar >Corporation< (ticker tstrq that you refer to) is in a different bankruptcy proceeding.