Good Luck
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.
Do anyone know, what is going to be effective date?
Is this short covering?
Pay freeze for federal employes including Judge Carey but, can't stop management getting rich....
A recent example of this concern was reflected in an article in The Washington Post on January 28, 2008. This article described the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives had spent $89,000 on carbon offsets to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as part of its Green Capital Initiative. The offset money was spent to encourage "no till" farming in North Dakota, to pay for a pilot project involving the burning of switch grass at a power plant in Iowa and to pay for the planting of trees on tribal land in Idaho. Questions were raised whether most of these activities would have happened anyway ( i.e., no additionality) without the offset money.
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=April&artYear=2008&EntryNo=8131
And irony is Judge knows about this....
But neither Zelin nor Lisa Donahue, the AlixPartners restructuring executive advising SemGroup in Chapter 11, could explain at a court hearing why SemGroup put GE Capital's loan money on deposit with Barclay's. Blackstone and AlixPartners were hired after SemGroup's problems began to surface in mid-July.
Isn't Lisa Donahue is an independent advisor to BCFC?
http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=12175&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
KFC for you....
How does Blackstone do it? Well, you might suppose that no one on Wall Street is making money off Enron anymore, for instance. You'd be wrong. Blackstone is heading up Enron's restructuring, a monstrous project that aims to maximize the value of the company's assets so that creditors (can you say dumb money?) can get a few pennies back on the dollar. Blackstone's Bruce Haggerty, a 25-year-old analyst who only a few years earlier vamped with Billy Crystal at a Hasty Pudding event at Harvard (Crystal was in drag), labored for six months writing proprietary software to map out the bankrupt energy company. Haggerty created a complete picture of Enron on his desktop computer--all 2,000-plus entities accounted for in a dynamic model in which the values of the pieces change when assets are moved. Printed out, his Rosetta stone comes to 6,000 pages. Engaging Blackstone could well be the best money Enron ever spent on Wall Street, but the work won't come cheap. Bankruptcy filings show Blackstone could be paid as much as $17 million for its trouble.
...........................................
In Blackstone's busiest group, though--its restructuring business--the firm is fixing broken companies rather than investing in them. "We went into restructuring because it does well in bad times," says Peterson with a grin. "Like now." Here again Schwarzman hired well, picking up Art Newman, a teddy bear of a guy, from Chemical Bank. Newman's team has toiled on dozens of workouts including Chiquita Brands, Dow Corning, Global Crossing, W.R. Grace, Macy's, and Xerox. "Nothing comes close to Enron, though," says Newman. "In my 30 years in the business it is by far the most complicated bankruptcy ever."
It was the day before Thanksgiving 2001, and Newman's partner Steve Zelin was thinking more about turkey than turnarounds when Peter Atkins, a senior partner at law firm Skadden Arps, called to tell him the board of Enron wanted to engage Blackstone immediately. "We had our dinner and then flew to Houston early the next morning," says Zelin. He had only had the vaguest idea of what was awaiting him.
"We tried to get our bearings," says Zelin. "We met with Ken Lay and senior management." Zelin flew back to New York. "We met with the Dynegy people to do the merger, but it quickly became clear that wasn't going to work. We had all the parties assembled in the Westchester Convention Center," he says. "I remember there was a wedding in the next room with loud music playing." That Sunday, lawyers went hunting around Houston for a bankruptcy judge to take the company into Chapter 11. Enron filed for bankruptcy on Monday, Dec. 2. The creditors and Blackstone agreed that the company's trading business could not operate in Chapter 11. Selling that business became Blackstone's next task. Zelin and his team worked 15-to 20-hour days through December and into January. There was a daily 5 P.M. conference call for two straight weeks with Schwarzman and other senior members of Blackstone. "This was incredibly complicated and high profile," says Zelin. "The firm's reputation was on the line. We couldn't afford to fail."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/06/09/343947/index.htm
Call
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.
Sep. 9--Eligible shareholders whose Enron holdings became worthless when the company crumbled in scandal will receive $7.2 billion in settlements under a distribution plan approved in federal court.
And the California-based law firm that ran massive Enron shareholder litigation for more than six years will get $688 million -- plus interest -- for its work, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon ruled late Monday.
"We're pleased that the court recognizes the tremendous amount of work, skill and determination required to overcome significant obstacles in this complicated case and recover over $7 billion for defrauded investors," said Patrick Coughlin, chief trial counsel for the firm that ran the litigation, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/civil-procedure-shareholder-lawsuits/12152933-1.html
Mr. Zelin was expert witness in Enron case....
Enron average payback $6.79 a shareEnron shareholders who are part of the huge class action lawsuit have been mailed a notice about what is likely to be the final settlement in the 2001 lawsuit. Some arrived in the mail yesterday. The average payout listed is $6.79 for common stock (which could have been purchased for anywhere from $1.00 on 11/28/01 to $90.00 on 8/23/00) and $168.50 per share for preferred stock.
http://blogs.chron.com/legaltrade/2008/01/enron_average_payback_697_a_sh.html
Steven Zelin CONTRIBUTED $2100 to Tom Harkin campaign-Husband of Ruth Harkin, AbitibiBowater director. Is that conflict of interest?
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=LARCHMONT&st=NY&last=ZELIN&first=STEVEN
At trial the district court allowed expert testimony by an accountant on
lost profits based upon representations from the plaintiff’s management on
the mix of sales. On appeal, the First Circuit found that other evidence in
the record contradicted the expert’s assumption and that the expert’s
testimony was dependent upon a product mix which the record as a whole
did not support and which he had not independently verified. Admission
of the expert’s testimony was an abuse of discretion. The judgment was
vacated and a new trial ordered. Irvine v. Murad Skin Research Labs.,
Inc., 194 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1999).
The burden of demonstrating that expert testimony is competent,
relevant and reliable rests with the proponent of the testimony.
Kumho, 526 U.S. at 147-52.
d. A trial court has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of
expert testimony. In reviewing a trial court’s decision about how
to determine reliability and admissibility of expert testimony, a
court of appeals is to apply an abuse of discretion standard.
Kumho, 526 U.S. at 152; Palmacci v. Umpierrez, 121 F.3d 781,
792 (1st Cir. 1997); Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 476 (1st Cir. 1997).
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num1/Lets_Litigate.pdf
Gatekeeper role of court.
1. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
Rule 702.
2. The trial judge must determine that the expert scientific testimony is both
reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.
579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2795, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
a. The reliability of scientific testimony is determined by many
factors including, but not limited to, the so-called Daubert factors:
(a) can the theory or technique be (and has it been) tested, (b) has
the theory or technique been subject to peer review and
publication, (c) does the technique have a known or potential error
rate and do standards exist for its use, and (d) is the theory or
technique generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Id. at 592-94.
Zelin is no real estate expert...
A witness who did not qualify as an expert on real estate investment or
real estate management could not testify as to the rent forecast, monthly
budget and projected income that he prepared regarding the debtor’s
property. The witness’s testimony was not admissible under Rule 701because it was not based upon personal knowledge, but upon information from a variety of sources and his own opinions. In re Syed, 238 B.R. 133, 144 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1999).
They haven't told us how they got 3.67 Billion entreprise value..this valuation report should be rejected by the Court
A debtor was competent to testify as to her opinion of value on her interest
in certain items of personal property, but was unable to provide any detailed explanation of how she arrived at lump sum value for all items of
property and had not prepared any valuation for individual items ofproperty. Therefore the testimony had no credibility and was insufficient
to establish a value for the property. In re Brown, 244 B.R. 603, 611-12
(Bankr. W.D. Va. 2000).
A self-employed real estate appraiser with four years of experience
performing appraisals for lending institutions and over one thousand tax
appeals at the local and state level was proffered as an expert for the
debtor in a § 505 adversary proceeding against the state Department of
Revenue over the real estate tax assessment of the debtor’s motel. The
trial court found that the witness’s educational background consisted of a
graduate degree in theology, no scholarly training in the fields of taxes,
statistics or real estate and that the majority of his appraisal work had been
in the area of residential property. The court held he did not qualify as an
expert under Rule 702. However, the court allowed him to testify as a lay
witness under Rule 701 based upon his investigation of assessments made
by the DOR upon the debtor’s property as well as eighteen parcels of
commercial real estate sold in the debtor’s county during the relevant time frame. Lipetzky v. Dept. of Revenue of the State of Montana (In re Lipetzky), 66 B.R. 648, 650-51 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1986).
Notwithstanding the advisory committee’s note on the addition of
subsection (c) to Rule 701, the advisory committee’s notes to Rule
702 regarding testimony by expert witnesses under Rule 702
states:
“Thus within the scope of [Rule 702] are not only experts
in the strictest sense of the word, e.g. physicians,
physicists, and architects, but also the large group
sometimes called “skilled” witnesses, such as bankers orlandowners testifying to land values.” [emphasis added]
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num1/Lets_Litigate.pdf
Shareholders are owner of the Company
Owner’s Testimony as to Value of Property.
1. Generally, an owner of property is competent to give an opinion of value
based upon substantial familiarity with the property. Shane v. Shane, 891
F.2d 976, 982 (1st Cir. 1989) “In testifying as to the value of his property,
an owner is entitled to the privileges of an expert.” Id.
In re Byington, 197 B.R. 130 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1996) (noting that
market guides, such as the N.A.D.A., are admissible under Rule
803(17) but they should not be exclusively relied upon by the court
as it contradicts the court’s duty to determine value under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)).
Missing Disclosure
Armstead v. United States, 815 F.2d 278, 282 n.3 (3d Cir. 1987)
(“The dissent notes that under Fed. R. Evid. 803(7), absence of an
entry in relevant business records may be used to prove the nonexistence
or non-occurrence of a matter. The Rule allows such
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. The admission of
such evidence, however, depends upon presentation of a proper
foundation, and exclusion may result where circumstances
‘indicate lack of trustworthiness.’”).
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num1/Lets_Litigate.pdf
Absence of Entry in Records. Rule 803(7) provides:
The following [is] not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though
the declarant is available as a witness:
. . .
Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda reports,
records, or data compilations, in any form, kept in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph (6), to prove the nonoccurrence or
nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly
made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num1/Lets_Litigate.pdf
In re Snider Farms, Inc., 83 B.R. 977 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1988)
(stating that, to be admissible: (1) a summary must be of the
contents of the documents and not the testimony; and (2) “while
projections of future lost profits are not legitimately admissible as
summaries under [Rule 1006] since they are interpretations of past
data and projections of future events, not simply a compilation of
voluminous records they nevertheless may be admissible as
opinion evidence under [Rules 701 and 702].”).
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/consumer/vol7num1/Lets_Litigate.pdf
It is important....
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Trustee Program
NOTICE OF REVISED CHAPTER 11 QUARTERLY FEE SCHEDULE
Pursuant to Section 213 of Title II, Division B, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, (P.L. 110-161),
the chapter 11 quarterly fee schedule established by 28 U.S.C. §1930(a)(6) is amended effective January
1, 2008. The following chart displays the revised quarterly fee schedule for calendar quarters beginning
January 1, 2008.
Disbursement Range Quarterly Fee
$0 to $14,999.99 $325
$15,000 to $74,999.99 $650
$75,000 to $149,999.99 $975
$150,000 to $224,999.99 $1,625
$225,000 to $299,999.99 $1,950
$300,000 to $999,999.99 $4,875
$1,000,000 to $1,999,999.99 $6,500
$2,000,000 to $2,999,999.99 $9,750
$3,000,000 to $4,999,999.99 $10,400
$5,000,000 to $14,999,999.99 $13,000
$15,000,000 to $29,999,999.99 $20,000
$30,000,000 or more $30,000
All other quarterly fee related procedures remain unchanged. The fee is due on the last day of the
calendar month following the calendar quarter for which the fee is owed, starting with the quarter in
which the case commenced, and continuing until and including the quarter in which the case is
dismissed, converted to another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, or closed by the court. Interest will be
charged on unpaid quarterly fees, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717.
The mailing address for quarterly fee payments is:
U.S. Trustee Payment Center
Post Office Box 70937
Charlotte, NC 28272-0937
The address above also appears on the instructions and payment form included with the monthly
quarterly fee statement.
Please address any questions concerning this change to your local Office of the U.S. Trustee
NOT THAT IT MATTERS ANYMORE.....
'The Debtors revised the financial projections prior to the voting and objection deadline without disclosing such revisions to the Court, shareholders, creditors, or other parties in interest before the expiration of the deadlines. This was a material omission. See In re Brotby, 303 B.R. 177, 194 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (“A debtor’s projected future income is relevant both when a disclosure statement is approved and at confirmation.”); see also In re Oxford Homes, Inc., 204 B.R. 264, 269 n. 17 (Bankr. D. Me. 1997) (disclosure statement should include “financial information, valuations or pro forma projections.”). Because the Disclosure Statement did not contain the revised projections and the Debtors still have not publicly disclosed the revised projections or an updated valuation based on such projections, the Disclosure Statement did not provide “adequate information” within the meaning of section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code.'
Revocation of the confirmation order is an undoing or cancellation of the confirmation of a plan. A request for revocation of confirmation, if made at all, must be made by a party in interest within 180 days of confirmation. The court, after notice and hearing, may revoke a confirmation order "if and only if the [confirmation] order was procured by fraud." 11 U.S.C. § 1144.
John W. Weaver, former executive chairman of AbitibiBowater, has been elected to Louisiana-Pacific‘s board of directors.
Weaver is the former executive chairman of AbitiBowater Inc. He served as president and chief executive officer of Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. from 1999 to October 2007 and held a number of senior executive positions in operations and sales with the company prior to being appointed president and chief executive officer.
Weaver’s career in the forest products industry began in 1974. Weaver holds a B.S. from Mount Union College and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the Institute of Paper Science and Technology at Georgia Tech.
http://foresttalk.com/index.php/2010/02/09/weaver-elected-to-louisiana-pacific-s-board-of-directors/
As the Disclosure Statement describes in detail, Blackstone reviewed and
analyzed numerous aspects of the Company when it estimated its Enterprise Value. These
included the Company’s historical financial information, its internal and projected financial
operating data, economic and industry information relevant to the Company’s operating business,
and numerous other studies, analyses, inquiries and investigations as appropriate. (Discl. Stmt.
149-50.) In estimating Enterprise Value, Blackstone applied standard valuation methodologies,
including a discounted cash flow analysis, comparable company analysis, and precedent
transaction analysis. In addition, Blackstone valued certain of the Company’s other, nonoperating
assets separately, including: (a) tax attributes at each Debtor/Applicant; (b) certain
litigation claims; (c) miscellaneous timber assets; and (d) other non-operating assets. Blackstone
70
also relied on management’s financial projections for years 2010-2014. Based on these financial
analyses, and solely for the purposes of the plan, Blackstone estimated that the Enterprise Value
of the Company falls within a range of approximately $3,500 to $3,850 million, with a mid-point
estimate of $3,675 million, including the value of tax attributes expected to be available to
Reorganized ABH. See (Zelin Decl. ¶ 41.)
148.
Happy thanksgiving to all!
Past 3 days combined, Abitibi had largest 3 day volume in the history of the company!
penny players having fun?
MMs having fun!
6 mill now. I will raise to 10 mill
'I am interested in buying AbitibiBowater, Inc. share certificates. I will pay $5 for each share certificate. I will pay $5 for each 100 or more (minimum 100 shares) share certificate. If you are interested and have share certificates with you, please contact me. I want to buy 1000 certificates and have $5000 budgeted for it. If you have any question, please email or send me a private message. Thank you'
Higher 7.5 Mill
How many shares today?
Thanks for an article on Prem Watsa!
Is the Judge really looking for evidence?
Do you want evidence?
Probative Evidence: Notice of Statement and Claim (evidence s-8). Debtors owns and have many real property rights
Probative Evidence : Exhibit D of Docket 2663. Liquidation Value is $9.9 billion
Probative Evidence: Docket 3711. Analysis of Exhibit F of Disclosure Statements
Probative Evidence: Docket 3886. It is KERP
Probative Evidence: Docket 208. 406, 3803. Violation of Rule 2015.3
Lawyers and Management!
talk to him
confirmation day may be today...tell we need time
we want to appeal...