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.
check KCCLLC.com for Middlebrook Case - EC appointed.
Look at the chart over the past year - an acceptable offer prior to bk would have had to have been well in excess of the .50 to 1.50 range depending on the time frame to be entertained then. I'm under no illusions that a final bid would make equity worth much more than .50 absolute tops. But at .11 now - an offer that would not have been made/entertained then, its a multibagger now.
They halted development of applications built on Pulsys for lack of cash - but the Pulsys IP is there, and it has an application that has survived the FDA approval process.
The general rule of thumb for rejected leases in BK is the the landlord is entitled to 15% of the remaining lease payments - the rule is worded differently - but that's approximately how it works out.
I've been following MBRKQ quite closely. I believe the value lies not in their 2 approved drugs but in their PULSYS platform. If you want to google around - look up 'pulsatile drug delivery systems' and variants thereof. Its a new and growing niche in the pharma space, largely due to a lack of good time release formulations on the market. MBRK under its prior name was really a pioneer in the area, so their patent estate is very good. They also have one of the first pulsatile drugs to get FDA approval. Unfortunately for MBRK, it (moxatag - a antibiotic) wasn't in a space where the benefits of really good once a day justified the higher price. Some still think the value is in Mox or their Keflex drug - I think its all about the underlying IP, in which case overbidding could be a real possibility. The other area to google is 'evergreening patents' - taking a blockbuster near the end of its patent protection cycle and putting it into a new formulation wins you extra years of monopoly - Pulsys is a nice value added application for the industry in this respect as well (sepearate and apart from its claims to deliver less dosage more effectively - if only they had a MRSA drug to attach to their pill).
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1011485/...
don't know if the link will work - you can go to kccllc if not and look for the cred committee limited objection to sale motion. About half way through they request modification to allow for alternative bids as it is their understanding that certain equity holders have been in discussion with mgmt to refinance the enterprise. (I would presume this is Zell)
Its cheap here trading at roughly 1/2 cash and IP for free. There has been nothing much to look at for the last couple of years (and I've been on this one for 7 or 8 now - having bought in the first time around at an average price of a nickel - those shares are all more than free now as DGEN distributed some nice cash distributions after emerging from bankruptcy). What they've been needing is a catalyst for adding value to the IP. Could be a very good climate for outsourcing services right now, plus its a service wrapped around that DGEN themselves created. Picked some more up today based on the lease being indicative of DGEN having something new to talk about in coming months. These mice have real value - that was always true and evident throughout the bk process several years back.
They have warrants out as well - strike $1, expiration 6/2012 - trading around .06/.07/.08. I've looked at the individual positions inside of the portfolio - companies like Avion and Crocodile which acquired properties dirt cheap, got into production quickly and are currently valued at deep discounts to comparable peers. The common thread is that Stan Bharti of Forbes & Manhattan is in charge not only of Aberdeen, but most all of the portfolio companies. My impression of him, developed over the past year, is that he takes a long term perspective and doesn't give 2 hoots about promotion in the interim. He & Eric Sprott would appear to be quite close as Sprott participates heavily in most all of the companies in the Aberdeen/F&M stable. David Stein who took over as CEO middle of last year was prior to that time the Gold analyst at Cormark - which was the brokerage firm that Mr. Sprott started. I like it in this crazy day and age we live in. I consider myself a deep value investor - and I view that as basically being attracted to asymmetrical bets in areas where few choose to educate themselves - bk and mining consistently fit that bill year in and year out like few other sectors do.
Cork - OT for BK - but I see you have an interest in mining as well.
Take a look at AAB/AABVF over the weekend if you get a chance. One of my favorites outside of the bk arena. They aren't a miner, but are a merchant bank to the jr miners - as such it is essentially a portfolio of common shares and warrants, mostly with exposure to gold but also to oil/gas and potash. NAV was reported for last qtr around 1.18. Shares are going for around .35. If you go to SEDAR and pull up their MD&A, they list the positions in the portfolio, plus they have a 1% NSR (only offset to POG is smelter fees) on Simmer & Jack mine production in S.A which brings in around 2 million a year.
this was the writeup on PBSOQ that caught my eye - I've not followed the case closely though and only have the relatively small stake I picked up as placeholder (fortunately was feeling a little reckless that day). FWIW
Point Blank Solutions (PBSOQ) - Way out of the Money Option
Point Blank Solutions filed for Chapter 11 protection on April 14, 2010. It has an equity market cap of approximately $5 mm. As of petition date, the Company had $10.5 mm debt. The DIP facility is $20 mm, a portion of which will pay off prepetition debt.
There are 48.8 mm shares outstanding but of that, 23% are held by Ex-CEO, who is in prison on fraud charges and facing the possibility of 25 years. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that he will be a beneficiary, if there is any recovery for equity in this bankruptcy. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, the adjusted market cap is closer to $4 mm.
Point Blank is a supplier of body armor to US military, law enforcement agencies, international and commercial customers. Due to contract delays and operational glitches, Co revenues have declined from $343 mm in 2005 to $158 mm in 2009. In that five year period, PBSOQ has posted losses in four years and eked out a small net profit in 2008. In 2009, it posted a $40 mm loss.
After looking at these financials, I was tempted to move on to other things, except that while reading the Co’s last 10Q (dated 11/9/09), I came across this section:
“Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Action
The securities class action settlement is final except insofar as the derivative action settlement could affect it. One party has appealed the derivative action settlement. The Commercial Litigation Division is not an appealing party, but has filed a court brief in objection to the settlement.
The grounds for the appeal and the issue raised by the Commercial Litigation Division is that the settlement terms involve an indemnification of Mr. Brooks by the Company. The appellant has argued that the SEC is expected to take action against Mr. Brooks that, if successful, would force him and others to pay money back to the Company under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. The appellant has alleged that the amount sought by the SEC could be as much as $180,000. Meanwhile, the settlement agreement has a provision by which the Company has agreed to indemnify Mr. Brooks for any amounts he is ordered to pay back to the Company. In essence, if Mr. Brooks is ordered by the SEC to pay money back to the Company, the money will move in a circle and will leave both Mr. Brooks and the Company in the same position they were in.”
$180 million. This suggests a potential recovery from litigation, however remote, of an amount representing up to 45x PBSOQ’s (adjusted) market cap.
This case is probably one of the most complex and multi-layered cases that I have ever encountered. With a market cap of less than $5 mm, I can’t imagine anyone following it closely other than the folks directly involved.
In a nut shell, PBSOQ situation is interesting because:
1. The SEC has sued Brooks in the US District Ct – Central Florida and has asked that he disgorge his ill-gotten gains ($186 mm) from stock sales. As you can see from the language in the 10Q, this money could come back to the Co. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case.
2. Due to a prior settlement, the monies could move in a circle and right back to Brooks. However, under bankruptcy rules, the Debtor is allowed to reject an executory contract. I have to assume that Pointblank will reject this settlement.
3. It’s one thing to have a claim on someone, another to win a judgement in court and yet another thing to actually recover the judgement. The good news here is that the US government has actually frozen property which exceeds the $185 mm.
4. However, as I had mentioned before, there are multiple claimants on the monies involved here so one can only watch how the various cases are resolved, the principal one being USA versus David Brooks (US District Ct Eastern District of NY Case 06-550).
5. In the mean time, the body armor business appears to be holding its own. So much so, that the unsecured creditors filed an objection to the DIP loan, alleging that it is not needed until later and that Point Blank has ample cash to support its operational needs (see story at the end)
DJN: DJ Point Blank Creditors Say Loan Hands Control To Insiders
(Dow Jones 05/10 10:04:23) By Eric Morath
Unsecured creditors of Point Blank Solutions Inc. (PBSOQ) are balking at the body-armor maker's $20 million bankruptcy loan, claiming that the financing is designed to give company insiders control of the case.
The loan from Steel Partners LLC is really a power grab by Chairman and Chief Executive James Henderson and other executives, creditors said in papers filed Friday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. They claim Henderson and another Point Blank director are affiliates of
Steel and that the lender itself owns 4.2% of Point Blank's stock. The loan allows Point Blank's reorganization to be "controlled solely by one party wearing three hats"--shareholder, chief executive and bankruptcy lender, the unsecured creditors committee said in court papers.
The creditors are asking the court to delay granting final approval of the loan so that they can have more time to investigate the terms of the financing and the company's financial condition. Point Blank did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.
The company obtained preliminary approval to tap the loan on April 16, two days after it filed for Chapter 11 protection and nearly two weeks before the creditors committee was appointed.
Point Blank said the funds were necessary to finance its operations as it seeks to reorganize. The creditors questioned how much of the loan will actually fund the company's operations. Under the terms of the financing, the loan will be used to repay a $10 million prebankruptcy secured debt from a group of lenders led by Bank of America (BAC). Creditors say the company has failed to show why that loan must be repaid at this point in the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy loan also dictates that Steel Partners will be paid up to $1 million in fees and expenses in exchange for providing the financing.
"The payment of fees...is excessive in comparison with the amount borrowed," the creditors said. The creditors say once the prebankruptcy loan is repaid and all other expenses are accounted for, "at most" $6 million will actually flow to the company's operations. They also said the company is not in desperate need of fresh funding. Instead of tapping the loan, the creditors said Point Blank should use $6 million in cash reserves to fund its operations. Point Blank is set to seek final permission to borrow on the loan at a Wednesday hearing.
The Pompano Beach, Fla., company blamed mounting legal bills and a slowing pace of orders from the U.S. military for its Chapter 11 filing. Point Blank currently faces a class-action lawsuit steaming from allegations that the publicly-traded company's disclosures were false or misleading and that the company's body-armor products were defective. The company is also subject to ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commissionand the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Point Blank makes bullet, fragmentation and stab resistant apparel and related accessories used by military, law enforcement and government agencies.
Posted by Farukh Farooqi at 4:19 PM
Labels: Point Blank Solutions
A few more of interest -
MBRKQ - an ad hoc equity committee started filing objections earlier this week - and mgmt claims with the current stalking horse deal, that equity is already in the money - competitive bidding at auction would be upside.
RNCHQ - gotta have pacer passwords to follow this one - very interesting motion practice in the last few weeks. District of Colorado if you have access.
PBSOQ - like the first two - there is precious little activity on the message boards I've found - not as cheap anymore at the .25 - .30 range but worth a look.
Thanks for the heads up on NTRZQ - picked up some last week thanks to this board. Still looking at Abitibi - the big cases make me nervous.
>>Ok guys let's think about this... Why would Fairfax in the middle of BK give up a seat on the board?
There are many potential reasons, but one big one would certainly be a desire by Fairfax to bid on assets, and having a seat on the board at the same time you are designing alternative plans would be a conflict of interest.
Ad Hoc Equity committee has filed objections in the case - they are up on Kccllc
KFC - where are you getting those bond quotes from? I'm looking at FINRA.ORG and seeing them quoted at steep discounts. TIA
>>Just my opinion, but management getting that kind of "incentive" and the shareholders receiving nothing would be criminal
Indeed - unfortunately, the usually upside down system has passed judgement on this perverted ruse and it is the gold standard across all bk cases - have to make sure mgmt is incentivized not to screw it up again!
The important thing to always remember, especially in a distressed situation, is that price does not equal value - it may be higher or lower, it will seldom be equal to. Its been worked into the minds of most that they are one and the same - but this would only be true in efficient markets - and we all know we haven't had those in a very long time. Info is asymmetric and the large players are very aware of this, and they have ample tools to manipulate price in order to create and take advantage of confusion.
ergodoc - hat is off for the great work you've been doing. Don't hold any shares right now, just starting to look - I love the Qs but this has been a big case, and I usually look only at the smaller ones. At any rate, I think you are one of the ones heading up the EC and I saw an update on another site discussing the EC review with the judge and the CC objection that:
>>Stated the Bonds are trading at anywhere from 23% to 40% face value so bond traders do not think they will get paid back, therefore there will not be any money for equity since they will be paid before equity.
Very interesting if only because I just got off the phone with a personal friend who used to trade for one of the bigger firms in a boutique division that did special situations. We were discussing Kasper - an old case that went from a nickel to 6 bucks 10 odd years ago. He was saying that while they had a gut feeling about the equity, the quoted prices in the bond market at .50 kept them largely at bay - they figured the bond market was 'smarter' and knew something they didn't. What he found out after Kasper hit the 5 to 6 dollar range was that while the bonds appeared to be trading at .50 on the dollar, there were bidders offering in excess of par - but the bond market for the debt was illiquid and the bond traders were managing to hide the real demand. I unfortunately have never played around much with the bond market, but having just had the random conversation and then coming across this - thought I would pass along the heads up - it may be an area worth researching.
The 363 motion does give as justification for the SH bid the fact that 17 mm would pay all claims in full and provide for a meaningful distribution to equity holders (pending resolution of certain disputed claims). Awfully quiet board.
The current situation was known by Dec '09 - there have been no subsequent material surprises - the flight had already left the gate for its current destination. Biotech Qs are almost always about the IP - if they were ever about the currently approved products - they wouldn't be in bk. My guess on MBRK would be that they overestimated the penetration they'd get with Moxatag, and overhired on the sales force - bad move - thanks to the powers that be for bad moves or there would be no such thing as bankrupt pennystocks. There was focus on the NOLs in the first day motions - from my experience, trading restriction motions usually come later. This suggests to me that the framework is well worked out, and involves savings the NOLs - which means no 363 sale of IP. They've outsourced distribution on Moxatag - very little burn left. Could MBRK become a sort of outsourcing platform company with Pulsys? Big Pharma loves to 'evergreen' their blockbusters with soon to be expired patent protection - changing the formulation to once a day works for this purpose - MBRK becomes a value added service provider - and with the NOLs in place, there is no after tax profit margin to calculate.
Zell bought more at the end of '09 - at .40 - I have no info on recent trades, if any, by his group.
the Dec '09 purchase of 2,000,000 at .415
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1093566/000120919109058150/xslF345X03/c93917_4x0.xml
Agree, its found support close to there twice
good points made in MBRK in this seeking alpha writeup last week, apologies if it has already been posted.
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/614392-farukh-farooqi/66815-middlebrook-mbrk-bankruptcy
Was talking with a Gen'l Prac. last week. He was familiar already with the Moxatag product already - said very little market for it - since an antibiotic regimen runs less than a week - folks don't mind the hassle of 3x a day - not worth paying up for convenience. But, in his professional opinion, there are not many time release platforms on the market that are worth a crap. If Pulsys delivers, and was wrapped around an RX that people have to take over extended periods of time, his impression from patients is that they would in fact pay up of the convenience. I suppose in an epidemic scenario, that fact that Mox requires less active ingredient, it could also have value if large stockpiles needed to be developed - but that is just pure speculation. "Grave Dancer" Sam Zell owning such a large chunk, and having added more end of 09 at .40 - also catches my eye in no small part. You don't get a name like Grave Dancer making bad bets.
I like Mbrk - Q1 came out yesterday - burn was much less in Q1 than I expected. These guys blew it overestimating the penetration that Moxatag would have. Spoke with a Dr who was already familiar with Mox. His impression is that for an antibiotic that a patient only has to deal with for a week or so, noone wants to pay up for the convenience of once a day. However, he felt there are very few quality time release pill platforms on the market right now - and that for scripts that people must take over the long haul - patients would actually pay up for the convenience of once a day. Can they change their biz plan and become a partner for other drug companies with drugs that would fit the sweet spot (don't forget, big pharma loves to 'evergreen' their blockbusters as patents start to expire - new formulations work best for that). With the NOLs, the existing company would be the best place to give that a try - Grave Dancer Sam Zell has a huge piece of this - added more in Dec 09 I think it was at .40 - 2 mm more shares if memory serves bringing his total holdings to close to half of the co. If you take a close look at the liability side, most are just accounting numbers that will not represent true claims that must be paid in a bk court.
um, you know, this company is a, you know, great deal at this price, you know. I hope the King, you know, doesn't delete my posts again. If you've been following the docket, you know, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm long on this one, you know, but the 'you know' is making me a little nervous, I'm hoping its a Canadian colloquialism, you know.
RNCHQ - Rancher Energy
- (Colorado District)
(nice board here - just found it looking around on FirstGold - pulled some interesting transcripts from that case yesterday - looks like the 'plan' is to do a deal with Newmont Gold and/or Victoria Gold in the next month or so, or they are pretty much toast - I think they have a good chance of making something work in this gold market)
from docket item #172 in the Rancher case - an objection filed by the secured lender against extending exclusivity beyond 4/09/10
4. Thus, as matters currently stand, the Debtor has no choice but to file a plan and
disclosure statement on or prior to April 9, 2010. In light of GasRock’s agreement to the
Debtor’s use of cash collateral through April 9, 2010 under the terms of the Final Cash Collateral
Order, GasRock has effectively already consented to an extension of the Debtor’s exclusivity
period through that date. The Debtor claims to have value sufficient to pay all claims in full and
return meaningful value to existing equity holders. If that is correct, it should be a relatively
simple matter to accomplish a simple refinancing and propose a confirmable chapter 11 plan well
in advance of the April 9 deadline, regardless of what claims current management
believes it
may assert against GasRock. Accordingly, GasRock does not oppose the entry of an order at this
time extending the Debtor’s exclusive period in which to file a plan and disclosure statement
through and including April 9, 2010
I took a look at VRMLQ and I passed. F! Still hurts. Shows what I know.
>>people who have inside knowledge of the company believed that the stock was worth .16
again, they were pretty much just buying into the cash - but bringing some sweat equity and a unique oppty in exchange. I'd love nothing more than to see Driscol repeat his prior performance from 6 years back. I'm somewhat jaded against him as I had higher hopes for my cheap shares - I was looking for something more along the lines of VRMLQ - that may be more my fault than his - I've kept most of them all these years for a reason, above and beyond them being free.
The ones that bought in were associated both with the Charles River guys and DGEN - the main one sits on DGEN's board. They were basically buying in at cash value of DGEN - which is fine with me. I would have been very happy at this point to just get the cash value back, but that wasn't going to happen - and I do believe in the underlying IP - which is why when I was down like 80% on a buttload of shares I bought even more at a penny - I still remember the HS! moment when I got filled - thinking I had surely lost my mind. I learned how to go with my gut that day.
I'm ready for Driscol and the rest of the board to earn their keep - they haven't done much for me lately. If I wasn't going to get cash value back, I think this may be best oppty they could have taken - but I think much will depend on the politics of pharma that is beyond their control. The biggest reason they filed bk in the first place was that all the pharmas merged - so instead of having a dozen customers that really needed to pay 25 mm for access to the mice, they found themselves with something less than 6.
I talked with Driscol right after the deal was announced. I started buying into DGEN a few months after they filed for bankruptcy many many moons ago. Started buying it at 10 cents, bot more at .08 and a bunch more at .05, loaded up the truck at .03 and then got filled on another 150k at .01, then bought more at .05 again on the way back up. I wound up all told with close to 2 mm shares at an average price right around .05 - still hold 75% of them. I don't know how long you guys have been following as I just found this board. After they exited bk, they distributed cash of .35 and then .05 and then .05 again. All to say there are a lot of people sitting on absolutely free shares - which may explain some of the selling you see. I'm not selling the ones I have left. Mgmt did one hell of job administering the estate during bankruptcy - and then they went and didn't do much for the next several years - so at this point I'm 50/50 in my appraisal. From what Driscol told me, Benton was at the time of the merger or acquisition or whatever you want to call it really not an operating entity - it was a concept - which is why they didn't have a whole lot of detail to put into the announcement. It was at the time essentially a group of top researchers at Charles River who were leaving to start up a R&D outsourcing services firm. Benton's target customers would basically be the same pharma's that use D-base mice for research - they saw natural synergies. It was also according to Driscol a biz plan that would not be capital intensive - no long lead times and associated cash requirements for development - they would be getting paid as they went for doing research for others. I would guess given the stage Benton was at when the announcement was made, they are still getting organized - hence not much to report about. DGEN still has a little IP of its own to boot. Driscol wouldn't discuss it, but back at the time when I pretty much bet it all on the line on this company - I followed every lead I could find. My understanding was that there is some frozen research that was some of the best work they ever did that is half finished. Again, completely unconfirmed.
Thanks Cork - just found it two days ago - have seen great boards on SH, IH and Yahoo - but had not seen it discussed on this board yet - but I don't check this board as often as I should - and this board has a much more discriminating eye. It does look like one of the more surprising finds of the last few months.
USSIF; V.USA
Anyone here following US Silver? In production, massive reserves, cfp and appears quite cheap.
They got the last of my shares. I don't like seeing the US Gov't aligned with the creditors - creditors alone are hard enough for an EC to overcome.
I don't look at AAB as a mutual fund - I view it more as back door access to deals that I usually complain about on the other end. They put 4 mm into pre-IPO Crocodile Gold back in June - got 7.5 mm shares and 2.5 mm warrants in exchange. Post IPO Croc currently at 1.40, and undervalued at that. Doesn't matter how hard I look, I don't find many deals like that.
At 1196 today - gold did seem to find its footing rather quickly, all things considered.
Or buy AAB and get common and warrants for both Avion and Croc, with a 1% NSR on Simmer and Jack production (only deduct from the POG is the smelter fee), plus Sulliden Gold - good mgmt and a few other nice little potash and oil picks in there.
I would think the involvement of the DOJ would certainly have to alter Anadarko's strategy here, since they are not the 800lb gorilla in the court anymore. The complaint itself is fairly damning - these numbnuts actually gave the project a name.
you gotta send off for an account with logon and password before you can use it - costs .08 per page to view a doc. Still - its invaluable.
>>Thanks I've been following using www.kccllc.net
but you'll need pacer if you want to follow the KM/Anadarko adversary case.
Filing Date # Docket Text
05/12/2009 1 Adversary case 09-01198. Complaint against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation . Nature(s) of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) Filed by Jeffrey J zeiger, Jeffrey J. Zeiger, Tronox Worldwide LLC, Tronox LLC, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox Worldwide LLC, Tronox LLC. (Zeiger, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
05/13/2009 Receipt of Complaint(09-01198-alg) [cmp,cmp] ( 250.00) Filing Fee. Receipt number 179305. Fee amount 250.00. (Hibbert) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
05/14/2009 2 Summons with Notice of Pre-Trial Conference issued by Clerk's Office with Pre-Trial Conference set for 7/7/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG), Answer due by 6/15/2009, (Campbell, Tiffany) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
05/15/2009 3 Certificate of Service Affidavit of Service of Adversary Complaint and Summons and Notice of Pre-Trial Conference (related document(s) 1 , 2 ) filed by Jeffrey J. Zeiger on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. (Zeiger, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/20/2009 4 Letter from David Zott to Hon. Allan L. Gropper re Proposed Case Management Order filed by Jeffrey J. Zeiger on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. (Zeiger, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
05/21/2009 5 Motion to Intervene filed by Matthew L. Schwartz on behalf of The United States Of America. with hearing to be held on 6/9/2009 at 11:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) Responses due by 6/2/2009, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Order)# 2 Exhibit B (Complaint-in-Intervention)) (Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
05/21/2009 6 Certificate of Service (related document(s) 5 ) filed by Matthew L. Schwartz on behalf of The United States Of America. (Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
05/22/2009 7 Letter from Melanie Gray to Honorable Allan L. Gropper re Proposed Case Management Order filed by Lydia Protopapas on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. (Protopapas, Lydia) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
05/26/2009 8 Letter to Judge Gropper from David J. Zott filed by Colin M. Adams on behalf of Tronox Incorporated. (Adams, Colin) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/26/2009 9 Letter from Melanie Gray to Honorable Allan L. Gropper Responding to Tronox's May 26, 2009 Letter filed by Lydia Protopapas on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. (Protopapas, Lydia) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
06/02/2009 10 Objection to Motion / Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Corporation's Objection to The United States of America's Motion to Intervene filed by Lydia Protopapas on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation. (Protopapas, Lydia) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/05/2009 11 Response to Motion Response to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Corporation's Objection to the United States of America's Motion to Intervene filed by Matthew L. Schwartz on behalf of The United States Of America. with hearing to be held on 6/9/2009 at 11:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) (Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/05/2009 12 Certificate of Service (related document(s) 11 ) filed by Matthew L. Schwartz on behalf of The United States Of America. (Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/08/2009 13 Response to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Corporation's Objection to The United States of America's Motion to Intervene filed by Jonathan S. Henes on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. (Henes, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
06/08/2009 14 Objection / Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Corporation's Objection to the Proposed Stipulation and Order With Respect to Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act filed by Lydia Protopapas on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation. (Protopapas, Lydia) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
06/10/2009 15 Notice of Hearing /Notice of Rescheduling of Hearing Time filed by Jonathan S. Henes on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. with hearing to be held on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) (Henes, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
06/10/2009 16 Notice of Hearing on the Stipulation and Order With Respect to Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act filed by Jonathan S. Henes on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. with hearing to be held on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) Objections due by 6/23/2009, (Henes, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
06/11/2009 17 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 6/9/09 11:13 AM Remote electronic access to the transcript is restricted until 9/9/2009. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerks Office. [Transcription Service Agency: Veritext, LLC.]. (See the Courts Website for contact information for the Transcription Service Agency.). Notice of Intent to Request Redaction Deadline Due By 6/18/2009. Statement of Redaction Request Due By 7/2/2009. Redacted Transcript Submission Due By 7/13/2009. Transcript access will be restricted through 9/9/2009. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/11/2009 18 Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission filed by William Duke on behalf of Ad Hoc Unsecured Creditor Committees. Filing fee collected, receipt #179789. (Brown, Tenille) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 19 Motion to Intervene / Motion of the Offiical Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Intervene filed by Alan W. Kornberg on behalf of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. with hearing to be held on 6/25/2009 at 11:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) Responses due by 6/22/2009, (Kornberg, Alan) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 20 Affidavit of Service by Brooke Filler (related document(s) 19 ) filed by Alan W. Kornberg on behalf of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. (Kornberg, Alan) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/12/2009 21 Motion to Intervene /Notice of Official Committee of Equity Holders of Tronox Inc.'s Motion to Intervene filed by Karen Dine on behalf of Official Committee of Equity Holders of Tronox, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) Responses due by 6/22/2009, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit 3- Certificate of Service) (Dine, Karen) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
06/15/2009 22 Order Signed on 6/15/2009 Granting the United States of America's Motion to Intervene (Related Doc # 5 ) (Porter, Marguerite) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 23 Case Management Order Signed on 6/15/2009, with Trial to be Held on 9/8/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 617 (ALG) or as Soon Thereafter as the Parties May be Heard (Porter, Marguerite) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/17/2009 24 Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David H. DeCelles filed by Jonathan S. Henes on behalf of Tronox Incorporated, Tronox LLC, Tronox Worldwide LLC. (Henes, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 25 Intervenors ComplaintComplaint in Intervention (related document(s) 22 ) Filed by Matthew L. Schwartz on behalf of The United States Of America. (Schwartz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
Don't need a p/r - you can follow the case via Pacer.
as near as I can tell they are mostly accounting scheme stuff - I beleive since they had fully reserved against all subsidiary assets as disclosed in the MORs, when subsequent activities have occured there has been no place to put the credits for journal entries associated with writeoffs. I could tell for sure several months back that one large entry, I think it was for the sale of one of the bigger boats that was a big loss caused a huge monthly change in one of those intercompany accounts on the income statement. As the debit balance of the asset accounts is already fully reserved against by a credit balance in a contra account, I'm thinking that they have to run the credits associated with assets that have been sold through those accounts, but it doesn't mean that its recoverable value necessarily - that remains the big question.
Still watching and waiting for new info - I think the volume and posting - or the lack of both - is just a function of this thing getting close to the end but no real info to go on with respect to deciding how to sprint to the finish. BTW, I just realized on IV you get a private in box. I'm not a premium member so it doesn't seem to let me respond.