Right. In bankruptcy law, it is a given. In the US.
This is CCCA in Canada and in this case particularly, CCCA offers really weird contradictions that under CCCA law means there are multiple ways things very possibly could be exceptions to that norm.
You are probably correct. Thing is, there are mechanisms to keep the shares alive or at least with some return and reasons for the new holding company to want to do it. A small investment with insane return potential is pretty hard to ignore. Among us "delusional dreamers," we might be 1000% totally wrong. We very well could be throwing our hard-earned money at a black hole. I find myself in the lunatic fringe. I have also never read so many documents so carefully.
I try to talk myself out of it daily and the documents keep pulling me back in. (I can't imagine having a huge stake in this.) I have also traded to the point where my cash investment is negligible like many of the remaining longs. While I appreciate so many trying to warn us we are driving towards a cliff, I really am kinda fascinated by everyone's commitment on the naysayer fringe. At this point, I would rather lose my remaining stake than to discover I ignored what my brain and gut together told me was worth the risk.
Maybe I am just sucked into the pumping machine that keeps this trading just a few days longer. But seriously, aren't you just a little bit worried that we may have grasped something you missed?
