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.
There will be a decision handed down by the Trustee's office. Their decision will weigh the arguments of all respondents against the statutory requirements that must be met in order to form an equity committee. In my discussions with our case manager from the SEC he indicated that he felt we had laid out a good case. I have spoken to him about the financials filed with the SEC and let me assure you that the SEC's stance on the issue is not to discount them as meaningless.
Let's remember that this most recent letter that was sent by the Trustee to Chemtura's attorneys was initiated, in part, because of the 8% increase in the equity on the balance sheet so it does not appear that the Trustee was of a mind to discount those financials as meaningless.
As far as a timeframe for a decision on this latest EC attempt, I cannot answer with any certainty but I can say that anyone interested in providing a response to K & E's letter should do so on Monday because time is of the essence. Based on what I know of SVP and Skadden Arps I would expect that they will have a rebuttal as well, especially since they were specifically called out in K & E's response for addressing issues that K & E claims to have satsifactorily addressed. If that got my blood boiling, then it is sure to have done so with them but we should not rely on other parties to represent our interests until they have a legal obligation to do so.
My response letter is about 90% complete. Most likely I will finish it and post it tonight. I've been away from home all week and need to take all these kids out to do something fun. You guys have yourselves a great day!
I'll put one on "The Blog" as some of the members of counsel like to affectionately refer to it in their not so private conversations conducted within the halls just outside of the court room. They're monitoring us and we're monitoring them.
Agreed, no need to deluge the SEC with requests or demands. I swapped emails and forwarded some things to our specific case manager at the SEC on Thursday. These are points and items that had not previously been addressed in any court filing or equity committee request. In his response to my emails he indicated that as soon as he was able to read K & E’s response he would call the trustee to have a discussion about our position as well as that of the company’s attorneys.
One item in particular that I sent the SEC was posted a few days ago in IHUB by Local which was the correspondence between Chemtura and the SEC from back in July 2009 detailing the reasons that the company has reported an equity balance of over $300 million in its SEC filings. The correspondence came about because the SEC wanted to know why there was such a large equity balance reported in the SEC filings while the market price of the stock reflected a much smaller valuation for the company. In short, the CFO of Chemtura said that the offers that the company has been fielding for its assets and business lines clearly support the valuations on the balance sheet and that the market price of the company's securities did not reflect the true value of the company as reflected in the eyes of the suitors for its assets. This is the same valuation methodology and real world examples that Duff and Phelps will be using to come up with their final valuation for the company to aid in putting together its emergence financial statements prepared by Wall_Street’s friends at Deloitte and Touche. Let me just go out on a limb and suggest that this little issue renders K & E’s argument meritless when they suggest that the SEC reported numbers are only backward looking and do not in any way reflect the true valuation of the company or its business lines. In fact, we have documentary evidence that the company has taken a position that is diametrically opposed to K & E’s. This argument has been made to the SEC but it should be made by everyone who reads this by writing a letter to the Trustee’s Office and bringing this issue to her attention because it takes one of the cornerstones of their most recent argument and exposes the “folly” in their misguided logic. Their argument also ignores the fact that the accounting world has shifted from an historical purchase price valuation of many assets to a “fair value” accounting environment.
Once again, I have to keep going back to this idea of the company itself painting one financial picture and K & E painting an entirely different picture. This is nothing new and has been going on since the inception of the case. Their different positions serve 2 separate and distinct purposes. They want to paint an ugly picture in the court room because if stockholders are allowed to have a statutory equity committee it adds additional expense to the company’s bottom line and it is in the best interest of all other parties in interest if equity is silenced. Another thing to note is that most of these big shot law firms participate in these “Distressed Debt Conferences” like the one linked below
(http://www.kpmgcorporatefinance.com/engine/rad/files/library/Distressed%20Debt%20&%20Turnaround%20Investing%20Summit.pdf) so they run in the same circles as these investors (members of and attorneys for the various debt constituencies) that swoop in and buy up the company’s debt for pennies on the dollar. They have interests that are aligned inside and outside of the courtroom.
Now, outside the courtroom, the company wants to paint a favorable picture. When a suitor calls or catches one of the numerous flights that have been pouring into Middlebury, CT lately and they want to discuss the purchase of the company’s assets do you think that they tell them that the market price of its stock is a better reflection of the value or do they tell them that the valuations on the balance sheet are extremely conservative and that some multiple of what is reflected on the balance sheet might be a more appropriate starting point for negotiating an acceptable sales price? Along that same vein do you think the company points to foreign currency translation and says that “our businesses really aren’t profitable and that as soon as the U.S dollar rebounds all of our foreign business lines will lose money hand over fist” (as k & E might have you believe) or maybe do you think that they paint an entirely different picture based on reasonable forward P/E multiples. In the end these guys will simply not be able to have it both ways.
In looking at this idea of having $10 billion or more of claims outstanding against Chemtura let me offer up to you that if the number had been much closer to a reasonable assessment I might have been concerned but the numbers being thrown out now are so far off base it is hardly worth my time to submit a rebuttal but I will any way. This is how I will approach this argument. Let’s just say, for example, that I bought $1,000,000 of the company’s debt and paid 107 cents on the dollar for the 2009 or the 2016 bonds. Right now I would have priority standing over almost every party in interest in this case. If the company does not complete an asset sale to pay me off in full with cash I will have to either renegotiate my claim and remain a debt holder post emergence or convert it to equity. In the event that I elect or am forced to convert my claim to equity I now have a lower priority standing (post emergence) than these tort and environmental claims that may survive bankruptcy. If there are supposedly $5 or $6 billion of these claims outstanding that will have to have their day in court sometime down the road because they are currently stayed by operation of bankruptcy law then once those claims become prioritized over my equity claim then my equity no longer has value. If I was in that consitiuency I would be better off calling my representative on the Unsecured Creditor's Committee and conducting a discussion about forcing Chapter 7 liquidation because as an investor at that level i'd rather have cash in hand that an equity security based on my buy in price of $107 which has a very minimal if not nonexistent risk component priced in. At $107 that thing is trading like a risk free asset considering that it is not cash flowing right now for the holder of that security.
Now, before you go jumping off the deep end, look at the price of the bonds and ask yourself, do they reflect that the total liabilities of this company are in excess of $10 billion? I hardly think so. Those unsecured 2026 bonds are trading near 80 cents on the dollar so does it look like they are buying this argument? No they are not and they have had 3 trading days to absorb this little $10 billion issue because it was discussed in court. To also support this contention we can see that these other unsecured claims are definitely being gobbled up by these collection agents, debt aggregators and distressed debt firms that you see in the court filings as “Notice of transfer…” Once again i’ll ask if these are the actions of firms and investors buying up unsecured claims that truly believe that the liabilities exceed $10 billion? It would seem to defy all logic.
I’ll be interested to see what the Trustee has to say about all of this.
Thanks. Composite rating of "Outperform" seems positive ;)
I forwarded this as well as some additional information along to our case manager at the SEC. My thinking was that time is of the essence so it might help for them to discuss these issues with the Trustee's office. In their response they indicated that the Trustee has given K & E an additional week (November 23rd I assumed) to submit a response regarding the equity committee. They also indicated that they would review the information I sent them and that they would discuss these matters with the Trustee after the company has submitted its response.
This means two things for us, one is that the company has not even responded yet so our recent price action is not tied to the EC decision. Secondly, it means that we still have time to forward any positive information along to the Trustee and I will be doing so. Please remember that we have been asked to submit all correspondence to the trustee via U.S. mail.
As a reminder, here is their address and a suggested heading to use when corresponding with them. Please keep all correspondence professional because these folks can be good advocates for our cause if they decide we have met the statutory burden for an EC.
Ms. Susan Golden
Office of the United States Trustee
33 Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
Re: Request for Appointment of a Statutory Committee of Equity Security Holders, In re Chemtura Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-11233 (REG) (Jointly Administered)
Outstanding find Local. This document makes our case for an EC much stronger. It has been forwarded to the attention of the right people. In light of this document, those who would try and make the case that there is no value remaining for equity or that our claims are "unsupported" are presenting an argument that is "Meritless".
Manti, I will defer to your expertise on the trading and chart aspects. If you say the 2 million block was a short position then I can't disagree with you.
That is one wicked looking chart you posted. I'm guessing that something fundamental changed along the way ;)
I’m just waiting on news like everyone else. Based on my history of being involved in the past EC efforts, all communications from the Trustee’s Office have been handed down to all petitioners at the same time. Their office is not going to “leak” the info to anyone. They are a fair and impartial group of people who work for the Department of Justice and they do not have a vested interest either way. To them, their decision is black and white and is governed by statutory requirements that must be fulfilled. They owe no allegiance to either side and their decision will not be prejudiced in any way. They look to the statutory requirements as well as prior case law and prior history within the Southern District of New York. We, as stockholders, feel that we have satisfied the requirements for the formation of an EC and we have laid out our case as best we can. I am certain that no stone has gone unturned. We shall see how it plays out.
As far as the recent decline goes, I don’t think there is anything afoot outside of what has already been discussed on this board. There is a case to be made that some of the selling has been caused by a breakdown in the chart pattern and many of the prior support levels have been technically breached so the chart and momo traders have been getting out lately. That is fine, they are part of the market and help to provide liquidity where it might not otherwise exist or where it might otherwise be diminished. With those participants you get the good and the bad and their presence sometimes leads to the stock price reaching levels it might not otherwise reach, on the up and down side. I’m not too concerned about that aspect because the ultimate fate of the stock does not lie with chart patterns but there are/were players here whose main attraction was the chart.
Based on the recent 13f-hr SEC filings, we saw16 to 17 million shares divested by institutions as of or before September 30, 2009. This recent revelation may have caused some panic but my counterpoint to that would be that SVP was likely taking some of those shares off of their hands. Instead of playing this for a flip, SVP, decided to form an ad hoc committee of their own with legal representation (Skadden Arps) and an Investment Bank (UBS) to try and put together a $300 million rights offering. I’d say they provide much stronger hands for those shares.
Some of the selling is likely due to profit taking and disciplined trading with either mental or electronic sell stops. Remember that it was not long ago that we were seeing 250,000 to 2 million blocks firing off in the $1.00 to $1.40 range. If memory serves me there was a 2 million block that hit the ask at $1.30. Those blocks were not likely the buy orders of a retail player. The firm that bought the 2 million at $1.30 isn’t likely to be the type to sit and watch the stock fall to $0.66 just to see how it all plays out. They, and others like them, probably got stopped out along the way.
One other thing of note is that I took the EBITDA calculation as defined by the KEIP and I reduced it to a spreadsheet that includes all 21 additions/subtractions from “net income from continuing operations” and it shows, based on all available information, that as of the 9 months ended September 30, 2009 the EBITDA is sitting at a positive $169 million. Based on that, they are well within reach of their target goals. I would think that many parties would have a hard time understanding/justifying paying out bonuses based on what would be deemed good operational performance while at the same time failing to include equity within the plan of reorganization. I’m sure there are other people besides us that would look at this information as well as the positive book value and say Hmmm…
Best wishes to all.
Chemtura MOR Spread October 2009
I updated the MOR spread on the blog to include September and October.
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/
And here is my reply to their response:
With respect to the issue of the “lobbying” efforts by equity holders to petition the Trustee for the formation of a statutory equity committee in these chapter 11 cases, the responses to the objections of equity holders by counsel to the Debtors are a thinly veiled attempt by said counsel to continue their unsupported contention that the appointment of an equity committee lacks merit. Their responses in this regard are nothing more than an attempt to interrupt equity holders’ good faith efforts to form a committee to protect their rights.
The introductory paragraph entitled “Preliminary Statement” shall henceforth be referred to as “Exhibit A” and is hereby introduced as evidence to this honorable court as proof that debtor’s counsel has a decidedly negative attitude towards equity holders. As such they cannot be expected to adequately represent the interests of equity holders going forward (nor have they heretofore) and as a result, the case for the appointment of a statutory committee of equity holders has more merit now than ever before.
With respect to the Debtors attempts to respond to the objection by Jacks, the Debtors still fail to establish the “need” to employ “fresh start accounting” and have failed to offer any proof of said “need” with respect to the retention of Deloitte FAS to provide services in connection with “Fresh Start Accounting.” Equity holders find it curious that Debtors counsel considers to be meritorious all potential outcomes that would have a negative impact on the value of the estate while at the same time “blithely” dismissing any and all positive developments in this case. In fact, if it were not for the overt actions of retail equity holders then none of the recent positive developments as separately and individually outlined in various letters to this Court and to the Trustee’s Office would have been brought to the attention of the Court or the Trustee. This is yet another example of the abject failure of the Debtor’s counsel to adequately represent the interests of scattered equity holders.
I like this snippet in particular from paragraph nine:
"representing each Potential Purchaser in connection with any auction relating to the sale of certain of the Debtor's asses, and representing each Potential Purchaser in connection with any sale or other hearing held by this Court in connection with the sale of certain of the Debtors' assets"
By the way, is there a draft in here or is that just our stalking horse breathing heavily as he rides in to submit his bid?
Thanks to all for the kind words. Just remember that any momentum we now have or will generate in the coming weeks is the result of the outstanding efforts provided by many. Everyone who wrote a letter, sent an email or made calls to the Court or the Trustee are to be thanked. Without the groundswell of retail support and the involvement of a few institutions these attorneys would be allowed to go unchecked.
Fortunately, we once again have the attention of the Trustee. The difference between this EC attempt and prior attempts is that this time we have more institutional ownership, well over 100 more retail petitioners than before, much improved bond and stock prices, much improved financials, substantial tax refunds and maybe most importantly we have the attention of the SEC who is in communication with the Trustee's Office.
There are no guarantees here but collectively we have laid out a strong case. Just keep it all in perspective and try not to get too up or too down. We are likely less than 2 weeks away from knowing the outcome of this EC effort. If it is not successful, for whatever reason, just remember that SVP, along with their Attorneys (Skadden Arps) and their Investment Bankers (UBS) will pick up the torch and carry it forward. They have too much at stake here to just be spectators. I suspect that they are very active behind the scenes. It is certainly not in their best interest to announce their every move. Once they are done putting all of the pieces and players together for their plan we will probably hear from them again.
Best wishes to all.
Updated Equity Committee Request Letter
Here is a link to another letter in support of an Equity Committee in Chemtura's Chapter 11 cases that will be submitted to the Trustee's office in advance of the November 16 deadline. It has been updated to include some of the more current events and recent developments.
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/
When I right-click-save as and try to open it I get an error message saying the file is damaged. It is a pretty big file.
U.S. Trustee in Chemtura’s Bankruptcy Case Considering Appointment of an Equity Committee
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/
Chemtura & Other Specialty Chemical Company Valuation Measures 10.29.09
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21856195/Chemtura-Other-Specialty-Chemical-Company-Valuation-Measures-10-29-09
Best wishes to you and your family. I hope all goes well with your daughter's procedure.
Sklauble, one of the big uncertainties remaining will be the unliquidated claims (dollar figures have yet to be assigned) from the ongoing litigation such as the diacetyl and popcorn lung issues. I do not believe we have seen totals of the expected claims under the pending litigation but if I remember correctly, tomorrow is the claims bar date so all claimants have until that time to submit their claims. The other uncertainty related to these issues is how much insurance does the company have to cover these claims, what are the related deductibles and ultimately, what is the expected payout. Most of these litigation issues are legacy items dating back to the pre-Chemtura days that are coming to a head because of the claims bar date.
At some point we should get some clarity on these issues, but I cannot speak to when or how that information will be made public. It would seem to me that the POR would have to address these issues in some form or fashion. Although the exclusivity date has been pushed back, all indications are that the company still intends to file its POR by the end of 2009.
Chemtura Delivers Third Quarter Positive Earnings Surprise
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/chemtura-delivers-third-quarter.html
Best I could do in the limited time available. Still haven't had a chance to read the entire 10-Q.
Best Wishes to all
Still here. On the road traveling right now. Rest assured I will get the word out on the blog as soon as I can.
Here is the link to Wall_Street's newest filing. Should hit the docket in a few days.
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/objection-to-chemturas-motion-to-employ.html
Thanks goes out to him for doing the heavy lifting. I am merely the messenger.
The calculation centers on the residual ownership percentage as well as the remaining equity from a balance sheet perspective. It is a complicated calculation and I won't profess to know all of the details. Section 382 of the tax code is the prevailing legislation and it offers some exceptions for Chapter 11 reorganizations. To the best of my knowledge, in some situations the debtholders can effectively step into the shoes of old equity holders to limit the NOL limitations but the burden of proof is on the company to prove the percentage of debt and equity that has turned over. This is one of the main reasons why in the first few days of a reorganizations case the company motions for limitations on the trading of its debt and equity securities.
See address below
rdmcfadden@gmail.com
The other issue we all seek to avoid is the reduction of the NOLs that result from the dilution required under fresh start.
One school of thought here on some of the topics that need to be addressed on this board would be to focus solely on the positives, ignore all of the negative possibilities, bury our heads in the sand and just ride the wave of institutional buying and hope that someday they will ride in on their white horses to save us.
Another school of thought which has been employed by several of us here is to consider all of the possibilities, meet them head on, do some REAL DD to understand how they apply and how we are affected by each scenario, take swift and decisive ACTION to head things off at the pass, mitigate the damages and actually take charge of our destiny as opposed to waiting around for someone else to do it for us. If we have to exhibit a little bit of angst in the process it is the cost of doing business.
Thank you in advance, Wall, for the time you spent this weekend in putting together what you are about to unleash.
They're being paid in cash from operational profits and/or DIP facility proceeds as the expenses are approved by the court.
It wasn't really intended to be good news or bad. My main point was to establish how they have managed to convert a prepetition unsecured subordinated claim into a post-petition priority claim. Deloitte is not the first service provider to have been owed money by Chemtura before providing post-petition services. It is just that, so far, no other party to my knowledge has attempted to convert a claim in this manner by "forgiving" the previous debt and mysteriously being hired to perform all manner of services after said "forgiveness". Just go do a CRTL-F on the KCCLLC Chemtura page to search for all of the things they've been engaged to do in this case. It will take a few hours just to read through those documents alone.
No one, in a corporate environment, gives another party $1.57 million without strings attached. That's all i'm trying to point out.
Chemtura Hires Deloitte FAS to Provide Emergence Accounting Services
New Blog Post. Just dusting off the cobwebs.
http://chemturaresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/chemtura-hires-deloitte-fas-to-provide.html
Which event in particular most qualifies as the lowest of the lows?
1. I made a clumsy exit, endured the criticism and subsequently returned to publicly admit it; or
2. Even at a time when I no longer owned any shares, saw fit to assist in organizing the current EC effort of which you and all others potentially stand to benefit from; or
3. Some other transgression of which I am not aware.
Just trying to gain an understanding.
It is interesting that the gap down this morning was below the 20-day moving average and couldn’t close above it. The last time we closed below it was in August and we had 2 consecutive closes below that average (August 25th and 26th). This immediately preceded one of the biggest single day gains we have experienced. This was also the beginning of the run from $0.50 to $1.14 over that 3-4 week stretch where we only experienced about 3 red candle days. In the absence of any real publicly available news it looks like pure manipulation because they (MM's) have been very careful for 2 consecutive months to make sure it closes at or above this average. While I am not necessarily a market maker conspiracy theorist, today’s action seems odd. I don’t know if history repeats itself but it is worth watching.
The company motioning to move the exclusivity and solicitation periods back several months certainly gives the equity committee effort more breathing room. I do not think that the EC effort alone is why they motioned for the extension, but “resolving certain disputes among and between the Debtors’ various creditor and equity constituencies” was listed as one reason for the filing and it does seem to help the cause if the motion passes.
Interesting items from Houlihan Lokey Billings
http://www.aventineinfo.com/492_11214.pdf
Here is a summary of some items of interest regarding equity holders contained in Houlihan Lokey’s application for reimbursement for services rendered for the month of August 2009 in Aventine’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Discussion regarding potential treatment for old equity – 3.5 man hours
Study regarding recovery to “out of the money” equity in previous chapter 11 cases – 18.0 man hours
Drafting equity treatment term sheet – 3.5 man hours
Review of equity treatment term sheet – 0.5 man hours
Work on potential equity treatment proposal to give to Noteholders – 2.0 man hours
Review of revised POR and Exit Financing – 6.0 man hours
In addition there were numerous entries centering on discussions regarding estimated costs to rebuild plants and additional discussions regarding the plan of reorganization and related exit financing. In full disclosure I am a shareholder here but I do not profess to know every detail of the case. Based on a recent release on debtwire (link below) the company’s plan of reorganization now appears to be based on operating the business as a standalone entity as opposed to being sold off in whole or in part. This would seem to be supported by the entries in Houlihan’s billings regarding the review of the revised POR and the numerous references to exit financing and exploring the costs to complete the construction of the unfinished plants. What was noticeably absent from this month’s billings that was prevalent in the prior month was any reference to asset sales.
It is just IMO, but it would appear that the number of hours spent researching, preparing term sheets and discussing the treatment of equity claims with creditors might support the assertion that equity may well receive some sort of recovery, albeit diluted. If the 300 million in unsecured debt is equitized there will certainly be dilution but that is a much better proposition than certain alternatives. It strikes me that if the case for outright cancellation of the common shares was a slam dunk then there would not be a need to negotiate that scenario with creditors and prepare related term sheets but that’s just a guess on my part since I am not a part of the negotiations. The company retained the services of American Appraisal Associates, Inc., as of August 28, 2009. The valuations they come up with will be critical. We shall see what happens.
Debtwire Release Link:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d014f846-b401-11de-98ec-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html
Best wishes to all.
It's understandable given the task you and Wall have undertaken. Thanks again for your efforts.
Jax and Wall, i'd member mark you both again but, alas, only one per person is allowed. Nice going. Whether the EC effort bears fruit or not (and I believe the 3rd time is going to be a charm) you have provided a model that will serve as a template for future efforts of the sort. This model is definitely valid and repeatable for use in bankruptcy situations where the debtor is not hopelessly insolvent.
GLTA
No such luck. But if they made the bet they made they had better be relying on something other than that blog because that is one salty bet!
Perhaps they'll join me in becoming a member of the Alliance ;)
Thanks, Manti.
CEMJQ Monthly Share Volume Report September 2009
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/tradeact_mv.asp?SearchBy=issue&Issue=CEMJQ&SortBy=volume&Month=9-1-2009&IMAGE1.x=26&IMAGE1.y=4
Manti, or any of the other seasoned traders care to sound off on which of these MMs trading high volumes of the stock are traditionally retail and which are institutional? It might give us some insight as to what to expect in the next round of 13f-hr, NQ and N-CSRS filings with the SEC that should begin within the next 2-3 weeks.
Thanks in advance
Very possible and I have always considered that, which is why I largely ignore the ones coming from various states. However, when the hits come from New York, NY and other cities in which that entity has its headquarters I give it more weight.
Its not a reason to buy, sell or hold but it is just another source of interesting information you can have fun with.
Sklauble, I should have followed it with a smiley emoticon because I had no ill intent with that statement. You are good folk in my book.
No more OT stuff from me.
Slick, I have no quarrel with anyone here. The past is the past as far as I am concerned. What was done was done and what was said was said. If I am a distraction then I will go back to private posting. I think the moderators will let me know if that needs to occur and there will be no hard feelings.
Best wishes to you.
Please let's not go there. I came back because I have made some friends and acquaintences here and I want to be able to help in any way that I can. I still have a few friends and relatives that kept some on the table because they liked what they saw with this company and my vested interest is in looking out for them as well.
I am not looking to cause another stir. Just want to be here to help. When the information flow surrounding the POR comes out it will be time for all hands on deck to chip in and help out calculating and deciphering its contents because it will be a HUGE document.
If some of the more valued members here become members of the Equity Committee, should it be formed, they will likely have to recuse themselves from participation on this board and I do not intend to leave everyone hanging whether or not I own shares at that time.
GLTA
Just following along closely from the sidelines, for now. I still believe in this company. It is their law firm that concerns me most. Now that a groundswell effort is underway to mitigate that concern it is looking promising once again. If equity gets a voice before this court, in my mind this once again becomes one of the most attractive value plays around, certainly the most attractive in its industry. Regardless of the outcome I plan on being a shareholder of the reorganized company.
The bonds are screaming from the top of the hills that they most assuredly like the company's prospects post reorganization and I am not ignoring their voices.