So, this is a great example of taking a bunch of crappy, debunked snippets and mashing them together in hopes that cumulatively there is something meaningful, but, in this case all that results is one mega-crappy, debunked nothing argument.
So I'm curious and have a few questions.
1. If all the A/R was collected how would someone be the collector of the A/R? shouldn't it be zero if the FACE VALUE of $14M dollars was collected?
Obviously this was proposed before the A/R was collected. It wasn't accepted by the way. So this reference in a "document" is not even operative. Thats right, what you are pasting does not apply to what happened here.
2. "This would not only allow the creditors to move on," referring to the quote above about it would no pay off the creditors, the document says the complete opposite or is it photo-shopped? Not to mention it would also assist in establishing a profitable model going forward. Does that implying that there is extra money after creditors?
Unlike the Monitor's reports where it is 100% clear with no room for interpretation that there was insufficient proceeds from the sale to repay creditors, this is a bid excerpt where they are referencing that creditors could "move on", i.e., not have to oversee the collection process.
3. How about the inventory and how it will be sold at increased values in a non distress sale scenario. Does that mean more than enough money for creditors?
I referenced this yesterday. A company taking over the assets would have ostensibly more clout to collect. Why? Because the company being liquidated was known to be being liquidated, and so someone owing the company money could either attempt to negotiate down what they owe, or simply not pay under no threat of pursuit by the bankrupt company. Saying this could mean more than enough creditors is not supported by anything and, again, is directly refuted by the reports, the Monitor, the judge, and of course, the buyer itself.
4. If you were purchasing assets of a company wouldn't you be the future operating company? I never knew documents talked in third person. So who will we be settling the A/R that hasn't been collected?
Yes, the company bidding to buy the assets would be the future operating company. At least thats what they were proposing in this section, which was not accepted, and does not actually apply.
Is far from the truth if you read the supporting documents.
I think only Monitor reports should be used as "supporting documents". Using bid sections that were not accepted and alleged conversations that were never memorialized is not a good look here.
P.S. Why do you think creditors did not complain about receiving less the the scrap value of the plant, 1/11th of the distressed liquidation price, and refused for a shareholder to pay out of their own pocket to try and get creditors more money?
Because they were 100% comfortable that they got as much as the market would bear.
