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.
Per the message before yours the outcome occurred in 2018.
Factually accurate.
I’d say “we’ll see”, but, unfortunately...
Of course. That’s what I just wrote. They just can’t trade again.
A cruel result, I suppose, but in fairness the handful of SEC suspensions due to delinquent filings (not “bankruptcy/liquidation”) that got reinstated didn’t really go anywhere either.
FINRA doesn’t delete tickers with an option to reinstate.
I think you’re confusing what happened here with an SEC suspension for delinquent filings that can be remedied and reinstated.
Either you were in or out. The bankruptcy is now closed, the deal approved and the Monitor released.
Haha alive and well.
If only it wasn’t liquidated, had any money, equipment or IP, had any board or employees.
Yes, and I’ve said appreciation is possible from this price. I would caution to temper that expectation to below several multiples within a few months.
Nope. Fundamentally sound companies do not lose 90% of their market value. The ones you referenced weren’t fundamentally sound during their crashes. Or else they wouldn’t have crashed (obviously). Unless they were part of a bubble. Luckily they executed successful pivots and became sound again. Hunt for a few examples that may prove my statement wrong despite it being at all other times correct, if you like. This idea that sometimes great companies just crash to the tune of 95% shouldn’t fly here or anywhere.
Those were hardly “early stage companies” - those were mature companies that encountered fierce situational headwinds and had to pivot or die.
What’s being presented here is almost like losing 5% is to be expected for great companies. And most great investments require the fortitude hang in through these kinds of losses.
You must admit that, very generally, most companies that lose 95% do so on a trajectory of going to 0, and that most investments that turn out to be great, do not have a trajectory of losing 95% on their way there.
Again, that doesn’t mean there isn’t appreciation and progress in store for this company. But to be fair to a reader, there is as much likelihood to the downside as there is upside in the medium term, and moves of 5 or 10X are extremely rare, though possible, and it is far from more likely here just because that represents a return to a past valuation.
Fundamentally sound companies do not lose 90% of their value unless they are part of an asset class in a huge bubble. And at 90% would need to be historically huge.
That’s a very high bar. Any stock would be highly unlikely to be 8X higher over a 4 month period. And in this case there is a looming follow on offering.
The assets were sold for 4.34M. Currently realizable value here is 0.
This is pure hogwash.
The judge quotes "of great or substantial value" because the judge was stating the words of the plaintiff. In the same document, the judge lays out the rational for not directly opining on this assertion (no jurisdiction), and also that it is irrelevant because of the many factors that necessarily render the contracts useless.
That is here:
And therefor, the judge rules against the relief sought by the plaintiff. Note- if the judge agreed, it would have been lawful to grant the relief sought, making the assertion that the judge agreed with the plaintiff all the more ludicrous.
Posting (72) out of context and using it as evidence that the court sided with the assertion WHILE REJECTING the relief sought in the case the assertion were true is on par with a gentleman receiving a vm from a woman like this: "Please stop calling me. You're repulsive. I would consider dating you only if you were the last man on earth", and editing it to play "I would consider dating you" and sending that to his friends as evidence she was interested.
Right, see the poker example.
I agree there will be communication around the announced plan, the question is will any of the news itself be unexpected.
I don’t think the assumption that material news is coming is wise.
It could happen, sure, but it’s like playing the lotto. Actually, it’s like playing aggressively a mediocre poker hand under the assumption you’ll catch up on the later cards.
Very possible it settles into a higher channel once raise is settled and they have an opportunity to execute on their latest initiative.
What I am most interested in communicating is an alternative theory on the near future upswing that I do think will happen, but I think will be far more modest than a price of 18 or even 10 or 5.
It shows market trends as 2013-2018 and forecast as 2019-2024. In other words, the research was compiled in 2018, prior to liquidation/suspension/deletion/revocation.
Check Error
"It is not up to the Court to analyze the merits or substance of the Crane Opinion (15- due to the jurisdiction of the Opinion being NY)"
"its conclusions" (the Crane Opinion's conclusions - NOT the judge's) are that the contracts are "fully enforceable, and of substantial value"
Then:
In other words - it is irrelevant because chasing the value is not worth it, therefor there is NO REALIZABLE VALUE
And finally:
Liquidation process over. Note- a "partial liquidation" where assets are sold off but the best ones are kept and shareholders are remunerated for them is not a liquidation.
No one short at this time would have any remaining obligation imposed on them by a broker. They are relieved of any obligation to cover their position since the company was suspended/deleted for liquidation. The idea that anyone is waiting to see if over in closed actually means over and closed is really only a message board phenomenon.
Something for consideration:
As it relates to the offering, there should be a run-up of the share price. It would be predicated by people anticipating just that, a run-up on share price due to the urgency of doing the offering at the highest price possible (and thereby limiting dilution). So the opportunity to ride the wave in some respects actually creates it. Remember you cannot hold material PRs (i.e., anything reasonably expected to affect the SP) so there WILL be a push, though I would expect it to be more volume based like the last time.
The offering will be priced at a discount to market, and the dilutive effects should cause a drop in the same manner and scale as the runup. Then likely the price would remain there until the next earnings report opportunity.
While just an opinion subject to error, consider the above both on the upswing and the downswing. And if you end up holding a stock less valuable than it is now, it is most certainly not the fault of the CEO. He will have done nothing but tell everyone what he's gonna do and then do it.
The judge did NOT say she believed the contracts had any value. I believe it was clear she believed they had no value. She did acknowledge that there was a set of lawyers who were asserting that the contracts appeared to have substantial value. Now if there was anyone who agreed with them, they would have bid on the company so they could assume those contracts practically for free, but no one did. And, of course, it was the duty and obligation to report any and all bids, and we all have seen and quoted ad naseum from the 11 offers they received, with the top one being 4.34M.
And again, if the contracts were worth 100M, why did the company go bankrupt?
Then why liquidation?
Why would anyone be waiting? For what? They’ve been free to take their winnings for years.
If you shorted this stock you’ve already closed your position here with a max gain and reinvested or spent the winnings. Remember that only on this board is there anyone waiting on any additional events. In the real world this has been over for a long time.
This has been addressed many times. The judge was saying from the point of view that the plaintiffs the contracts had value. And the judge said that the court would not opine on whether it agreed or not. The point being it was irrelevant because the secured creditors did not remotely support pursuing.
The context in which the judge addressed this after after the bankruptcy was closed, due to a shareholder, like yourself in disbelief over the outcome. The truth is, DURING the bankruptcy, when the bidders could bid on and buy whatever they wanted, nobody wanted the contracts you are referencing.
Well they PAID for them because they were the highest bidder in the liquidation. But you’re saying they opted not to take them on this transaction because they thought it would be more fun to pay them more in royalties later?
The question was thoroughly answered. The company was liquidated, meaning definitionally it has no remaiNing technology of any value.
I don’t think the date I sent was high for the era is my point. I believe it was much more heavily traded at a time than it is now.
Did a very imperfect google search and the date 2/1/19 came up on Barchart.com. 3,059,000 share volume at .51 (pre-split), so around $1.5M traded, or 15X the number you reference below.
I am guessing there were heavier days also.
But isn’t it true that volume has decreased substantially from the peak? Does the trajectory of a young, as yet undiscovered company really apply?
I will never understand how you guys can say you believe that all of these hints and clues are permitted confidentially breaches while everyone responsible for reporting the outcome to the public is still bound.
I don’t think you can get credit for any “educated guess” with no clue who or how much other than you don’t believe the deal that was reported happened as reported. Especially with the only real entity ever postulated (KKR/LCY) bombed out with that lawyer letter. Now that I think of it- I don’t even think “guess” would be appropriate.
So, this is a great example of taking a bunch of crappy, debunked snippets and mashing them together in hopes that cumulatively there is something meaningful, but, in this case all that results is one mega-crappy, debunked nothing argument.
So I'm curious and have a few questions.
1. If all the A/R was collected how would someone be the collector of the A/R? shouldn't it be zero if the FACE VALUE of $14M dollars was collected?
Obviously this was proposed before the A/R was collected. It wasn't accepted by the way. So this reference in a "document" is not even operative. Thats right, what you are pasting does not apply to what happened here.
2. "This would not only allow the creditors to move on," referring to the quote above about it would no pay off the creditors, the document says the complete opposite or is it photo-shopped? Not to mention it would also assist in establishing a profitable model going forward. Does that implying that there is extra money after creditors?
Unlike the Monitor's reports where it is 100% clear with no room for interpretation that there was insufficient proceeds from the sale to repay creditors, this is a bid excerpt where they are referencing that creditors could "move on", i.e., not have to oversee the collection process.
3. How about the inventory and how it will be sold at increased values in a non distress sale scenario. Does that mean more than enough money for creditors?
I referenced this yesterday. A company taking over the assets would have ostensibly more clout to collect. Why? Because the company being liquidated was known to be being liquidated, and so someone owing the company money could either attempt to negotiate down what they owe, or simply not pay under no threat of pursuit by the bankrupt company. Saying this could mean more than enough creditors is not supported by anything and, again, is directly refuted by the reports, the Monitor, the judge, and of course, the buyer itself.
4. If you were purchasing assets of a company wouldn't you be the future operating company? I never knew documents talked in third person. So who will we be settling the A/R that hasn't been collected?
Yes, the company bidding to buy the assets would be the future operating company. At least thats what they were proposing in this section, which was not accepted, and does not actually apply.
Is far from the truth if you read the supporting documents.
I think only Monitor reports should be used as "supporting documents". Using bid sections that were not accepted and alleged conversations that were never memorialized is not a good look here.
P.S. Why do you think creditors did not complain about receiving less the the scrap value of the plant, 1/11th of the distressed liquidation price, and refused for a shareholder to pay out of their own pocket to try and get creditors more money?
Because they were 100% comfortable that they got as much as the market would bear.
Supposedly dead? There hasn’t been a peep from the company since 2018, and in fact it was delinquent on its taxes and filings and had its charter revoked. Surely if anyone had plans to keep it running “behind the scenes” that would not have been allowed to happen.
You’re not the arbiter of fact vs opinion. That’s why these things are overseen by a judge- to be sure everyone has the same information. When the judge confirms it’s over, it’s over.
Not at all. It was opinion through the sales process but opinion stopped when the APA closed and it became fact.
Opinion is now just a term used to keep the dream alive. But unfortunately it is not, and there is nothing you or I could say to change that. I find it intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Yes I tried to get a commitment that the secret deal would be revealed after the closing of the class action but unfortunately there was insufficient confidence in the “DD” to do so. Instead it will be “opinion” forever.