I think im starting to understand the disconnect here.
IF I have this right, its your belief that any company that has engaged in a toxic financing, by definition, is doomed either by the hand of the toxic instrument or otherwise, eventually. Meaning if a company is involved in toxic junk, thats a marker for sure failure one way or another...
The point I was making was surviving the specific event of the toxic paper. Like the 2 companies which were able to buy the toxic out and have another shot at more traditional funding. Making no distinction for what the future held for them.
If the above is accurate, then maybe we were looking at the same problem from different perspectives
