Insiders Buying on Dec. 16, 2011:

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1235007.htm

Purchase 2011-12-16
7:26 pm ENDOCYTE INC ECYT BAILEY DOUGLAS G
(Director) 125,000 $3.36 $420,000 198,297

Purchase 2011-12-16
5:08 pm ENDOCYTE INC ECYT APLIN JOHN C
(Director) 20,000 $3.27 $65,400 21,063

Purchase 2011-12-16
4:04 pm ENDOCYTE INC ECYT Low Philip S
(Chief Science Officer
Director) 1,000 $3.206 $3,206 434,117

Exercise 2011-12-16
5:30 pm ENDOCYTE INC ECYT Ellis P Ron
(President and CEO
Director) 21,998 $1.792 $39,430 37,654

Exercise 2011-12-16
4:00 pm ENDOCYTE INC ECYT Sherman Michael A.
(Chief Financial Officer) 20,942 $1.981 $41,491 93,217

If it is not a bankrupcy, do we get some new shares?

Learner09, you might be right, too. But, you never know. It can run for a few days, and may come down. That is a nature of the stock movement. Good luck!!

I think it is a good rule for public safety.

I concur with what Darrick is expressing in his letter. The Gerber's decision is questionable, and I am still thinking whether or not this guy is qualified to sit on a bench as a judge. IMO, Gerber did okay on how to apply the BK laws along with his personal belief, but this guy forgot about an equal and fair justice for all the stakeholders.

As expected,

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911233/0911233101108000000000043.pdf

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the relief Pentair seeks, in any of its variants, is denied. The stay of effectiveness of the Confirmation Order, which I’d issued through noon today and then continued until the issuance of this decision, will last until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, November 9, 2010, to provide an opportunity to seek relief in the district court. Any further requests for relief must be made to the district court, and not to me.

SO ORDERED.
s/Robert E. Gerber, Dated: November 8, 2010

Just,

It is hard to let it go, but I guess it is time to accept the reality and close the chapter. It would have been better for us if we have a better outcome (at least a fair outcome), but it has been certainly fun/joy/tense/fear. I am sure we will have good memories with what we shared during the last 18 months. You have been a gentleman, and we, all the LONGs, thank you for what you have done in this board. Wish you the best luck!!

Oaps

From the pages of 9-10 of the document, it shows:

Item 4. Ownership. - The percentages used in Item 1 above and this Item 4 are calculated based on 242,935,715 shares of common stock outstanding as of June 30, 2010, as reported in the Issuer’s Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2010.
A. FIG LLC-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 20,859,347
B. Fortress Operating Entity I LP-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 20,859,347
C. FIG Corp.-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 20,859,347
D. Fortress Investment Group LLC-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 20,859,347
E. Fortress Principal Investment Holdings IV LLC-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 13,701,146
F. Drawbridge Special Opportunities Advisors LLC-(a) Amount beneficially owned: 14,593,696

If I add them up, it is about 111,732,230 shares, which is about 46% of the entire (approximately 242,935,715) shares. But, I am not clear whether or not the Fortress Investment Group and its subsidiaries/partners have accumulated 111,732,230 or 20,859,347 shares. If they accumulated 111,732,230 shares, it means something, like a buyout, IMO. But, no one knows what is going on. I guess MadClown would know.

SEC 13G filing on Nov. 1. 2010: A statement of beneficial ownership of common stock by certain persons

http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68079&p=IROL-sec

SC 13G Schedule filed to report acquisition of beneficial ownership of 5% or more of a class of equity securities by passive investors and certain institutions Filed on 11/1/2010

1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Fortress Investment Group LLC

11. PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (9)
8.59%* (based on approximately 242,935,715 shares of common stock outstanding as of June 30, 2010, as reported in the Issuer’s Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2010)

http://www.chemweek.com/scripts/eletter.php?id=3952.html

I don't care how smart and honorable(?) that guy is, but as far as I am concerned, the decision this guy made was a BS dishonorable decision against all the common senses, IMO. How in the world you pay $70M to get new Bonds, while you can simply reinstate the Bonds and save more than $70M plus fees. I still wonder whether this guy is qualified to sit on the bench.

I don't know how the BK Court system works, but I am hoping that Skadden with the EC and Interlachen file an appeal to a higher BK Court, stop the CEMJQ's BK emergence process, and get a different, independent, better qualified judgment from the higher BK Court.

Hope that Honorable Arthur J. Gonzalez, Chief Judge at UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Southern District of New York, will assign the CEMJQ case to a Judge, who will be making a decision for all stakeholders.

Yes, I agree with "it is what it is." That's why I am hoping the EC and Interlachen file an appeal to a higher BK Court, and get a different, independent, better qualified judgment.

With respect to your question of where we stand now, no one knows until the Debtors are going to let us know our final return (%). We, the owner of the company, are so powerless, aren't we?

You are not wrong. That's why it was called a Death-Trap. You only had one choice: accept the 5% offer OR accept the 2%-10.5% by rejecting the 5% offer. Why does the upper limit have to be 10.5% for our return? What happens if our return exceeds 10.5% after all settlements and payments?

If you are happy with the outcome of the POR confirmation, that is good for you.

When the stockholders rejected the POR, we (at least I) rejected not only the 5% offer, but also the entire POR including the 1.9-10.5% offer. The 1.9-10.5% offer was a death-trap by the Debtors. Who said our return is limited only up 10.5%. What happens if it exceeds. Gerber accepted the Debtors’ entire requests, crushed all the EC's requests, and just approved the POR without looking into the shareholders' situations. IMO, this guy really acted like a god or an artist (for twisted logics). I am still hoping the EC (including SVP/Canyon) and Interlachen file an appeal to a higher BK Court, and get a different, independent, better qualified judgment.

Of course, everybody contributed some bad stuff to the outcome of the POR and its confirmation. But, as far as the stockholders are concerned, Gerber was the worst contributor.

I understand everybody (KE/Lazard/Akin Group/Jones Day Group/Chemtura Management/SVP/Canyon/UBS, etc.) fought for their interests, which I may understand. That’s why we needed/had a judge, who should carefully watch the BK process and outcome for fairness and justice. But Gerber accepted the Debtors’ entire requests, and crushed the EC's requests. Of course the Gerber's opinions/judgments would be in a boundary of the laws, but didn't consider the stockholders' interests from the different aspects of the laws. As far as the stockholders are concerned, his judgment was against the common senses. The position he was in for the POR confirmation was so powerful, and I am not sure whether or not this guy is very well qualified to fill that position. I hope the EC (including SVP/Canyon) and Interlachen file an appeal to a higher BK Court, and get a different, better qualified judgment.

MC,

First of all, congratulations to your Happy 10th Anniversary!!

From a reading of the comment in the blog post, it appears that the Debtors and Chemtura management were willing to give $1.40 to the shareholders. Unfortunately, SVP/Canyon destroyed it because of their greediness. Initially, SVP/Canyon had helped us, but they hurt us at the end.

By the way, does Gerber (or the BK process) allow selling the Chemtura company, if someone is interested in buying out the company between now and the Effective Date of the POR? Obviously, an offer price will be higher than $2.05 Billion.

During the course of the Chemtura BK process, there is one thing I learned: The market is right. With saying that, yes, you are right; the Bond holders are getting more than minimum $250M from what they supposed to get. $250M should go to the shareholders, and our share price should be around $1.40.

Now the question is whether the jump in the Bond price can be an evidence/basis for the fighting valuation in an appeal court. Plus, if the appeal does not stop the execution of the POR on the Effective Date (Dec. 1, 2010???), then I wonder how effective the appeal is going to be. My only last hope is that some one who is interested in Chemtura just offers to buy out before the Effective Date for the POR.

You both are right at the end. You both just have a different way of calculating the new share price. For example:

5% by your way - $0.308
5% by chem8's way - $0.300
(Note: chem8 has a round-off error. The multiplier should have been 0.0206 instead of 0.02. If we multiply 0.0206 by $15, then it comes out about $0.309, which is almost same as yours.)

10.5% by your way - $0.588
10.5% by chem8's way - $0.645
(Note: There is a difference between yours and chem8's. But, you made a simple calculation mistake. Just recheck. Your new calculation should give you $0.648, not $0.588. Again, chem8's price should have been $0.648 if he didn't have a round-off error. The multiplier should have been 0.0432 instead of 0.043.)

However, all those things become a moot point if someone buys out the Chemtura Company before the Effective Date.

Expanding g2nec's statement, "buy/sell is 50/50 now",

As of 12:30 PM now,

Bought 17,241,429 shares
Sold___16,643,319 shares
Unknown 230,500 shares

Very good point. When the Viteon company announced the POR, the shareholders got 0% (complete wiped out). So, the price went down badly.

No one knows, but it could be. Time to time, I looked at the Visteon Corporation historical prices as my reference. When its POR was confirmed in mid July, the price was down to around $0.31 even though an exit price would be higher. By the time it came out from BK on Oct. 1, the price went up to $0.68 (almost doubled). Here is portion of the weekly price changes. You can find the daily changes from this web: http://www.google.com/finance/historical?q=PINK:VSTNQ&histperiod=daily

Date______ Open High Low Close_ Volume
Oct 1, 2010_ 0.52 0.68 0.52 0.68 11,901,520
Sep 24, 2010 0.53 0.56 0.51 0.52 6,653,753
Sep 17, 2010 0.46 0.54 0.46 0.53 4,820,433
Sep 10, 2010 0.50 0.52 0.45 0.46 5,432,754
Sep 3, 2010_ 0.56 0.57 0.47 0.50 10,962,450
Aug 27, 2010 0.50 0.57 0.48 0.53 3,615,566
Aug 20, 2010 0.48 0.54 0.48 0.50 4,389,194
Aug 13, 2010 0.50 0.52 0.39 0.48 11,812,099
Aug 6, 2010_ 0.52 0.56 0.46 0.50 3,017,372
Jul 30, 2010_ 0.46 0.66 0.37 0.53 12,516,182
Jul 23, 2010_ 0.37 0.46 0.34 0.44 4,494,698
Jul 16, 2010_ 0.38 0.42 0.31 0.37 13,040,760

I wonder whether anyone can offer to buy out the Chemtura Company after the POR Confirmation. Can someone offer to buy out the Chemtura Company between now and the POR Effective Date (Dec. 1, 2010???) if an offer price is higher than the valuation of $2.05B?

It seems that there is no justice in this process. Why pay $70M when you can simply reinstate the 2016 and 2026 Bonds!!

We thought he took a long time to make his decision for fair considerations for all stakeholders. But, it appears that this guy, Gerber, took a long time to find justifications/reasons how to protect the Debtors.

I am still hoping SVP/Canyon/Interlachen file an appeal to a higher Court. Remember that the Chemtura company is solvent, and it didn't have to file a BK.

Based on my reading, the EC can have a representation for an appeal, etc., but expenses may not be reimbursed. I wonder whether SVP/Canyon/Interlachen will file an appeal to a higher Court, even if they won't be reimbursed?

"... provided that notwithstanding any provisions of the Plan or confirmation order providing for the Equity Committee's termination, the Equity Committee shall remain in existence to the extent necessary for the prosecution of any appeal of the Confirmation Order; but provided further that nothing in the Plan or confirmation order, or by reason of the preceding proviso, shall obligate the reorganized debtors or any other party in interest to pay any legal fees or expenses incurred by the Equity Committee in connection with such efforts..."

The higher court is not going to change his opinion. It is going to overrule his opinion. Question is: do we have a strong case? Hope we do.

So, what is the next move? Is EC going to file an appeal to a higher court? I guess we should.

Very good point, and I am sure ALL LONGs here agree with you. Who cares about the revenues if a company does not make any profits!!

Let's wait for the 3rd QTR report. Every thing will be clear within 3 weeks. In the mean time, let's hope for better things, like no approval of the Debtors' POR, etc. Enjoy the weekend!!

Sorry!! Tuesday, the 26th.

Judge Gerber's Court schedule for coming weeks:

http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/ (Click on the following: Judges and Chambers Information - Judge Gerber - Calendar)

Although Judge Gerber's decision on the Debtors' POR can come out at any time, his official calendar scheduled for next two weeks does not show anything about it except his decisions on the Debtors' Omnibus Objection to Certain Claims on Monday, Oct. 25, 2010. And the next day, Monday, Oct. 26, 2010 is the "Initial Escrow End Date" for a new 2018 Bond ($455M) with a rate of 7.875%.

A portion from the Chemtura's SEC FORM 8-K, dated August 27, 2010:

"3.2 If prior to October 26, 2010 (the “Initial Escrow End Date”), the Company elects to extend the Initial Escrow End Date to November 25, 2010 (such date, the “First Escrow Extension Date”), no later than October 19, 2010, the Company shall (i) provide written notice of its election to the Trustee and the Escrow Agent and issue a press release promptly thereafter stating that it has extended the Initial Escrow End Date and (ii) shall deposit into escrow with the Escrow Agent $3,020,583.86 (the “First Additional Interest Deposit”), representing the amount of interest that would accrue, including original issue discount, on the funded amount of the Notes from the Initial Escrow End Date up to, but excluding, December 3, 2010; provided, however, that the Company may not elect to extend the Initial Escrow End Date if there is a Default or Event of Default occurring and continuing under the Indenture."

Right statement!! That's why I am waiting for the 3rd QTR report by the 1st week of November, 2010, which is about three weeks to go. I am hoping the Debtors' POR is not approved by Judge Gerber until then. If there is no approval and we have a strong positive 3rd QTR report by then, we, the common share holders, have a new ball game. Frankly, $199M net monthly sales in US/Canada only (the BK portion) is not bad at all; it is good, indeed.

It will be more interesting to see once the 3rd QTR report comes out within 3 weeks, around 1st week of Nov.

The Chemtura's SEC FORM 8-K, dated October 15, 2010:

On October 15, 2010, Chemtura filed with the Bankruptcy Court, as required by the Bankruptcy Code, its Monthly Operating Report for the period September 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010. The September 2010 Monthly Operating Report (the “Monthly Operating Report”) is furnished hereunder as Exhibit 99.1.

http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68079&p=IROL-sec

CHEMTURA CORPORATION AND RELATED DEBTORS CONDENSED COMBINED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) For the Period September 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010

Net sales $199M
Cost of goods sold $169M
Selling, general and administrative $16M
Depreciation and amortization $10M
Research and development $3m
Changes in estimates related to expected allowable claims ($39M)
Operating profit $40M

The Chemtura's SEC FORM 8-K, dated August 27, 2010, indicated that the escrow conditions for a new Bond ($455 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2018) needs to be satisfied by Oct. 26, 2010 (subject to two 30-day extensions), and Chemtura must notify the potential Bond holder by Oct. 19, 2010 if it needs to extend (just in case the POR won't be approved by Oct. 26, 2010). So, by coming Tuesday, Oct. 19, if there are no Judge Gerber's approval and Chemtura's extension request, then there won't be $455M of the planned new Bond, unless a new deal has been made.

I don't know the details of the rule for reporting, but based on the previous reports [2010 1st QTR (Jan/Feb/Mar) and 2010 2nd QTR (Apr/May/June) were reported on May 7 and Aug. 6, respectively], 2010 3rd QTR (July/Aug/Sept) would be reported within four weeks (around the 1st week of Nov.).

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68079&p=irol-news&nyo=0

You made positive points, but some (if not all) of the LONGs here wouldn’t be excited with $1.13, as we were in a price range of $1.30 to $1.70 for so many months (although $1.13 is better than the current price of $0.53). As INTERLACHEN MULTI-STRATEGY MASTER FUND indicated in its objection to the POR confirmation, $1.39 was an average price during the period of Jan. 14 through June 17, 2010, and that would be a minimum price the market was expecting. Perhaps, it would be true that the longer the confirmation process takes, we would be better off (by perception), but, frankly, I don’t care whether it takes a longer or shorter time. What I am only looking for is to get it right in a fair/justice way for all stakeholders.

As Madclown indicated in his Post #65221, I am looking for a Judge Gerber’s right decision on the following issues:

1. Valuation ($2.45B vs. $2.05B) – A middle point of $2.25B would be a compromise. $200M is equivalent to $0.82 to the share holders.

2. Unnecessary $70M fee for the 2016 and 2026 Bond holders – It is equivalent to $0.29 to the share holders.

3. Unnecessary prepayment of $50 million to PBGC - It is equivalent to $0.21 to the share holders.

4. Pass through $120M for settlements - It is equivalent to $0.49 to the share holders.

So, with the high end of a 10.4% recovery of $0.56, I am waiting for his decision, which would provide us a minimum equity value of $2.37 ($0.56 + $0.82 + $0.29 + $0.21 + $0.49 = $2.37).

What I am really hoping from Judge Gerber is that he simply reinstates the 2016 Bond ($500M) and 2026 Bond ($150M), approves the new Bond ($455M; hope the new lender agrees) to pay off the 2009 Bond ($375M) and all other settlements, and keeps the current common shares. I don’t know what would be a PPS by taking this approach, but I believe the PPS, IMO, would be in a range of $3 to $6. I believe this would be the easiest, simplest and most fair approach for all stakeholders.

http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/2010/09/and-now-we-wait.html

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911233/0911233100909000000000018.pdf

They may still try to hide profits in a MOR (the Sept. MOR). I rather want to wait for a QTR report (the 3rd Quarter report for months of July/Aug/Sept) by around the end of October.

Judge Gerber should not approve the Debtors' POR based on the settlement issues. He must approve the POR based on the accuracy and fairness of the information provided in the POR. For that reasons, I am hoping he shoud not approve the POR by Oct. 15.

Frankly speaking, the EC's preliminary POR has more fair contents in it (like, $1.00 PPS for a common share, reinstate the bonds with full payment of accured interest, etc.).

The Chemtura's SEC FORM 8-K, dated August 27, 2010, indicated that the escrow conditions for $455 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.875% “Senior Notes” due 2018 need to be satisfied by October 26, 2010 (subject to two 30-day extensions), which is about two weeks to go. So, if Judge Gerber does not confirm the Debtors' POR by then, I believe, IMO, we may have a good chance to have a better deal [like, a potential buyout, a realistic dilution with at least $3-$4 PPS, or a serious, responsible EC's POR (not lousy, greedy SVP/Canyon's preliminary POR, again though), etc.]. Let's hope the best!!

The document contains a latest financial summary of Chemtura, and it is pretty interesting.

It appears that Rogerson is marketing Chemtura for financial institutions’ investments into Chemtura, and I am wondering whether his efforts are for selling upcoming new company shares or selling additional current common shares (dilution) just in case Judge Gerber does not confirm the Debtors' POR. Hope it is the latter case.