I would like to throw something out for thought:
The whole issue of concern, as I understand it with respect to equity for shareholders has arisen from a comment made by Chemtura's attorney. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't he work for Rogerson?
Rogerson said publicly that they were working and confident that they could protect the interests of of all stakeholders, and shareholders are stakeholders. Now his credibility is somewhat damaged by the words of his own lawyer who in fact should also have some accountability for our interests IMHO. Shareholders are in fact who Rogerson and the BOD work for right?
It's probably a good idea for the full court press for the EC to counterbalance all the games and jockeying of the creditors with valuations etc..., ESPECIALLY if there ends up being a debt for equity swap, and it was done for other cases like PGPDQ ect, BUT....
Should we not also express our displeasure with this attorney's remarks and with how things are going with valuations and legal expenses to Rogerson and the BOD, especially in light of the recently approved bonuses for Key Employees. If they give away our equity in all the jockeying and don't protect our interests, I'm afraid they are just not that Key to me. What do you guys think of that?
