**The contrarian view would be that if the examiner 'states on 9/7 that there is evidence of an abundant amount of "hidden" assets to easily push A>L', then the preferreds are basically gaurunteed payment and could see an instant re-valuation, while the commons would remain questionable. You could see an exodus from commons to preferreds instead of the scenario you mention.
For commons to equal preferreds right now they need to see more than $8 pps
$23,000 into PQs gets you 766 shares, which is 766,000 if preferreds see face. They may also get divi's, which would increase the outcome.
That same $23,000 into commons would get you about 95,000 shares at todays close. Commons would need to see over $8 per share to be the better investment at this point.
$8 per share is 13.6 Billion dollars beyond the 3.5 Billion the preferreds would get paid first.
For the commons to be a better deal at this point, we need 17.1 Billion over liabilities. Or a settlement that gets us there.
If the price of commons continues to rise, and preferreds stay the same, the investment outcome will favor the preferreds. Say commons get to .30. That 23,000 now only buys you 76,000 shares, and you would need $10 per share to beat PQs.
I own both, my point is that without an absolute figure it is speculative to put a value on commons if examiner states A > L (unless he gives a number). However, PQ/KQ would be much less speculative would could cause a big run on those - beyond what commons have recently achieved.
Just food for thought, thats all. Again - not trying to start a commons vs. preferred debate, just trying to logically show a different way that scenario might be interpreted.
