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.
Wall,
Thanks again, and have a look at the link.
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
Honor is something earned, and you have earned it. Look at what Roosevelt said within the context of the full speech, not just the extracted quote.
OK, so we have big T trades, a sale immediately followed by a buy with upward price movement, we have settlment of consequential claims for inconsequential amounts, and the sole analyst converage (Zacks) upgraded CEMJQ in mid-August to a hold when the price was at $0.44.
Maybe that Boogie-man isn't as big as his shadow, after all.
http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/CEMJQ
This means we got painted green for the day, eh?
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=squote&symbol=NO%5eCEMJQ
Carr needs his butt kicked and then his head handed to him, IMHO. The experience might make a man out of him.
Bankruptcy is complicated and unpredictable but the debtors lead attorney has said publicly that we would likely get 9% of the equity which should be about $.72 per share. There have been public statements that Skadden has 100 lawyers working on the valuation question, so maybe we might get more, and I think the chances for that are fair. I certainly am no expert, but I can tell you I'm not selling my shares at these prices.
Maybe he could just move to China and work for some other company! Heck, there are probably even bigger percentage growth opportunities for him in North Korea too so there's a couple of places he could move to!
That is why my letter was not recorded, it arrived after Sept 9. This notice conveniently arrived well after that date.
Though it wasn't recorded, I got my return receipt and perhaps it was read.
Peace and thanks to all. Wall, I was there writing letters and you will always have my gratitude. Our enemies are not our fellow investors...and never have been.
Wall, if personal adversity has come your way, hold on to those deepest roots and the most basic things and it will pass as long as that connection is not lost. Open yourself to the possibility that some of your best friends haven't been met yet, and place yourself in a position for that to happen. A great example of that is the story of Joseph in the Bible and see how well his life turned out because he took adversity as opportunity and always remained humble and grateful to God.
That advice is from someone who's seen more than my share of it, and shouldn't have survived it except for the fact that it worked for me.
As the character who called himself "Roy" in the movie DIE HARD said......
"Yippee Cayeee Mo' Fo'!" Let's go!
In addition to the %500 million, theres the issue of the handling on tort liabilities, and we could argue for an additional $.50 per share just on the basis of the handling of the Diacetyl issue alone.
Yeah, well so $.72 is certainly better than $.27, but that still does not make it right as it still steals a disportionate amount of our equity. Additionally, that level of recovery is no big surprise and does not amount to anything in the way of a major accomplishment on our behalf, as has long been the expected figure for stockholder recovery in "do-little" scenario for the EC according to some of the wiser counsel that I have received so far (IMHO).
The $500 million discrepancy in valuation has to be resolved, and that is about $2 per share. These matters get resolved for many sorts of business transactions and it is not really rocket science. Surely, there should be relevant rules for appraisment that apply on something this big! I wonder if the valuation considered an additional $450 million dollar bond issue or not, and if it did, how that was actually authorized and if it can be made to stick without stockholder approval.
In the end, the market cap on this stock will efficiently return to its fair market valuation when it exits bankrupcy and this valuation affects the split on that between us and creditors.
Finally, we need to work on the mechanics of the EC itself a bit, Canyon and SVP should not be the only ones calling the shots here because we are all paying for this. If we have one means of legal representation on the EC, then it should represent the interests of all of the EC and not seek to get preferential rights offerings etc for SVP and Canyon that we are excluded from! I don't know how we do that but I do think it is crucial, not only to protect our individual interests, but to get to a plan that might actually get approved!
My confirmation receipt for my letter came in the mail, stamped by the court on September 13. This letter was sent overnight mail from USPS on Sept 10.
They got it 3 days in advance of the hearing, but it has not yet shown up as a court document.
Thanks for the PM. Hope all is well with you!
SK, thanks for the PM.
Letters aren't getting posted in the court docs. Mine was sent overnite mail on Sept 10 and has not been posted today.
There is an order requiring anything containing confidential information to be filed under seal, and so it probably means the document references or contains information that is considered confidential, meaning items that covered by secrecy agreements for example.
To gauge the chasm between law and justice, please see K&E's justification for "Cram Down" in their memorandum of law filed September 3. I sure hope the court gets more than just a couple of letters questioning the valuation. My letter should show up in court filings soon, and I hope yours do too.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911233/0911233100907000000000005.pdf
The Plan is Fair and Equitable.
101. Sections 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) and 1129(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code set forth
the so-called “absolute priority rule.” This central tenet of bankruptcy law requires that if the
holders of claims or interests in a particular class receive less than full value for their claims or
interests, no holders of claims or interests in a junior class may receive any property under the
plan.109 The corollary of the absolute priority rule is that if the holders of claims or interests in a
particular class receive less than full value for their claims or interests, then senior classes cannot
receive more than a 100% recovery for their claims or interests.110
107 See WorldCom, 2003 WL 23861928, at *59 (requiring a reasonable basis to justify disparate treatment).
108 Id. See also In re Buttonwood Partners, Ltd., 111 B.R. 57, 63 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990) (courts assess whether
“(i) there is a reasonable basis for discriminating, (ii) the debtor cannot consummate the plan without
discrimination, (iii) the discrimination is proposed in good faith, and (iv) the degree of discrimination is in
direct proportion to its rationale,” but also noting that the second prong assessing whether the debtor cannot
consummate the plan without discrimination, is not dispositive of the question of unfair discrimination).
109 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii), (C)(ii); see also 203 N. LaSalle St., 526 U.S. at 441-42.
110 See In re Granite Broad.Corp., 369 B.R. 120, 140 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“There is no dispute that a class of
creditors cannot receive more than full consideration for its claims, and that excess value must be allocated to
junior classes of debt or equity, as the case may be.”).
55
102. The Plan’s treatment of Class 13a does not run afoul of the absolute priority rule.
Although the Plan provides Equity Holders with less than the full value of their Interests, no
holder of any junior Claim or Interest will receive any property under the Plan, as there are no
Claims or Interests junior to Equity Holders. The inverse also is true: although the Plan
provides Equity Holders with less than the full value of their Interests, no senior Class is
receiving more than full recovery on account of its Claims (including Claims for interest and
other contractual rights). Indeed, based on the Valuation Analysis, no holders of Claims will
receive more than they are entitled to and, in fact, the Creditors’ Committee and the Ad Hoc
Committee might argue that their constituencies are not being paid in full because they view the
New Chemtura Total Enterprise Value as being lower than that determined by Lazard’s
Valuation Analysis.103. In sum, in the event such a finding is needed for Confirmation, the Plan satisfies
the requirements of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code as to Class 13a.
If you don't tell him, he doesn't even have that choice, but I would hurry in getting it to him if I were you. The hearing is thursday of this week. That means overnite delivery sent today.
I sincerely hope you can, and understand. Never meant to indicate you were missing any of those things.
Since it was filed under seal by Mr Gruenglass, it makes a guy think that might be happening. His expertise is sort of in that arena.
Michael H. Gruenglas represents corporations and individuals in complex disputes involving a wide range of corporate, commercial and securities matters. He regularly appears before the federal and state courts, as well as in arbitration tribunals. Mr. Gruenglas has been selected for inclusion in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2010.
Mr. Gruenglas has represented a broad spectrum of clients, both as plaintiffs and defendants, in cases involving claims for breaches of contract, fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, antitrust issues and violations of civil RICO, among others. He has represented a number of publicly traded corporations, including McKesson HBOC and Cendant Corporation, in some of the most significant securities class actions in recent years as well as in many related lawsuits. Mr. Gruenglas has conducted internal corporate investigations relating to such representations. He also has represented various public corporations in hotly contested takeovers. Mr. Gruenglas also focuses on technology-related litigation and serves on the firm's technology and electronic discovery committees.
In 2009, Mr. Gruenglas successfully represented Biogen Idec Inc. in a high-profile breach of contract dispute with Elan Corp. regarding the parties' buyout rights in the event of a change of control. After a five-hour oral argument, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts denied Elan's motion for a preliminary injunction and found that Elan was not likely to prevail on the merits, effectively ending the action. The case was heavily covered by all major media. From 2004 to 2009, Mr. Gruenglas successfully defended Jakks Pacific, Inc. against federal RICO and antitrust claims brought by WWE, Inc., achieving the complete dismissal of the RICO, Sherman Act, and Robinson Patman Act claims, which was subsequently affirmed by the Second Circuit. Mr. Gruenglas also defended Jakks Pacific in the related securities class actions. In May 2008, after a full evidentiary trial before the American Arbitration Association, Mr. Gruenglas won a complete victory on behalf of SanDisk in an arbitration against Samsung Electronics. The dispute, which has garnered significant media attention, related to the delivery of critical electronic components and patent licenses. Mr. Gruenglas represented CTF Hotel Holdings, Inc. and Hotel Property Investments Ltd. in their arbitration and federal actions against Marriott International, Inc., which included a seven-week evidentiary hearing before an American Arbitration Association panel. Acting as plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Gruenglas recently obtained a more than $33 million summary judgment award in the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, against a New York bank accused of using its reorganization as a Delaware corporation as a means of evading its obligations to its preferred shareholders. He also defended Morgan Stanley & Co. in class actions involving alleged ERISA violations and successfully litigated a complex spyware/invasion of privacy action.
Maybe we should send “Jolly” Rogerson a copy of this great inspirational management book:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-Soap-Surviving/dp/0743251423/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284094120&sr=1-1#reader_0743251423
I liked AFriend's letter. The best thing he could do for himself and for his company is put his real name on it and submit it to the court. It would take some conjone's, but it would also be an act of mercy to convice his senior management to take that point of view also. It might even allow their senior management to keep theirs...
Yep, and a civil penalty on a RICO conviction nets us TRIPLE DAMAGES folks.
Communicate to the Judge and your congressmen folks, I did.
Complacency never did anything good. As busy as I am, I had to give up a night's sleep to get mine done, so...if I can write a letter, you can too.
Guys like that are why I love America. We've got some really great gals too. I say that from the perspective of one who has seen a lot of places far away from here and always wanted to kiss the ground when I got back.
Maro, of course you can use it. It was why I posted it. I used concepts ideas and information I got from the earlier 2 guys that laid out their thoughts. We need to all express ourselves in our own way and our letters should not be the same, even something that even just expresses feelings of outrage and bewilderment at a process that is so hard to understand, something like that can be short sweet and to the point. Each letter should seek to portray your honest concerns and questions from your own unique angle.
It's what my dad always expected of me, I consider myself fortunate for what he taught me as it has served me well, sometimes there is short term pain but I always come out better in the long run.
It served him well under a lot of adversity as a WWII Navy Pilot for 8 years. He left the navy as a decorated LtCdr under the age of 30 and did well in other arenas until his death in '94. He was fond of the statement that adversity isn't what defines our character, it only reveals it.
I do that to honor him, and my other favorite guy..TRR who wrote the poem "the arena".
Maybe the white knight came already, but Rogerson is sitting on that until after the POR is implemented....
Remnds me of a famous inadvertent public statement made by Clayton Williams, a venerated Aggie...which ultimately resulted in the election of Ann Richards as Governor of Texas. Can't really qoute it here, but a google of it will be amusing.
Draft of my letter for your comment and use, please check it for and comment on any inaccuracies or anything which might be perceived as unfair, as I was up late writing it and I do not wish to misrepresent anything. I plan to dispatch via overnight with return confirmation very soon in hopes of positive influence on Sept 16 confirmation hearings.
September 7, 2010
Hon. Judge Robert E. Gerber
United States Bankruptcy Court, Courtroom: 621
One Bowling Green
New York, NY 10004-1408
Your honor,
If it pleases the Court, please consider my comments and suggestion I offer here from a stockholders perspective. Eleven months ago, the Court received and recorded my letter arguing for an equity committee, attached. I am not an accountant or an attorney, but simply an investor who seeks to better himself and the opportunities of his sons by seeking value in investments in my spare time. Chemtura is a very attractive enterprise, based on its standing in the chemicals sector with billions in annual revenue, it’s growth trends and potential in the markets it serves, an enviable position with respect to strategic commodity chemicals, and the health of the enterprise relative to external benchmarks of earnings multiples, and that has been strongly supported by statements made by the CEO concerning the vigor of its business model and prospects for recovery and growth of the company with his stated commitment to the interests of all of its stakeholders (including equity), which continued up until the disclosure of the Debtors Plan of Reorganization in June of 2010.
I am grateful to the Office of The United States Trustee and the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for the eventual appointment of an Equity Committee (EC) in December 2009, and the eventual confirmation of its retained counsel in April 2010. Thank you for giving us a voice in this reorganization, and I hope that this voice can constructively contribute to a meaningful fair market valuation based on current and correct information to the common benefit of all stakeholders and our national economy. I was gratified when even the debtors counsel for bankruptcy grudgingly acknowledged that there “may” be recovery for equity in this process.
In the limited time I have had (due to simultaneous involvements in a crisis in the GoM and my divorce) to review the Debtor’s Plan Of Reorganization(POR) and related court filings, including the objections of the EC’s attorney, the Bankruptcy Trustee’s office and others, with my limited legal and accounting skills, it strikes me that we have a continuing and troubling theme in the struggle for Chemtura’s emergence from Ch 11 with regards to inconsistent statements regarding the business growth and valuation in this proceeding vs SEC filings and press releases.
I am troubled by the apparent suppression of key, factual information concerning the fair market valuation of the enterprise and consequently, I encourage the examination of the question of whether the goal of this process is to simply satisfy the ethical settlement of relevant and legitimate outstanding claims of creditors which were created as a result of our national financial crisis in 2008 and to create a more efficient and functional corporate structure considering the interests of all stakeholders as stated by the CEO. From what I have been able to understand with my limited resources, the Debtor’s POR as it is vaguely and inconsistently presented is at odds with the goals listed above. Though I admittedly lack legal and accounting skills, it appears to me to serve the enrichment of those key parties; management and large financial interests who have the many millions of dollars required to acquire bond interests in CEMJQ at premium prices, and who are consequently in a position to drive the bankruptcy process for their sole benefit and to the detriment of shareholder equity by doing the following:
1. Effectively accomplishing the result of down-round financing by dissolving equity ownership and immediately re-leveraging via bond financing without ever considering the test of Entire Fairness, as recently applied in the case of Antelope Technologies vs. Lowe. How were these bonds collateralized, and what valuation was used for that? To what purpose will the funds be used? What role are stockholders to have in these decisions under the rules of corporate governance? When was the last time that stockholder votes were solicited on issues like this, to elect board members, or when was the last annual shareholders meeting under this CEO?
2. Disproportionate transferals of equity ownership, control and governance of the company to creditors and management by:
i. Using a low valuation for the enterprise as is evident in inconsistencies amounting to $500 million Dollars in enterprise valuation, or equivalent approximately $2.00 per share of CEMJQ as evident from a comparison of valuations used in the POR vs CEMJQ SEC filings. If depreciated tax valuations, or tax appraisals have been used, they do not represent fair market value, as property owner who pays real estate taxes can attest. From my own past fiduciary experiences as a Trustee and Executor, there are different generally accepted appraisal rules which are applied to asset appraisals depending on the stated purpose of that appraisal. To my knowledge, there has been no disclosure of generally accepted practice regarding rules for valuation of appraisals in this and similar proceeding, no disclosure of the offers received for assets which were purportedly for sale during this process, the magnitude of them, or even if there could be substantial open offers sufficient to satisfy all claims without destroying shareholder equity or the strength of the overall enterprise, and I pray that the court will allow and support full compliance with all of disclosure requests of the EC counsel in a quest for truth and proof of Good Faith in these matters.
ii. Premature payment of full debt obligations prior to maturity for some of the bonds, when they could be brought current in interest payments and re-instated in compliance with the originally agreed terms of those securities.
iii. Use of inflated estimates for tort and environmental claims to reduce shareholder equity and increase share apportionment to creditors, as evident in the example of a $150 million Diacetyl Reserve (equivalent to $.62 per share), when over 90% of those were settled for $50 million and the majority of that and pending and future claims will be covered by insurance. As stated in the August 26, 2010 8K filed with the SEC on this matter, “As a result of the HFM Settlement and Insurance Settlement, the Company believes that pending diacetyl claims, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.”, and this is consistent with similar statements made earlier in 2009 and 2008 in venues outside of the bankruptcy proceeding. Is there a strategy in these favorable settlement disclosures being made in the 11th, 12th, or later hours with respect to approval of the POR? How is the stated goal of protecting the interests of all stakeholders served by this? How is this stated goal served in the accelerated settlement of certain environmental claims at the sole expense of shareholder equity and the benefit of creditors, when competing enterprises typically carry these as an ongoing operating expense and it is not clearly necessary to remedy the consequences of the cash flow issues of late 2008 and early 2009?
iv. Reduction of shareholder value to the equivalent of $.27 per share after the cumulative effects of KEIP and the coercive offer of 5% of equity recovery justified on low valuation figures as described above, with the lead debtor’s attorney referring to this as a “carrot” for us unworthy equity holders who have paid for all of her work and other parties in this proceeding as though we are dumb animals unworthy of reasonable accountability, accountability or even common human decency from those we support. Frankly your honor, in my mind, it is this statement which has undeniably indicated a non-constructive attitude in the debtor management and retained debtor counsel, and it conveys many things on many levels, and none of them represent good faith to me.
v. The use of very low recovery factors resulting in dire asset liquidation valuations, such as the 9% used for foreign assets which comprise a large proportion of the company. These are profitable enterprises, going concerns, with valuations that benefit from the long-term decline in dollar value but otherwise really had minimal influence from CH 11 other than who happens to own their shares.
vi. The unexplained discrepancy in reported growth rates for the business revenue, depending on the venue in which they are reported, and that ranges from 22% (SEC and press releases), and 7% POR. Do earnings growth rates correlate to P/E multiples used to benchmark share price and market capitalization? For example, my brokerage compares CEMJQ to a peer group as follows:
vii. The POR enables management to receive, in addition to compensation established under EIP and other provisions, an 11% stake in equity under the provisions of 2010 Long Term Incentive Plan provisions of the POR, and this will be under the direction of a board elected by the grateful new shareholders. Are any conflicts of interests dissolved when those new shareholders are put in place by enactment of this POR? Management ownership of stock is a good thing as it aligns interests between stockholders and management. Would equity be dissolved as aggressively as is attempted in this POR if they did?
3. It seems that the balloting and tabulation of class 13a interests, such as mine were poorly organized and poorly explained, the process was delayed relative to other classes of securities and claims for unexplained reasons. I began to enquire about this of my broker around August 10 and was incorrectly informed after research by my broker that I could vote via Proxyvote.com, and was provided with control numbers and pin numbers to do that. I later received materials in the mail with ballots, and I was just able to send my eligible 571,300 a “NO” votes as per the July 23 2010 effective date via overnight certified mail to the “nominee” before the earlier deadline required for the nominee as instructed in the inconsistent instructions accompanying the ballot. I wonder how many class 13a holders were denied that by later delivery, poor or inconsistent delivery or non delivery of the ballots, the complex qualification and tabulation rules, and if my votes were actually tabulated as submitted? This process created little time to deliberate or seek advice on the plan disclosure provided, or to respond as prescribed and I have been told that it was not the same for other interests under the plan, as they got their materials promptly, weeks in advance of ours.
4. I find some of the characterizations of equity holders by some attorneys in this proceeding to be unnecessarily demeaning and generally untruthful, including this one as an example:
“The Equity Committee has been long on rhetoric and short on proof. It would be grossly unconscionable to thwart the will of an overwhelming majority to accommodate the desires of the disgruntled Equity Committee whose constituents are, under the Plan, entitled to receive a guaranteed gift of shares of the Reorganized Debtor but gluttonously demand more. This Court should not disturb the domino structure that is the Global Settlement and the Plan. The Bondholder Committee submits that this Court should confirm the Plan.
Dated: September 3, 2010
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
JONES DAY
/s/ Richard L. Wynne”
For the record, I paid for my shares with my own hard-earned dollars, at fair market value in a publicly traded and regulated venue in competition with others with the same objective in the marketplace, unlike those that the creditors and management have positioned themselves to receive in the design of the debtor’s POR. My equity is not and never has been a gift.
Fortunately, I was never taught or otherwise empowered to pronounce “truth” or assign motives on the basis of my personal sentiments in the manner of this gentleman, but that my success depends on the proper understanding of a situation and the proper application of physical, natural, social, and economic truths and laws to it. I never acquired this stock with the intent of cheating anyone, and this being a publicly traded security in the United States of America, did not expect to be cheated by anyone, including those who have a fiduciary responsibility to protect my interests. If I lose all of my equity, I will still have my personal integrity with regard to my dealings in this matter, it is not for sale or trade.
A dictionary definition of word Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption to the point of waste. ... I ask the court to consider whether this definition most accurately fits my description in the above two paragraphs or if it more accurately describes the points made in points 1 through 3 above?
As a child I learned that domino structures are inherently unstable, and should not be depended on for structural integrity. At best, they are useful in entertainment value or as a distraction. This was reinforced by my later engineering education and in my 30 years of engineering experience where lives and fortunes, including my own, are at risk on the basis of my engineering judgment and practice, just as they are dependent on those who chose the avenue of a legal profession. As a child, I also learned that there is an authority and command structure in the world that has to be honored for the proper workings of our society, and that I did not give orders to those in authority over me, but that I could only influence that authority with a respectful presentation of facts and reason.
I have not sought, nor has any equity holder that I am aware of sought to eliminate or deny the legitimate and rightful claims of anyone as this man has alleged. I only ask for a fair examination and reconciliation of the facts in the determination of equity and an equitable restructuring to satisfy all necessary and beneficial legitimate claims. If I have made any untrue or unsupportable allegations or claims here, it was un-intentional, and a result of my personal lack of detailed knowledge or time to devote to this and there is no malicious or mendacious intent. I felt it was important to express this point of view as a bona-fide stakeholder in this matter like the many other individual shareholders in this business. All stakeholders have a common legitimate interest in the long term health of this enterprise and that of the economic health of our nation.
I have confidence in the personal integrity, skills, and conscientious work ethic of Mr. Goffman who is diligently working with reason and the facts he has been able to obtain to represent the interests of all equity interests. He has been short on time in place, short on cooperation with complete information from the other parties in this proceeding, and I say that based on personal accounts of the EC members respectfully waiting for hours to engage in meaningful dialogue and information exchange with Creditor and Debtors representatives that was sparsely available.
Mr. Goffman has invoked rules of civil procedure to formally and systematically obtain the information he has been previously denied, and I hope the objections to providing them are over-ruled so that the facts can finally be connected with reason in this matter so that a very skillful application of the letter and spirit of the bankruptcy and securities laws under your authority will occur as I know it can.
Respectfully yours,
CC:
Mr. Brian Masimoto & Ms. Diana Adams
Office of the United States Trustee
Southern District of New York
33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10004
Ms. Natasha Labovitz
Kirkland & Ellis
601 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Mr Jay Goffman & Mr. David M. Turetsky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4304
Representative Ron Paul
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
By the time I was five years old I knew that domino structures had no useful functional purpose as they are inherently unsstable and cannot be depended on.
Obviously the product of a great legal mind who also considered that cornbread are square and pie are round in his learned deliberations.
Integrity sells so cheaply these days, doesn't it?
Hearing is September 16.
Chemtura Corporation
In re Chemtura Corporation, Case No. 09-11233 (REG)
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York
Chemtura Restructuring Information Line: The Chemtura Restructuring Information Line can be reached at (866) 967-0261.
Plan and Disclosure Statement: On June 17, 2010, Chemtura Corporation and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession filed the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. and the Disclosure Statement for the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al.
Furthermore, on July 9, 2010, Chemtura Corporation and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession filed the Revised Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. and the Revised Disclosure Statement for the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al.
Furthermore, on August 5, 2010, Chemtura Corporation and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession filed the Revised Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. (Solicitation Version) and the Revised Disclosure Statement for the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. (Solicitation Version)
Please click below to view the relevant documents:
Revised Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. (Solicitation Version)
Revised Disclosure Statement for the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. (Solicitation Version)
Press Release: Chemtura Files Amended Plan of Reorganization
Plan Supplement to the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al.
Notice of Filing of Plan Supplement
A hearing to consider confirmation of the chapter 11 plan(“The Confirmation Hearing”) will be held on September 16, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, One Bowling Green, Room 621, New York, New York 10004-1408
Click Here for Additional Documents Relating to the Plan, Disclosure Statement
Chemtura Canada Co./Cie.: For more information about the Chemtura Canada Co./Cie proceedings, please visit the website of Alvarez and Marsal Canada Inc., the Information Officer for this matter by clicking here.
Schedules and SOFAs: On June 11, 2009, the Debtors filed their Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs. These are available for review by clicking here.
General Information: On March 18, 2009, each of the 27 Debtors (click to view a list of all debtors) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). The cases are jointly administered under Case No. 09-11233 (collectively, the "Bankruptcy Cases"), before the Honorable Judge Robert E. Gerber, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
On August 8, 2010, Chemtura Canada Co./Cie filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). The case is jointly administered under Case No. 09-11233 (collectively, the "Bankruptcy Cases"), before the Honorable Judge Robert E. Gerber, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
I think the info on those is in the supplemental info for the POR. I don't recall seeing a figure for them added up. Follow link in this message below.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54048869
To see an example of what our EC could do if Gerber woould allow it, see MC's post at the tronox board
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54038351
This is why it is important to express outrage for the debtors POR and ask for our EC to be allowed to protect our interests.
This is what an equity committee can do when they have a fair judge:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=540
38351
Write a letter to the judge and express your outrage. Follow Just's example. I intend to.
That shelf registration was for $100,000,000 of CEMJQ, par value $0.01 specifically for the rights offering that probably won't happen.
Very well done.
Great idea, working on it.
Notice of hearing in my paperwork, second page under VOTING RECORD DATE says The Voting Record Date is July 23, 2010.