Let me save Shiz some time, since this is something you seem to continually bring up, though it has been answered quite well by several posters. You must be hard headed like me.
There simply was no "court structured lease agreement after Chap 11 in 1999." Anyone who says there is, is lying.
If there was a new lease, Mitchell wouldn't be fighting so hard to nullify the original lease. Essentially, the original lease was always in place during Chap 11, but of course PBLS being bankrupt, wasn't mining much and therefore not paying much in monthly royalties. When PBLS wanted to renew, Mitchell snuck in a "monthly minimum royalty" that PBLS has refused to pay since 2003. That's when the court case began. It was ugly. Katrina made Mitchell lick it's chops over the little bit of value in the pit they were giving away for basically nothing in royalties. It's gotten uglier, but thankfully the courts seem to be leaning in PBLS favor. So in conclusion, the original lease still holds but in limbo as the court makes up its mind if PBLS sub-lease to United (a company it partially owns) was in violation to the "no sub-lease" clause in the original lease.
Now as to Preferred Shares. There's little info out there on them anywhere, though they do seem to come in different series. Some pay dividends. Some convert to common. Most were sold at $10 a piece but not all.
Here's a better question: does "fully reporting" status require PBLS to release full details as to their share structure including Preferred, Restricted and not just Common?
Ren
IMO DYODD
"Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." C.S. Lewis
www.younglife.org
