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 are teams working both sides of this 24/7, plus court dates pending. I don’t expect it to be long at all. Everyone wants to get back to business.
From ordering “another” Ferrari last week... to calling GT a POS this week.
These guys spend more time writing their articles than they do researching the equity. Certainly a writer for Forbes is not going to suggest anything but the safest, albeit incorrect, bet.
Green on higher lows buddy. Not that it matters.
You got it backwards. Not that it matters.
Up on low vol? Thats a new one around here.
Unionize
The judge has already stated that he doesn’t buy AAPL’s argument, but believes GT’s story of ever changing specs.
I’m sure AAPL’s business model shows that it does not make sense to manufacture any of the components needed for their products, which is why they don’t. That said, working with GT on SG may be the path of least resistance to getting AAPL what it wants. I’m still not sure that a business relationship could survive the mess created here... but, money talks.
It would seem that AAPL has to take control of the plant, including workers, in order to prevent both a GT buyout offer from a competitor or allowing GT to continue in SG production for AAPL competitors. If AAPL is willing to negotiate a viable SG production contract going forward, it would seem to be in GT’s interest to remain in the business for obvious reasons. But my gut says AAPL claiming it would continue on with GT is just lip service used purely for its PR value. I don’t believe it has any intention of doing so. This has been way too messy for a business relationship to survive IMO. Regardless, this is looking more and more favorable for commons. Emerging from BK intact would kill multiple birds with that single stone. As long as the $150M in exit financing can keep any ornery unsecureds at bay (if there are any after a successful restructure), you have to believe the bond holders would presumably be satisfied going forward. Retail would be satisfied, therefore eliminating pending class actions.... and insty holders would be satisfied, therefore preempting any possible future litigation from them.
I agree with Reptos in that each situation is different. In the case of GT, it is perhaps the weirdest situation I’ve heard of and many financial experts agree. The first week of GT’s BK all I kept reading were quotes like “We’ve never seen anything like this before”. That said, AMRQ has much more in common with the current situation than any of the tickers you mention.
Institutions holding 5% or more are barred by court order from selling. In terms of what their plans are or what they are doing, one can only guess.
They’re locked in by court order. It’s looking like the Blackrock move posted earlier is from a subsidiary, which would fly under the courts ruling. Need to verify though.
Dropping on 400K shares. Sure, we’ll call that dumping.
You may be confused by the question, which was unrelated to any specific price action.
I can’t answer that. But I do believe that if taking the loss is an offset that creates a wash, then they’re probably thinking why bother waiting around. Just take it and move on.
My initial thought was no, as it most likely indicates that they do not believe commons will survive, or retain any value if they do. On second thought, taking the loss could be a move to offset other positions for tax purposes, etc., in which case it is not at all a reflection on whether or not they believe there is any intrinsic value. So much speculation.
Has the insty lockup been lifted? Link?
How much buying pressure could they realistically hold down?
The fact that AAPL did a complete 180 on the settlement hinging on disclosure, and in such short order, has me thinking the insty holders could be applying pressure to get this fixed.
I’ve been largely ignoring your posts since the comments so far have been purely opinion. Since you tried to provide a fact for your argument, I’ll respond. AAPL giving GT 4 years to repay its debt solely out of the proceeds for selling said furnaces, is precisely why GT will emerge from BK with shareholder value.
And a fresh change of drawers.
Thats wasn’t a hint. He put the blame squarely on AAPL.
The fan is in the other room... with the shorts
Looking for some price action EOD in anticipation of a possible move AH or PM on news. Still not buying AAPL is suddenly ok with disclosure after all the motions and objections. We’ll know soon enough.
Yes. It would have been sometime the week of Oct 6th. Probably the 7th or 8th. Sorry I don’t have a link.
One would hope. If the unsecured agree to a refi, things look much better. The fact that the top 5 institutional holders were prevented from selling by court order also gives a clue.
Great breakdown. So the question is... does the current settlement go far enough to ensure shareholder equity if BK progresses? Because as it stands, $150M in exit financing is not going to satisfy current creditors. That means BK must progress, which in turn means shares getting wiped is still a real possibility. The prior sentiment, including my own, was that AAPL would not allow disclosure therefore doing what it had to in order to pull GT from BK. This would return shareholder equity to pre AAPL levels therefore satisfying them [us], which would presumably dismiss all legal action. If disclosure is no longer an issue....
Still too much up in the air. I think it was a given that AAPL would not be walking away from the settlement. Ergo this mornings action. Or lack thereof.
FWIW, I had the same question yesterday. I went back and re-read the amendment, and to my untrained eye it doesn’t seem to suggest full disclosure. But again, I’m not trained to dissect legal documents.
Doesn’t prove that he didn’t buy more before BK. But thats beside the point. He’s asking a legit question with ramifications for all longs regardless of whether he has a position or not. Any ideas?
He asked a legit question.
I misread the original post and was thinking the amendment allowed full disclosure. We’re still good.
Do you have anything useful to add?
This isn’t the news I was looking for. We needed GT to exit BK in order to ensure shareholder equity. Don’t get me wrong, the AAPL settlement is unbelievably favorable for GT. But unless unsecured creditors allow refinancing so that GT can exit BK... equity is still in doubt. What am I missing?
That means class actions. Which means disclosure. AAPL isn’t having it.
Financials are still expected today? Has there been a PR? Link? Thanks.
I think you’re right on with that assessment. It fits with AAPL’s claim that they want to continue working with GT, while putting its legal problems to bed.