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.
Now we now why Aurelius dropped out all their objections to the Veston's D.S.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911786/0911786100721000000000004.pdf
Class 1 and Class 5 also have Prepetition in them too...
In general BK debtor couldn't have different treatment in a given class...I would think "prepetition
common stock or equivalent Interest in Chemtura Corporation" covers all common stock holders, both pre and post petition...IMO
Jaxstraw and Fernace,
Thanks a lot for the re-cap of the court hearing yesterday, did the Discloure Statement get approved at the hearing?
The question is...where do they come up the additional $310 Million...It has to come from somewhere, which means somebody has to give...my guess it will be a new POR...
Agreed...don't forget the pending appeal for examiner in the WaMu case would have a direct impact to the Visteon case as well...
Well...the appeal court's decision means that the current POR can NOT and will NOT be confirmed...Everyone has to go back to the negotiation table and strat it over again...Because the current POR did not include the retirees benefits as its liabilities...the BOD rode off already...
Plus the overturn by the appeal court basically put the spot light on the BK judge...He would probably think twice when he rules again in the Visteon case...
On the subject of voting...did anyone get the paper for voting yet? I have not, and I am pretty sure that we shareholders are one of the voting classes...I intent to vote no on my shares...
llene, Thanks so much for what you did for thoughts shareholders like myself...
I think the news means that the Discloure Statement is approved by the court....this does NOT mean the chapter 11 plan is confirmed...
Thanks a lot for the reply...I guess the most important question I had in my mind is that...if this fee issue anywhere impairing the counsel's ability to representing EC in the BK proceeding...
Question related to EC's counsel?
Why is the hearing on Pillsbury's fee being adjourned over and over again? Is Pillsbury still representing EC?
TIA...
Very encouraging indeed...
DS hearing is moved to July 21...
I take debtor is motion to shorten is denied already...
Is there really a hearing(for DS) next Monday 6/21?
Shouldn't the agendar on the Court Docs by now?
Hiya GAB
court hearing tomorrow?
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911786/0911786100615000000000005.pdf
That's also a very good angle of attacking...and one doesn't have to choose one over anther...they could do them all...
Again, anyone find the number the POR put on these two units...I searched and searched but did not fid it...
Question for the board...
I've been following this board for a while and finally dipped into the stock a few days ago...The question I have is this... what valuation did Veston put on in POR/DS for the two units that JC is now bidding for $1.25B...
If it's well blow the $1.25B figure, it would give sharehold committee/HF to go back to the Judge for reconsideration of the examiner motion or eventually appeal for judge's denial of the motion..
Hi Coach, good to see you back here at the J board..
MMs at play...
Why the high is showing at .135...did we see many traded at .14 already?
30 cents on common just traded...did anyone else see that?
ASK on CTs...
is the ask on L and M Capital Trust real? I mean only 38 cents and 35 cents...anyone tried to get them?
J's volume is already more that 220K...and it's not even 10 yet.
Common at 16 cents, preferred J at 12 cents...no brainer for buying Js at this level!
No ask on lehkq, does anyone see it different? I am using Scottrade...
Question on POR...
Lehman said that they are going to file the POR before 3/15/2010, and they also asked extention for file disclosure statement until 04/14/2010, while awaiting on the un-seal of the examiner's report.
The question is...will we see any of the POR content after lehman files them? could they file under seal same as the way they did with the examiner's report?
Congratulations...Coach and Troy...
Who is this Williams Kuntz III guy? What is the objection about? I am having some hard time understand all this.
TIA...
Just realizde that the link is not working...it's Docket# 7331 and 7333...
Examiner's motion to clarify orders...to be heard on March 11...objection deadline March 8...Let the show begin...
http://dm.epiq11.com/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=1146041
It's a no brainer to buy J at this price level...it's cheaper than the common...geez...
judging from BBI's bond price, 20 cents on the dollar...I think they are definitely heading into BK...
http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/BondDetail.aspx?ID=MDkzNjc5QUMy
This is still a BK company, right? Last time I checked bond price is trading about 7 cents on the dollar, how could money flow to the eqiuty if the market believes that bondholder will be only paid 7%? What am I missing here...
http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/BondDetail.aspx?ID=MTU4NDk2QUMz
Which data source are you guys talking for bonds...I am showing most of their bonds are trading in the 20s on the dollar...
http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/BondDetail.aspx?ID=MDAzOTI0QUgw
Coach...always appreciated your takes on the lehman DD...I agree with you that the regular preferred are looking better and better everyday
No to mention there is only 1.2 B stands between the CTs and regular preferred...and yes we are talking about 100s Billion dollars in Assets and Liabilities...
hebercreeper...You are probably right about being premature on avnrq...and I like the fact the UST called the shareholder and ask him to forward the letter to the judge...
Trend of pushing for equity committee is definitely up...there are only about 30 EC total appointed in all BK cases since 2000, and I know at least 5 were appointed on the companies I followed last year alone...
So it seems that not only the AVRNQ shareholder laid out the conflict of interest argument nicely and why the current POR should not be approved as a result, but also the UST was also siding with equity holders by asking the letter to be forwarded to the court directly...or am I reading too much into this?
5% is better than nothing...but still pathetic in my view...
Bonds trading above par was the telling...bond holders are the ones in the knows, they know the new company is worth more than the new debt after re-org...and that's why they want 95% of the new company.
Hi Coach...
Do you know when the motion to conduct 2004 Discovery against JPMorgan is scheduled to be heard now? It's been delayed so many times...
TIA
So that the noteholder group could submit a POR basing on the fabricated A<L picture, and resulting equity being totally wiped out.
Tronox
Trxaq and Trxbq are the commons...bonds have been trading at high 90s for while...an add-hot bondholder committee has submitted plan that will wipe out equity...last MOR showed about 200 million in equity...
Official Equity Committee has been already appointed by US Trustee, they has submited the objection to the bondholders' plan and is currently in the process of develping its own POR...
I think the significance of the case is the fact we have a Official Equity Committee and they are in the position to bargin. We all know how difficult a process is for us wamuers to get an equity committee appointed. It's worthly noting that the debtor in the Tronox case also filed the motion to disband the equity committee once they were appointed by the UST, but the court upheld the UST's decision...