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.
FWIW the motion hasn't been granted yet, that was simply a proposed order from the GTAT lawyers that was attached to the motion.
Thank you for taking the time to post this for us. I'm sure there are still more questions that people have, but this post makes a lot of things more clear.
I'm really, truly sorry to hear that. I hope that things turn around for you!
Quite a change of tune now that 10 months have passed!
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0HY16X20141009?irpc=932
I have no problem with Frank WiIliams being on the EC. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
ARE YOU KIDDING. Mike Willingham was an INVESTIGATOR in the Enron case, working for the UST.
Easy. Thanks to the magic of google, everything is pretty much a permanent record. (Sorry, I should have included these links in my original message):
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202726
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116232543
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116137522
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D116202481&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Finvestorshub.advfn.com%2Fboards%2Fread_msg.aspx%3Fmessage_id%3D114698494
Why don't you provide some context? Willingham's leaving the ANVGQ committee had to do with personality differences, not an inability to deliver.
Ha, so they've made it to the 90s at least .
Yes that makes sense. I'm in agreement.
What I was referring to though was the arguments for/against formation of an EC. "For" was that the institution may have undue influence if no EC is formed, and "against" was that the institution was able to adequately represent equity on the basis of its own access to legal support.
What I meant to say is that I feared if we left it up to Fidelity to take care of equity without an EC, an argument could be made that they have interests which are at odds with the rest of equity. Sorry for being unclear.
I encourage everyone to read this. It's a good read, thanks for sharing, Xena.
Of particular interest to me are the arguments regarding a single large shareholder. That's precisely what I fear with Fidelity, assuming they still have all those shares. They're also an unsecured creditor, so they may not have much to lose of equity is destroyed because what would have gone to the shareholders would be spread between the creditors.
Anotherone down has stated that he's trying to get a copy of it for us. Unfortunately the court system in NH is still in the stone age, and everything is done by telephone and snail mail. The standard wait time for a transcript is 30 days, with a rush request being 7 days.
Xena also said that she contacted the UST asking for it to be publicized, which was a good idea. I'm not sure if that avenue will work, but here's hoping!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116577915
For those who wish to support the Ad Hoc Shareholder Group's Equity Committee motion, the best thing to do at this time is to mail a statement of support to the court. It's up to you to decide whether you wish to do so or not. The next hearing on the Equity Committee is on September 17th, so if you do this make sure to get it there before then. Anotheronedown has made a document available which you can use, you just need to sign and date it, then mail it to the courthouse (address is in the document).
You can find the document here: GTAT Shareholder Support for Equity Committee Motion. Both files are the same thing, one is a printable pdf, the other one is a word document that you can edit if you wish to add anything to it.
If you don't have any stamps, selling 7 of your shares will give you enough money to buy one
I didn't think so either. What are you referring to? I have no memory of this.
I'm probably just forgetting because it was so long ago, but could you remind me where/when this happened? I don't remember Fidelity saying anything about an equity committee. I thought their only involvement was being on the unsecured creditors committee.
The information on that link is woefully outdated. The fidelity report is 8 months old. Do we have anything more up to date?
"Support amount of shares" doesn't refer to them getting free shares from the company, it refers to the total number of shares owned by those who have stated their support with the court.
The person you're speaking to is on the Ad Hoc committee. This is first hand knowledge, please don't pretend that it isn't.
That's great news, far better than I expected. When I saw the continuance I thought it must be a good sign, as the court was willing to continue listening.
EDIT: I see the posts that you're referring to now. I think Anotheronedown's position makes sense, and that was what i was talking about below.
I was under the impression that people were arguing for quick action on the Equity Committee front, not on the whole bankruptcy. Part of the feeling is that the creditors are the ones pushing for a speedy BK, and an EC is necessary so that equity has protection from them. I may be reading people wrong, however.
Do you know what the statement is more current than? It's more current than Tom Gutierez saying that they would continue to work for the value of shareholders. That was last year, the most recent statement we have from the company is that shareholders have no hope. It honestly doesn't matter what the context was, they said what they said. No amount of context can change that.
A) the fact that the document was "published" means very little. Anyone can file anything with the court, and it will be published. It appears to me that Richard filed that document on his own accord, and there's nothing anyone could have done to stop it.
B) we don't know what happened in court the day of the hearing, aside from the fact that the motion was rejected. For all we know this topic could have been discussed then.
They already have! (Legally speaking). In a LEGAL document, they state that there is "not a scintilla of hope" for shareholder survival given the current situation of the company. No matter how much we want to argue that this conclusion is only based on current financials and excludes future sales etc, the company has put in writing that they see no chance of equity surviving. It doesn't matter if there's a future chance, we can only go by the public information we have available to us—and that information says that the company is abandoning shareholders, by their own admission.
Pardon me, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
I agree with both your posts here. Waiting for some point in the future when things are just right for an equity committee is a pipe dream, IMO. By the time things are just right, the chance will have passed. Shareholders need to work with what they have, here and now, even if some may think it's not the ideal solution. The Ad Hoc committee is doing something. I really don't see that we have a better option. Just saying "Wait until the time is right, wait until it's the right people, wait, wait, wait", like we have been doing for months on this forum is likely to end up with a POR coming out without us included, and by then it will be at best very difficult, and at worst too late to do anything for our case.
Sure, maybe. Hindsight is 20:20, what's important is what's happening now. I personally am glad someone is doing something. We can argue all day on this forum, but in the end it will result in nothing.
I think his story holds up. I think that Richard filed that motion on his own without the permission of the others. The reason I think this is true is because back when Richard was soliciting support on the forum, I asked to be included in his updates so I could keep track of what was going on. Before he submitted that massive, ridiculous document (I think it was like 70 pages?), he sent out a copy of it asking for suggestions. I wrote back within a day with a lengthy list of my concerns, and then within a day or two I saw the thing was already posted on the court site with none of the concerns I had addressed fixed (Not even typos!).
I don't know why the group was associated with RG at all, but I think they were caught unawares by his nonsense, and were backed into a corner. On the one hand, if they objected to RG's motions they would have to discredit themselves, on the other hand, if they didn't object they would be saddled with everyone associating them with RG (which is what happened in the end). It was obviously not a good situation.
I agree, it's just troubling that they're using such strong language about the viability of equity. It's pretty hard to believe the claim that the company is concerned with equity preservation when they themselves are saying that the idea of preservation is "far-fetched."
Your comments like a reasonable summary to me.
As GTAT's filing said the other day: “Although the debtors are doing everything in their power to maximize returns to parties in interest, the idea that there will be any value for equity in these chapter 11 cases is at best, based on the debtors’ current financial condition, far-fetched.”
Either they're being truthful here, or they're being misleading; neither one is good for us commons. It's pretty hard to spin these comments in a positive light.
That sounds right. I'm still wondering though what kind of things a company would owe the SEC for. I thought they were just a regulatory body.
If there is question of the SEC looking into the trading activity of the GTAT board, I'm not sure how this would be related. In fact, I'm not sure I understand at all what this is about. What kind of debt could GTAT have to the SEC, which they could discharge of?
I'm guessing that whatever boules were made in Mesa belonged to Apple due to their contract terms...Correct me if I'm wrong.
I got excited for a second, I thought this had to do with furnace sales...
Thanks for posting this article, super interesting! This makes it even more clear why Apple was so interested in Sapphire for their long term plans.
Btw, I found the original article from the engineer's website on the Web Archive, it's exactly the same as the first link you posted though so nothing new: http://web.archive.org/web/20140407060707/http://www.techinsighter.com/blog/2014/2/24/sapphire-liquidmetal-the-ultimate-combination
So, Nathan Cottrell and Douglas Southard were on the Richard Gamingo Equity Committee push...I guess they're trying again without RG? I wonder how they got together with Willingham. Also, before I checked the names I was wondering if these guys were connected to the older Ad Hoc Shareholders group (Docket #331), but it appears not.
Here's the two lists of members:
Ad Hoc Group of "Certain Shareholders" (Docket #331)
New Ad Hoc Group (Docket #1557)
Hey J7GV, thanks for the charting an the commentary that you've been providing! It's great to have your technical perspective on the board. Even for those of us who are long term holds, it's good to have an idea also of what's going on day to day with GTATQ.
Weird...It's not from the court, so I'm guessing it's just a mistake?
Following GTAT is like watching paint dry, only we're betting money on whether the paint will actually dry or not. Sigh...At least there are court docs for us to follow.
Interesting analysis. Sounds like a pretty credible theory to me.