Just so you know, as you may have worked with them.

Halvor was allegedly let go recently.

Jodie M allegedly "left" too.

Sad days....

Another CEO bites the dust!

I do not blame him, not the happy place it used to be.

And not looking good for their vendor relations either. The litigation trust has filed over 200 avoidance transfer type filings.

Makes me wonder if more companies like MKS will refuse to do business with them.

Such a shame.

LUCKY DAY!

Boroff made a funny!

I love it.

https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916151119000000000007

You nailed it with that post!

I agree completely.

But I must say I am really impressed with how close GT came to actually pulling it off.

Mesa is a work of art considering where it started, how fast it was "built," and what it was actually achieving before the plug was pulled.

I will never understand why Apple let that all go. My best guess is they just realized, along with GT that it could not be done at the price point needed. Perhaps we will see if it can be done "somewhere else" in a different environment.

That being said, GT is quite a bit smaller of course, but they have kept their bread and butter roots, so far, sans Merlin and they continue to be very well respected in the solar/PV/silicon/Polysilicon world. And you never know when they may put out their new best "thing" out there for that industry to marvel at.

GT is down, way down, but not dead....

Good night my fellow insomniac.

I completely agree with you.

I think TG was still selling his dog and pony show to everyone up until his departure. All flash and bang but little substance in the end. When he finally ran out of pixie dust, eyes were opened and he was shown the door, IMO.

My guess is GT is selling everything just in an effort to save what once was GT Solar, their roots as they have said.

That makes the creditors happy as they want to get paid any way they can, although I do not think they would too happy with stocks versus cash, but in the end will take what they can get.

I thinks Apple is like one of those landlords that is willing to take a loss just to have their building back and in their control again.

The thorn here is the bond holders who are like "wait a minute, this is not the deal we signed up for, where is ours?!?!" Which is one possible reason why we have no DIP amendment at the moment. Blink blink.

And we are in the dark. Frustrating....

Would love an update on that cash infusion they were bantering about in the last POR extension request......

Did the deal with Waaree fade away or are you speculating?

It could still be in the works and Merlin is being sold with all existing contracts, accounts receivable and debts payable just like the Thermal Tech deal.

But of course, like you said, we are certainly in the dark on this and most other details.

I agree with you.

GT is only asking for the auctions procedures to be approved. How can they perform an auction without the Mesa a Settlement being approved as well? As that would be in violation of the Apple Settlement and GT would owe Apple the Apple repayment above what the ASFs sell for which appears to be an opening price of $125,000 each.

And how can they perform an auction without amendments to the DIP? If they sell the ASFs for less than is allowed in the DIP they will be in default......

And it appears they have a few kinks to work out with Aplple, like you said.

And as Larry said, there are the issues that the Creditors Comittee brought up here.

https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916151118000000000023

This could be unraveling before our eyes.

Or we could be close to a deal.

Hmmmmm

So is it me or did anyone else notice that the Court will not be ruling on the Settlement Agreement with Apple tomorrow?

From what I read, the DIP lenders are still not on board yet and negotiations with them are ongoing. Therefore GT is setting aside the Settlement Agreement at the moment and only asking for a ruling on the Auction Procedures.

https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916151118000000000014

My guess is someone will have to blink and then we will get an emergency exparte motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement?

Anyone else notice this?

And the agenda item 4. "status" seems to point to this as well.....

https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916151118000000000015

A small tidbit.

They expressly did not allow any stalking horse bidders at all the other auctions of their property.

They are expressly allowing stalking horse...cough Lens cough...bids at this auction.

Interesting.....

Good post, I agree with most of what you said.

Although I believe they have spent $7.5 million so far on crating and project to spend $17 million to finish the job.

The crating did stop on Oct. 30.

Also, any ASF left behind must be scrapped at Apple's expense and any profit after that expense is to be split 50/50 with GT.

Small details.

The big one you nailed is that the $439 million claim is dropped. That is better for everyone on the priority ladder, even if the debt was secured by the ASFs. The liability gets dropped too.

I am just not sure how or if it will effect shareholders. I doubt the sale of these furnaces will benefit the shareholders at all. They will simply not sell for enough to benefit the estate, therefore no benefit the shareholders.

Losing that debt is huge, IMO. Essentially, GT walks away from this mess and is left to sort out things with the creditors, bond holders and shareholders. Yes, the potential profit from ASF sales is lost as well, but if they have no customers then there was no profit to be had. And there is no longer the risk of breach of lease, crate and storage costs, and potential default on the DIP, which I realize still has wrinkles to iron out.

After Dec 31, Apple does get anything left behind for free, but they must scrap the ASFs. What a shame, they were truly amazing to behold.

Now, as you say it is about to get interesting. Who buys them will be telling. I cannot wait to watch and see.

Oh RG, cough cough, Terran Falloh, cough cough, DaleCorp is definitely still in orbit.

What I found most amusing was his bashing of the Ad Hoc lawyers, considering the bashing he took on his own EC attempt.

What I found most interesting on that list of callers was who was missing from it.

I believe none of the Ad Hoc Comittee members were present in the Courtroom. And, I do not see any of their names on the call in list.

I find it odd after all their claims of fighting so hard on our behalf, the thousands of hours of time they poured in, etc, that they could not find the time to attend their own hearing?

If I am incorrect, fine.

But if I am correct, I can think of no reasonable explanation why they would not attend their own hearing? Sure, their lawyers are their mouthpiece in court, but the lawyers are representing the Ad hoc and despite what others have said here, the client is the boss not the lawyer, he only represents the client's wishes.

So, with all that was SAID here by the Ad hoc members compared to all the ACTIONS or lack there of by the Ad hoc members, I see a disconnect.

Or is it possible the Ad Hoc members did not need to attend because they got exactly what they wanted ? Acces to GT, it's records, it's current condition, it's plan moving forward?

Just my thought for the day.....

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

Yeah everyone, this dude is RG.

Need proof?

I may be able to show it but have to get permissions first, but it did seem obvious to me when I saw it.

Of course, I could always be wrong.

As much as I hate to say it, I think they did not object because they had no argument to object with.

I hate to see Hyperion go.

But if GT has no customers, and it costs $300,000 per month to keep, they simply can no longer afford to keep it.

Did they market it well enough, I do not know. But GT is over a barrel in this one, IMO and Smick and Co. Is taking advantage of a prime opportunity.

However, being that this equipment has gone on fire sale twice now, it could happen again. Smick (sp?) may be biting off more than he and his financial backer can chew.

Time will tell.

Bummer of a loss.

Bingo!

Excellent point that should be looked into, IMO

Not to be a party pooper, but in reading the Judge's comments I do not see this motion as a slam dunk.

What I read is is that the Judge once and for all wants to rule on a "cogently" submitted motion for an EC. No more no less.

He wants that argument to be based on real discovery provided by GTAT at the request of the EC Ad Hoc counsel.

He he seems to have indicated he wants argument on one simple fact....is GT hopelessly insolvently or not?

He seems to have indicated all other burdens have been successfully argued.

Can the Ad Hoc counsel make a successful argument that GTAT is not hopelessly insolvent?

I do not know the answer to that question, but it guess we will all find out after the hearing.

Does anyone else find it odd that the Ad Hoc EC counsel does not appear to have submitted its discovery it plans to use at the hearing? My understanding is the deadline was today? Maybe a delay on the KCC website?

Cheers

Anyone ever heard of a "Bullish Hammer?"

This article's author seems to know...

http://www.journaltranscript.com/2015/10/what-is-going-on-with-gt-advanced-technologies-inc-otcmktsgtatq/

Just something I ran across this morning and thought I would share.

Not sure I agree with some of the opinion there......

Bingo!

You nailed the problem in my opinion.

It was not that GT did not have the tech or ability to produce. Their biggest enemy was time.

As you say scaling up a process is not linear, or anyone could do it.

And on top of it they were trying to assemble a 2100+ furnace and processing factory in a building not owned by them being altered by contractors that were not retained by them, using fabrication equipment not ordered by them and having interference by managers not employed by them, all in 12 months.

The amazing thing was how close they actually came to pulling it off despite all those obstacles.

In hindsight, TG may have not had enough engineers and scientists "in the tent" when he pulled the trigger on this one, but to his credit they did get farther more quickly than anything I have ever seen. My hat is off to them for that.

Now THAT was real!

Awesome post!

All I need now is a great "photo" finish.

Thanks.

Bunny, I love your posts and accompanying photos especially.

However, where did you come up with the PPS nearing $1.00 and the Ad Hoc whoa! IP eval?

My guess is that it is forward thinking and speculating and if correct, yippie!!!

If there is a source though, please share?

Respectfully trying to keep it real.

Here is a fresh article on where we stand. No new news, but a nice read.

http://optics.org/news/6/8/38

The content of the filing from the Ad hoc Equity Committee is "key" and it shows GT is not playing an "open hand" with the shareholders.

The content

The question about GT SPE owning the furnaces and not showing it on the balance sheet is interesting. But IMO, that is about it for me.

The filing suggests that the costs are artificially high because they are being provided by non GT SPE staff. First of all, I do not believe GT SPE has any employees and even if it did, it is likely GT SPE does not have licensed contractors, riggers and craters and the necessary moving equipmen as GT and their customers routinely contract that out in the purchase process of equipment.

The filing also suggests that 40 hours to disconnect, disassemble, crate and move an ASF system is excessive and questions the skill of the labor needed to do this. I would speculate that the Ad Hoc Equity Comittee representing shares of GTATQ does not have any technical advisors? The filing is correct, this whole process involves much more than "turning off a switch." These systems much be disconnected by a licensed contractor. They must be very carefully disassembled, including the crucible system components, mezzanine, exterior pumps, valves, exchangers, etc and then crated for protection and shipping into multiple crates, that are custom built and moved using large equipment.

Then there are concepts called "overhead" and "profit" which must be factored into the budget submitted by GTAT. Just the liability and workers comp insurance insurance alone for these subcontractors must be sky high. So yes, labor + overhead can seem like a ridiculous amount, but a reality when quoting for a bid. I am sure GT took several bids from companies that could handle a job of this size and accepted the one that made the most sense. And yes, the company doing the job folds profit into it as is appropriate, otherwise why would they be in business.

IMO, most of the content, filed late, shows a lack of understanding and expertise in the filing. Next time I would think the Ad Hoc Equity Comittee should reach out for that understanding and expertise and really pay attention filling dates which might result in the filining having more legal impact.

In my opinion 9k per furnace would be a steal.

That cost includes disconnecting, disassembling, crating and moving. And yes, in crating, they would be "ship ready" for buyers.

As a reference, you can review what they charged in the auctions per item to just disconnect and move to the loading dock. For example, the "recycle room" which was 3 large machines and assessories and they charged $45,000, (If memory serves) just for that, and that price did not include crating, which can be very costly.

Somewhere in memory, I also believe their target price was $11,000 per furnace? It may have been one of the targets tied to the KEIP KERP? So, they actually may be coming in under budget, however I have not verified that at this point.

And for the record, if a filing is not timely filed, the Court will often not read it. They often strained just to complete the necessary reading and research on matters that are timely filed and do not want to burden themselves with reading that which is not timely filed. However, Boroff may have read it, ya never know?

And yes, parties often make filings "for a purpose" even late. For example, in anticipation of appeal down the road. However, IMO, this one was just filed late, and the purpose was pointed out in the filing.

Thank you for your response.

Consider it done.

Thank you for the response.

My understanding is setting up a board is relatively easy. I would respectfully request that you set up one now! Once complete I believe we are all smart enough to figure out how to access it. Enough said.

This board should remain a perfectly appropriate place to discuss GTATQ as a stock investment and company and a place to share ideas with free and paid public access.

In terms of a monthly budget, I understand it would be watched by the Court and the UST, as is the case with the other committees and GTAT. But does the Ad hoc have a ball park figure or range in mind to start with should your motion be approved?

Thanks

OK,

Step 1, become official.

Step 2, get information.

Step 3, figure out what to do with that information.

Got it.

How will you make yourselves accessible to us? This place is a start, but I am sure something more official and related solely to equity preservation and not phone based would be most appropriate. What do you think?

What is your current estimated budget? Ie: What is the estimated monthly estimated cost to the estate?

Thanks

I really want to understand your post, but am having difficulty.

What is "work shoot?"

How does one "namely" hinder anyone and what does that mean? Were you saying if we ask the Judge if he needs the money RG was offering, he would have given us a straight answer?

How does one get "on" OCD? Not sure what you mean?

What would you define as the "appropriate focus" of the semi professional work you would prefer?

What do you mean by "neat investigators?"


And the names, tombstones, bizarro land and creativity, I have no idea what you mean.

Thanks

OK, RG aside,

What is your plan?

Respectfully, I really want to "read" it, not hear it on a phone.

Your filing wants in on GT's plan.

Well, I for one want the same courtesy from you.

Thanks.

Perhaps questions about RG gate have been answered or not....

But, I sent the quote below directly to one of your Ad hoc members, who happens to be a retired judge and received no response.

Would you be willing to address question 2-5, I realize you already answered question 1 in terms of yourself?

Quote:

I for one would like to respond to you.

Firstly, I will not attack you, but I would suggest that if you are trying to garner my understanding and support name calling and disparaging remarks is not the best tactic to take.

That being said I would prefer to have a civil discussion and ask and answer questions as appropriate. As this relates specifically to GTAT and all it's shares.

1. If the Court grants your motion and the UST forms and official Equity Comittee is it your intention to volunteer on that Comittee and represent all shareholders including the ones on this message board?

2. How much monthly cost to the estate do you anticipate for the Equity Comittee?

3. Are you approaching this "institutional" shareholder to be on the Equity Comittee and if so will that person or entity make themselves available to the common shareholder?

4. Besides forming a team, retaining counsel, soliciting and institutional shareholder and filing motions, what other actions does your Ad hoc Comittee intend on taking on behalf of shareholders of GTAT?

5. And most important, IMO what is the plan? I hear over and over do something, support us or be paranoid. But, I cannot blindly support something of which I know very little. I believe I speak for many folks here that although we hear there is a need of and EC and now, before the POR, I have not heard what the EC plans on doing, what the overall plan is, except for to preserve the shareholders. How?

And for the record, although I have not hired contingency counsel, nor filed with the Court, I too have spent hundreds to possibly thousands of hours on GTAT and this case. I want GTAT to be 100% successful all the way down to the bottom rung of the priority ladder.

What this company attempted to do was truly amazing, I speak from direct experience. They are also diversified in more than just sapphire, which has been discussed here often and they themselves stated they are focusing on R&D as a good portion of their business plan going forward.

GTAT is top notch in their field and I believe we should all do our best to help this company thrive, because in the end if GTAT does, we all win.

Quote

"What incentive does the current management have to save equity? I am very interested in knowing the thoughts of the board. "

I believe management wants the very best outcome for GTAT possible. And IMO, what does that look like?

ALL GTAT's debts get paid and GTAT is profitable. GTAT gets out of CH 11 and continues forward managing their business as they did in the past.

I can see no reason or incentive as to why GTAT would not want the above scenario, can you?

I am very interested in knowing your specific thoughts as to why GTAT would have any incentive in having winners and losers in this BK versus having incentive in all winners and no losers?

I for one would like to respond to you.

Firstly, I will not attack you, but I would suggest that if you are trying to garner my understanding and support name calling and disparaging remarks is not the best tactic to take.

That being said I would prefer to have a civil discussion and ask and answer questions as appropriate. As this relates specifically to GTAT and all it's shares.

1. If the Court grants your motion and the UST forms and official Equity Comittee is it your intention to volunteer on that Comittee and represent all shareholders including the ones on this message board?

2. How much monthly cost to the estate do you anticipate for the Equity Comittee?

3. Are you approaching this "institutional" shareholder to be on the Equity Comittee and if so will that person or entity make themselves available to the common shareholder?

4. Besides forming a team, retaining counsel, soliciting and institutional shareholder and filing motions, what other actions does your Ad hoc Comittee intend on taking on behalf of shareholders of GTAT?

5. And most important, IMO what is the plan? I hear over and over do something, support us or be paranoid. But, I cannot blindly support something of which I know very little. I believe I speak for many folks here that although we hear there is a need of and EC and now, before the POR, I have not heard what the EC plans on doing, what the overall plan is, except for to preserve the shareholders. How?

And for the record, although I have not hired contingency counsel, nor filed with the Court, I too have spent hundreds to possibly thousands of hours on GTAT and this case. I want GTAT to be 100% successful all the way down to the bottom rung of the priority ladder.

What this company attempted to do was truly amazing, I speak from direct experience. They are also diversified in more than just sapphire, which has been discussed here often and they themselves stated they are focusing on R&D as a good portion of their business plan going forward.

GTAT is top notch in their field and I believe we should all do our best to help this company thrive, because in the end if GTAT does, we all win.

Quote
"-If someone has become more of a bondholder than a shareholder then they they will profit more by having shares wiped out!"

Actually, I disagree with you on this. A bond holder, even if he has more bonds than shares would not profit "more" if shareholders are wiped out. He would profit more if shareholders were made whole, as he would get his bond investment AND his share investment.

Money is money whether it comes from bonds or shares.

So, I continue to believe if someone is writing a letter to the UST or the Court in reference to their share equity, how many bonds they hold remains irrelevant. For that matter, how many shares they hold is irrelevant as well. If they own one share, they are a share holder, plain and simple.

What I think you might be trying to get at is bond holders trying to get "theirs" and not wanting anyone "below" them on the priority ladder getting in the way, for example an Equity Comittee. Point taken, and the same can be said of the Creditors trying to get "theirs" and not wanting those pesky bond holders "below" them getting in the way....and on and on and on up the ladder. I get it.

But do you really think a common shareholder writing a letter to the UST or the Court, who may also happen to own a small or large amount of common bonds is in that insty league and has that kind of influence? I seriously doubt it.

So, beyond owing one common share of GTATQ, what a private investor owns is irrelevant IMO and most likely irrelevant to the UST and the Court.

What is the point of how many GTATQ shares or GTAT bonds someone has? Isn't everyone of them worth the same as everyone else's at any given moment? What it was worth when you bought it is irrelevant, because it is only worth what it is worth during the trading day. If you own one GTATQ stock, you are a GTATQ shareholder. If you own one GTAT bond, you are a GTAT bond holder. Right?

And if someone is a GTAT bond holder and a GTATQ shareholder and is writing as a GTATQ shareholder, of what relevance is it that they are a GTAT bond holder? And vise versa if they are writing as a GTAT bond holder?

If you go down you suggest path, why stop there? Why not disclose your whole portfolio, even beyond stocks and bonds? At what point do you stop?

I choose to disclose here that I am long on GTATQ. The rest of my portfolio is my business alone and what I choose to disclose is my decision.

I think anyone writing any letters SHOULD make their OWN decision as to what they want to disclose.

I can appreciate that you are willing to take the heat of this board and on some level I hope you understand you may have earned it by joining with the antics of RG. He did not just file for an EC motion, if that had been the limit of it, perhaps our ire towards you may not be at its present level. But alas, he did quite a bit more, in all your names and the rest of you were silent about it until recently when you again, more directly, sans RG want our support.

So, keep taking the heat if you do not mind, and I would strongly suggest that you convince your fellow ad hoc members to come on this board and do the same. I mean really, how does it speak of them that you are here doing this alone. Where is your "team" and how are they backing you up?

I for one want to hear from them too. If they want my support, they like you should directly ask for it. They like you should be open to questions.

If they want unity, they should show it themselves.

Thoughts?

I appreciate your willingness to step aside and do what is best on behalf of the shareholders.

Do your co- ad hoc members share the same sentiment? Will they step aside for the best qualified to represent us if your motion is successful?

If you do not know the answer, are you willing to find out from them and inform us here?

Please do not take offense when I say I would prefer the best representing us and I am not sure if you and your co ad hoc members are the best folks for the job. I base this on all the filings, words and actions to date from you and this group.

To be fair, I would not fall into the "best" category either.

I have followed you and this is the most sensible and honest thing you have said here, IMO and I thank you.

Three good attributes about David Keck that stand out immediately....

1. He knows the Asian market well.

2. He knows sales inside and out.

3. He has expertise in solar, GT's strongest legacy business lines that will be going forward.

He is the best choice from the "inside" to replace TG, IMO

I believe he was involved with GT's sapphire crystals that can be used in lasers.

Here:

http://www.gtat.com/products-and-services-sapphire-material-catalog-TiSapphire.htm

My best guess anyway....

I agree 100%.

If we have the 220k boule, this guy would certainly know.

The last sentence refers to the Figure of Merit, which is a measurement of effectiveness or efficiency of a design or process. I believe he is essentially saying he improved the growth process of Sapphire by a factor of 3.

Would love to know what he thinks about using a single crystal material versus a glass material with a thin film coating in terms of overall cover screen performance. Apples to Oranges, IMO please excuse the pun.

GT sure has quite a few smart folks walking the halls.

Can we all say H Y P E R I O N.

Sounds like we could have a customer for Hyperion after all.

This is in reference to this article you posted.

http://www.bidnessetc.com/49034-apple-inc-continues-iphone-sapphire-display-efforts-despite-gtat-bankruptcy/

In my opinion, Apple is not necessarily "on a different track" as use of Hyperion or an ion cannon like system in slicing sapphire laminates was always in the works with Apple and GT. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

If I remember correctly there was a somewhat recent disclosure by GT that they may have a potential customer for Hyperion in the second half of 2015, although I do believe it was for medical applications of Hyperion.

Hmmmmmm........

Thanks for the post anyway.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I believe you are just wrong on this one.

Rubicon was paid by the government to develop a sapphire window of a certain size for military applications through the SBIR process. Part of that process includes having something they call a Commercialization Plan where they propose how this military application can be used in the public sector. Rubicon indicates it can be used in the commercial airline industry. They also require that you showcase your technology in a government set up "showcase" so the government can show off what it's money has funded to create and hopefully help make some commercial connections for the tech.

https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/396757

Now the problem here is Rubicon seemed to fail in making the glass .08 inches thick as they proposed in their SBIR, they got to two inches thick. Still impressive of course, but might not meet the spec the Air Force wanted. (Sound familiar....darn customer specs...

Also, I was wrong in my guess of a 1 million grant, turns out Rubicon received over 5 million in Federal grant money to conduct its research and produce the end product.

Now to your business points.

First, GT is no longer in the sapphire manufacturing business, so no comparison between companies needed here.

Second, GT has tech that will make windows like Rubicon, different sizes of course, but this is such a small niche market. Only aerospace, military and possibly some aviation use this as it is soooooooo expensive to produce.

Third, Rubicon grows and fabricates sapphire, GT sells sapphire growth equipment. Two different animals.

And Last, I believe you commented on GTs furnaces somehow being out of date because they were a year old. Furnaces are not computers, smart phones, gaming systems or the like that are "old" after a year. These systems are built to last years and be adaptable to upgrades for years. A year old furnace is practically considered brand new in terms of useful life.

Again, what Rubicon did with the window is cool, and SBIRs are how we as a society get many of the cool tech we have today, but this innovation in no way impacts GT and this case, IMO