maybe you should read judge drain's ruling because that is exactly what he did. when transform holdco's bid was approved by judge drain, it was free and clear of any liens or encumbrances. additionally as the filings show, lampert also has no liability for the two sears' pension funds because those were assumed by the pbgc.
as to the creditors, their remedy for reimbursement is through liquidating the remaining assets shc has which were not sold to transform holdco.
first in line will be the administrative costs because lawyers always find a way to be paid first.
between the first and second in line would be any super priority creditors. i believe the only super priority creditors are lampert and/or his controlled entities. isn't that surprising?
second line line would be the secured creditors who most likely will not be able to receive a 100% recovery on what they are owed.
third inline would be any unsecured creditors to the extent there is anything left over after paying the secured creditors or if there is some agreed apportionment between secured and unsecured creditors dividing what is left of the pie.
and last in line would be stockholders. regardless of any outrage expressed or felt, don't see there much of anything left for them and transform holdco has no obligation for any of the above unless specifically spelled out in the asset purchase agreement as amended.
it's important to remember here that in bankruptcy creditors can be considered as stockholders. therefore, any nol requirement which might require consideration of stockholders can be met by only including creditors. i believe that point is being lost by most.
as to feeling sorry or expressing outrage over the fact lampert lost a lot and may lose everything associated with his investment in sears stock, good luck mustering support for that.
as to sorrow for institutional investors, if they were worth their salt at all they could see this coming from a mile away and it would also be hard to muster support for them as well.
to the extent sears employees had sears stock as part of the sears pension investments and lost almost 100% of that value, not to worry. the pension benefit guarantee co. is guaranteeing 100% of pensions up to $65k per year.
i would imagine anybody scheduled to receive or anybody who is actually receiving over $65k is some type of management and one could argue they were in control when this train was being run off the tracks. so, for the majority of people, it would be hard to muster a lot of sorrow for anybody with a guaranteed $65k annual pension.
to the extent any retail investors purchased and held sears stock prior to sears' bankruptcy filing, that one might engender some general outrage and sorrow.
and lastly, anybody who bought sears stock after it filed for bankruptcy was throwing the dice and taking a chance. can't imagine any judge would have any sympathy for this group.
emotional arguments are just that, emotional. facts will control here and once they all get exposed to the sunlight we will all know how this will shake out. in the meantime, if anybody wants to play in this playground, trying to uncover and understand the facts which are already out there and then maybe even trying to connect the dots would be part of good due diligence.
raw opinion is not due diligence. i have tried to follow the documents and make an informed decision based on what i have read as i have understood that.
for me that led to my decision to sell my stock in shldq (which i purchased post bankruptcy) while still keeping an eye on things in the event my conclusion was incorrect.
the fact anybody doesn't like by conclusion doesn't mean i have some "agenda". but i do wonder about some of the agendas out there which don't appear to be based on any facts as they relate to this case.
i acknowledge i may have reached a conclusion based on incomplete facts (simply because all of the facts of this case have not been made publicly available), but the facts i have seen are what has led to my conclusion.
as the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, however you are not entitled to your own set of facts. there are no alternate facts.
