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.
Case Updates: HearUSA and Seahawk Drilling 07.04.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-updates-hearusa-and-seahawk.html
Case Updates: HearUSA and Seahawk Drilling 07.04.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-updates-hearusa-and-seahawk.html
Case Updates: HearUSA and Seahawk Drilling 07.04.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-updates-hearusa-and-seahawk.html
Case Update: Point Blank Solutions (PBSOQ) 07.03.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-update-point-blank-solutions-pbsoq.html
Case Update: Point Blank Solutions (PBSOQ) 07.03.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-update-point-blank-solutions-pbsoq.html
According to docket #1513, the hearing originally set for June 29, 2011 has been cancelled. Two of the orders have been entered and the late filed claims motion of Krantz, Chasin and Nadelman have been continued by the consent of the parties to a future date and time to be determined.
The next important date on the calendar is Friday, July, 1st which is the date that objections are due with respect to the Equity Committee's Rule 60(b) motion. It is also the date that the consensually agreed stay regarding discovery is set to terminate.
Case Updates: HearUSA, Point Blank Solutions and Chemtura 06.23.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-updates-hearusa-point-blank.html
I never factored in the NOLs. They were lost long ago. I'll refrain from further comment on the administration of the case. The liquidating Trustee will likely take up the vetting of the propriety of the administrative costs in this case.
Case Updates: HearUSA, Point Blank Solutions and Chemtura 06.23.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-updates-hearusa-point-blank.html
Case Updates: HearUSA, Point Blank Solutions and Chemtura 06.23.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-updates-hearusa-point-blank.html
There was a 10 day gap between the filing and the resumption of trading. In the mean time the distressed investing community was able to reconcile the Asset Purchase Agreement to the SEC filings and the other relevant first-day motions. Thus, there was no pronounced or prolonged panic selloff.
Can you clarify Stage 1 decay? Unless you are referring to the usual post BK filing selloff.
HearUSA (HEARQ) Case Update 06.15.2011 – “Don’t Gore Equity’s Ox”
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/hearusa-hearq-case-update-06152011-dont.html
HEARQ Poll Question: Should an Official Equity Committee be appointed in the HearUSA Chapter 11 Case?
Follow the link below to vote.
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/
No worries bluebird, i'm not upset in any way. I should have used an "lol" somewhere. I don't get emotional with investing unless and until I have to get active on the court docket and then I let it all hang out. I prefer a good spirited debate now and then to test ones own convictions and I do love a contested and adversarial bankruptcy case.
I was only "testing the waters" by posing my earlier questions.
Best regards.
Such angst for posing a question. Why the need for all the ellipses?
I was not concerned about the lack of an official committee until Broadbill withdrew as a named Plaintiff. I know that 4 other hedge funds recently stepped up to fill their void but ask yourself these questions:
(1) Will these funds also decide at some point to pull out as Plaintiffs? Might they pull out at an even more inopportune time than Broadbill chose? How about if they all pulled out on Friday September 9, 2011? Would my question seem “untimely” or “unwarranted” at that point?
(2) Do these funds have the stomach to stick around and fund the legal costs for the next couple of years (barring settlement) while the adversary is appealed time and again until the proceeding is reduced to a non-appealable decision? I have the stomach to go over the wall on a committee and tie up my capital and I know more than enough sophisticated holders and hedge funds to fill a committee who will also do so at a moment’s notice. Anyone here so inclined?
(3) Are any of these funds fiduciaries of the estate? Do they have a fiduciary duty to represent any other LTW holders’ interests? Does anything preclude them from pursuing their own pecuniary interests at some point? Will any of these new funds be better at communicating with other LTW holders than the first two funds? One returned communication would be an improvement.
(4) Why does a constituency (Equity) whose interests rank junior to the claims of LTW holders have an official committee while the LTW holders do not? They have no concerns regarding whether the funding source to protect their interests will ever disappear, yet the LTW holders currently must wrestle with those concerns and they will be proven to be senior in priority and at worst are pari passu. Additionally, the Creditors Committee who may one day actually represent LTW holders, currently opposes the interests of LTW holders in the adversary proceeding. These committees have inexhaustible resources to oppose LTW interests. Once this newly discovered equity recovery is signed and delivered do you suppose the Equity Committee will sit idly by or will they join vociferously along with the Debtors and Unsecured Creditors to try and blow the LTWs out of the water? Would anyone here like to have another committee with an endless source of funds opposing their interests?
The issue to me is not so much that there are a few hedge funds (who are not operating in a fiduciary capacity and who are free to walk at a moment’s notice) in place to currently represent LTW holders, the issue is more of right and wrong. LTW holders only need representation because the Debtors and their Board (in the collective infinite wisdom) neglected to fulfill their fiduciary duties to protect the interests of LTW holders. The funding of that legal representation should therefore be borne by the Debtors Estate and the LTW holders should be represented by a committee of fellow LTW holders who are operating in a fiduciary capacity and who will be characterized as “vigorous” and “indefatigable”.
Any of these questions resonate with anyone?
In light of what timeframe? The time to confirmation or the months/years it will take to litigate the adversary proceeding after all the appeals? I'd say it was warranted long ago and still remains a worthwhile undertaking now.
Poll Question: Should DIMEQ holders have their own official committee?
Follow the link below to cast your vote.
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/
Poll Question: Should DIMEQ holders have their own official committee?
Follow the link below to cast your vote.
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/
Case Updates: Point Blank, Middlebrook and Chemtura 06.01.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/
Case Updates: Point Blank, Middlebrook and Chemtura 06.01.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-updates-point-blank-middlebrook.html
Case Updates: Point Blank, Middlebrook and Chemtura 06.01.11
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-updates-point-blank-middlebrook.html
Chemtura Disputed Claims Reserve Spreadsheet
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/05/chemtura-disputed-claims-reserve.html
Anyone over here on this board holding legacy CEMJQ shares?
The majority of the Disputed Claims Reserve was set up with Newco Stock (CHMT) as opposed to cash. I believe it works out to roughly 86% stock and 14% cash which is very favorable for us.
The EC attorneys, Skadden Arps, are still involved in the case and they still file motions and/or are mentioned in the court docs from time to time. I would say that Kirkland & Ellis has done a great job of working through these claims since the emergence. Stay patient and I think we will get a decent return from the disputed claims reserve from here on out.
As far as the low valuation that was struck on the company, all I can say about that is that it is just how the game is played. I can't say that the process is always fair but it is what it is. Once one learns the rules of engagement it is much easier to figure out how to protect ones interests.
Chemtura Disputed Claims Reserve Spreadsheet
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/05/chemtura-disputed-claims-reserve.html
Follow the link below for the tracking spreadsheet. It looks like the $10.6 million released from the Oildale reserve will be split 50% to CEMJQ holders while the other 50% will be first diverted over to the non-objecting disputed claims reserve pool. I was able to get the first round of distributions described in the most recent quarterly status report to reconcile to the spreadsheet within about a $50k variance so it should be fairly close. About $8 million has been diverted to the non-objecting pool thusfar so hopefully we will eventually see that money as well.
I show that, based on the remaining funds within the various pools, the max distribution we could see going forward would be about $0.24 per share based on a CHMT share price of $13.45 as defined by the POR.
Since we are trading at about $5 per share above the POR value and there are approximately 100 million shares outstanding it appears that our friends at Lazard were able to convince the Court to confirm a POR at about $500 million below market value. As bad as that seems, in the Tronox case the financial analysts depressed the enterprise value by over a cool $1 Billion.
Anyone know if Lazard's Aronson is still parading around New York with that pink umbrella?
I have a spreadsheet to track the disputed claims reserve that I will try and update in the coming weeks to reflect the latest information. It needs to be cleaned up a bit before it is ready for public viewing. I like things to look nice and to be easy for others to understand. One I get it ready I will put it on the blog linked below. After that, maybe some on the board will help me keep it updated for everyone else. It does take some time and effort to stay on top of that thing.
Have a great holiday weekend
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/
You're welcome and you remember well. my youngest is almost 2 now.
...and Justavoice, don't ask about the name because it is a long story
The disputed claims reserve was set at $334 million but if we are Class 12 we would also receive, in addition, post-petition interest or sometimes referred to as pendency interest in the 5% context as are the other claimsholders in Class 12. That would be compounded monthly for approximately 3 years since the backdated transfer that gave rise to the fiduciary breach was made retroactive to the petition date.
My condolences on your losses. I hope you get at least some of your money back. I am just not sure how all of that will play out at this point.
By the way, do you happen to remember the class action attorney described in the link below? He is a convicted felon. He is also the man who represented the DHB shareholders and crafted the $35.2 million settlement that contained illegal indemnifications of other convicted felons. The deal he struck was to allow a man, David Brooks, to steal the $186 million from DHB shareholders and pay back just $23 million of it (the other $12 million of the $35 million came from insurance policies) and walk away $160 million of the ill gotten gains. That is what the $35.2 milllion settlement was all about and that is why it had to be rejected and that is why David Cohen exhausted himself physically and financially for many years to get it stopped. It was illegal, immoral, etc. etc. to carve out that deal and COhen was the only one who ever tried to stop it. That settlement deal was simply one soon to be convicted felon washing the hands of another soon to be convicted felon and if they had gotten away with it one would have walked away with $160 million of other people's money and the other would have walked away with about $10 million of other people's money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lerach
The magnitude of the claims of Class 4 is described (I use that term loosely) in the Debtor's POR and Disclosure Statement. I used a figure of $50 million which is slightly above the midpoint estimate for Class 4 but the equity committee is using a much lower figure between $30 and $40 million contingent upon whether the company is reorganized vs. liquidated. Their numbers can be found in an exhibit that was filed as part of their disclosure statement objection back in April.
Class 6, which is the old DHB Shareholders that entered into the $35.2 million settlement was assumed to be $35.2 which is where the POR capped the claim. There are 2 issues that can splinter into many other issues surrounding the Class 6 claimants. One is that their settlement will be either allowed or rejected. The Bankruptcy Court allowed the rejection but that decision was appealed and we are awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The other issue is, if the settlement is rejected, does the money come back into the estate? The answer to that question, as we recently learned, will be determined by the bankruptcy court.
Judge Walsh opined on Friday, May 20, 2011 that the issue of whether the $35.2 million escrowed and rejected settlement funds are property of the Debtor's estate is a Core Proceeding of the Chapter 11 case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56027645/PJW-Opinion-on-Defendants-Motion-for-Non-Core-Determination-05-20-11
Thanks for your efforts as well.
Oildale Disputed Claims Reserve reduced from $14.49 million to $3.87 million, thus freeing up $10.6 million for distribution in accordance with the disputed claims reserve order.
If memory serves, back in November, the claim was reduced by approximately $1.7 million and that amount was swept directly into the Segregated Distribution Reserve which was then distributed to CEMJQ shareholders. If the full $10.6 million is distributed to the Segregated Distribution Reserve as before and as opposed to 50% flowing first to the "Non Objecting Creditor's Reserve" then we should see a distribution from this event alone that has an economic value of about $0.057 per old CEMJQ share assuming that 85% of the reserved amount was in Newco stock (as was most of the disputed claims reserve) and assuming a CHMT price of the present day $18.20.
The next distribution date is expected to occur on or around July 8, 2011.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0911233/0911233110520000000000001.pdf
KIDEQ Warns of Potential Deregistration
4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) is filing this amendment to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, which was originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2011 (the “Original Filing”). This Amendment is filed for the purposes of correcting the approximate number of holders of record of the Company’s Common Stock on March 30, 2011 reported by the Company in Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities to be 284, rather than 4,830, and adding the following risk factor to the end of Item 1A. Risk Factors:
Because we have less than 300 record holders of our common stock, we may elect at any time to terminate our reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act. If we choose to do so, our stock price would likely decline.
Because we have less than 300 record holders of our common stock, we can suspend our reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act at any time by filing a Form 15 with the SEC. If we were to terminate our reporting obligations, we would no longer be required to file periodic reports, including financial information, proxy solicitation materials, or other information with the SEC. This action would cause our common stock to be de-listed from the OTC Bulletin Board, which would likely negative affect the liquidity, trading volume and trading prices of our common stock. In addition, our ability to raise financing could be negatively impacted due to a lack of publicly available information about the Company.
This Amendment does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the Original Filing and no attempt has been made in this Amendment to modify or update other disclosures as presented in the Original Filing. All other Items of the Original Filing have been omitted from this Amendment. Accordingly, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with our filings with the SEC subsequent to the filing of the Original Filing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/58592/000005859211000016/form10ka12312010.htm
Link to KIDEQ 10-Q as of 03.31.2011
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/58592/000005859211000018/form10q3312011.htm
KIDEQ Bankruptcy Claims Admin Site & Court Docket
http://dm.epiq11.com/KDS/Project/default.aspx
WSJ Bankruptcy Beat Article 05.18.11
A Yu-Gi-Oh! Battle Gets Real.
By Rachel Feintzeig
Attendees at this year’s Licensing International Expo might get a little more Yu-Gi-Oh! than they bargained for.
Two exhibitors are currently on tap to tout a “highly anticipated new television series” spawned by the trading-card game, according to court papers. And they’re most certainly not playing for the same team.
Once upon a time, the opponents—4Kids Entertainment Inc. and a pair of Japanese companies called TV Tokyo Corporation and Nihon Ad Systems Inc.—were partners of sorts, with the latter pair licensing the Yu-Gi-Oh! property for use by 4Kids under a 2008 agreement. But that deal soured earlier this year, when the Japanese companies launched a lawsuit against 4Kids, seeking $4.7 million in damages and claiming that 4Kids had held on to a bigger share of Yu-Gi-Oh! home-video revenues than it was entitled.
The dispute catapulted 4Kids into bankruptcy protection, in which the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic-stay provision shields 4Kids from the lawsuit. But it hasn’t taken long for the ill will between the two to bubble up in the case. The most recent spark? The 2011 Licensing International Expo, set to take place at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas from June 14 to June 16.
The “significant industry event” is attended annually by 4Kids, the company said. It’s gearing up to serve as an exhibitor again this year and is aiming to drum up buzz about the new TV series, known as Yu-Gi-Oh! “Zexal” (pronounced “zeal”).
Unfortunately, there’s another Zexal enthusiast on the guest list, too. TV Tokyo Corporation and Nihon Ad Systems Inc.—which are often referred to as Asatsu-DK Inc. or ADK— is also listed as an exhibitor for the event and will have a booth, according to 4Kids, “where it is expressly seeking licensees for television, home video, merchandising and other rights for its highly-anticipated new television series, Yu-Gi-Oh! ‘Zexal.’”
The double take is problematic because each side claims it’s in control of the Yu-Gi-Oh! rights.
“ADK is flouting the court’s jurisdiction and attempting to sell 4Kids’ rights out from under it,” 4Kids says.
But those rights actually belong to us now, ADK insists, because we terminated the licensing deal in March.
4Kids, for one, is hoping the court will break the standstill. It’s asking a bankruptcy judge to enforce the automatic stay to prevent ADK from exercising control over the rights, and it wants the issue decided ASAP. ADK is opposing the move and is also asking a judge to slow the timeframe for the brewing battle over the licensing deal.
“This is not the Wild West; there are important issues involved in the stay enforcement motion that the licensors need to raise and that this court should carefully consider,” TV Tokyo and Nihon Ad said in papers filed Sunday.
The court partially obliged on Monday, bumping a hearing on the automatic stay request to May 31 from an original date of May 25.
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/05/18/a-yu-gi-oh-battle-gets-real/?mod=WSJBlog