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.
Give me a break. All this chatter about tiny explainable “inconsistencies” in the face of thorough, detailed, consistent damning evidence, if you had anything better, it’d happily be presented in the same fashion as the garbage currently supplied as “in your face” “DD”.
Future potential is projected from, among other things, current results.
What would be significantly crazier would be believing that creditors didn't speak up because they were aware of a secret transaction in bankruptcy that the investing public did not have a chance to weigh prior to the cessation of trading of the security.
Even believing such a thing is remotely possible would be crazier.
Why cling to items that you read as conflicting in earlier reports when later reports, including the unreacted APA approved by both judges, clear everything up as definitively as possible?
I don’t see the giant stretch qualification of CCAA in that statement. But in any event, all goes through the Monitor. The most basic of bankruptcy principles.
Pure facts were presented.
I’m asking you while I have your attention. How much, who, why was it secret?
No I don’t believe you. I don’t believe a discharged Monitor would confirm anything by phone that he can’t put in writing. And I don’t believe there is such a thing as a bankruptcy deal for a public company that can’t be put in writing. And I have absolutely no question or doubt whatsoever about the foregoing.
Phone calls don’t pass the burden of proof for this or any forum. Why don’t you submit the contents of the email(s) you were sent in this regard.
There is no material information not available to the public (or at least was available up until the time of deletion). There is no doubt about it.
If PWC has shared with you information on this “second transaction” I’m sure all would love to hear it. No one here has been able to offer any details other than debunked “hints” and “clues” with none of the basics- who bought it, for how much, etc.
But I do believe the facts. You want me to ask PWC if they didn’t present all the facts to the judge?
Are you asking me to hunt down a document from a disgruntled bidder that conflicts with what the Monitor reported and judges approved? Why would you be asking me to do that? Is the judges authority not final?
Someone else alleged he said that. He’s on record with 2 federal judges that he did not say that, and it’s in writing.
It’s not a great use of time at this point I’ll admit as the resistance is almost parody. But I’ve been clear that my interest here is in understanding the irrational behavior so as to be able to recognize it and monetize it. No different than what youve done here in getting a completely dead stock from .01 to .05+ I’d presume.
Are you saying this “event” is happening within 7 days? I’d love to find a date that holds you guys accountable. I’m absolutely positive nothing will ever happen but you get to wait while nothing happens and point to some future date.
6 days, 6 months or 6 years- all that is required is reading 13 very detailed and organized Monitor reports. Hunting for tidbits, hints and oddities outside of that is a complete waste of time, as it is the Monitors job to distill all information into concise public reports.
Standard legal language justifying a decision to accept the best deal proposed. Same language would be used if the accepted offer was 434k, 4.34M, 43.4M or 434M.
They had an obligation to state all deals within the bankruptcy process, but (ludicrously) assuming they did not or could not, why would they be allowed to hint at it?
So you think the “second transaction” could be announced in 49 years?
I’m not suggesting you give up any shares. In fact I’m quite sure that’s not possible.
OK- until when? Nothing will happen in May, will that be enough? Probably not. When nothing happens this year, will that be enough?
Unreal that you (or anyone) thinks 6 months post monitor discharge is still a time to be checking for additional transactions.
There is not a one in a thousand chance. There is not a one in a million chance. There is a precisely zero percent chance there was a second transaction never mentioned publicly inside of the Monitor led bankruptcy process.
Why is it not possible that no one is complaining because they understand that like it or not, they are getting what the market is offering? How can that be less believable, based on what’s been documented, than a transaction actually happened and the secured creditors know about it, but there hasn’t been a peep about it publicly for 1.5 years?
The problem with your seeking closure is you’ve been told ad naseaum that the transaction is closed and over. So you’re waiting for closure but there is nothing more to be reported. This is like being stood up at a bar for a date, and saying I will wait here indefinitely until the young lady shows up and tells me if she wants to see me or not. Except she has decided and is not coming.
World views can vary a lot. But there are not 2 different possible outcomes of a reported and closed bankruptcy. That should not have been allowed to be perpetrated here.
I’m embarrassed for these guys.
So you don’t believe the definition set forth, in plain English, of the stated transaction, presented by the Monitor and signed off by 2 judges, because someone hasn’t presented a completely separate transaction with analogous nomenclature?
Well, I accept the details of the transaction described in enormous detail, ultimately fully disclosed by the Monitor and approved by the courts. So I suppose I’d ask you, what does this mean to you? That they bought the assets as reported but have since decided they don’t want them? How does this perpetrate any notion of a “second transaction” or shareholder payout?
Thats what it says. Several transactions, including the assignments etc comprising the named Transaction that had the terms that were most important to everyone involved.
PS nothing will be happening in May. Or ever.
That was my point. There is no waiting anymore, as everyone involved has been discharged, has resigned or their engagement has been completed.
Wait and see after the bankruptcy is concluded and after the Monitor released?
Not correct. “transactions” is a subset of The Visolis Transaction.
Also, there is no such thing as an undisclosed figure in a transaction involving a public company.
Nothing at all will happen, but oddly, the same hopeful posts will continue to be made.
Yes, a lot I agree with in there. My curiosity with this company is what drives the blind loyalty. I do not understand it at all.
Pursuit of actual understanding out the window, eh?
Following the restructuring requires an admission that it flipped to a liquidation in late July of 2018, right?
The company was not sold for 4.3M. However, all of it’s worthwhile assets were purchased for that sum. The difference between liquidation and restructuring is evident at or around the time of the 4th Monitors report, when this company shifted from a restructuring to a liquidation plan. Don’t believe me? Just read the report.
While I’m not sure what “links” are being referred to, this company still exists. There is no one working for or on its behalf to wind it up. But it has no operations, assets or prospects.
Not sure what could possibly be considered absurd from the referenced, 100% correct post.
There is no such thing as a “cancel document”. Closest thing would be corporate closing/windup documents filed with the state of incorporation. Who would file such documents in this case?
No such thing as a PUBLIC company being acquired for an undisclosed number.
A company has to wind up and cancel its own shares. There is no one working for it. So the exchange delisted it, and the state of incorporation has voided it. That’s all you’re gonna get.
The company’s status with its state of incorporation is void. Not sure what further proof is sought.
It carries more weight because it’s correct. There is no “DD” that supports anything else. That the filing date would be allowed to pass without a peep assures there is no one working on or thinking about this company in an official capacity.