InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,304.72
(
0.70%
)
US TECH 100
18,318.00
(
0.95%
)
Dow Jones
39,069.59
(
0.01%
)
Brent Oil
82.85
(
1.06%
)
Bitcoin
69,590.79
(
1.58%
)
Post# of 8307
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

goldcanyon341

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 8
Posts 143
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/15/2009

goldcanyon341

Re: None

Thursday, 02/10/2011 12:02:44 PM

Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:02:44 PM

Post# of 8307
Liquidation Analysis:
In the original 6th Plan dated 10/06/2010 the "General Unsecured Claims" provision of the Liquidation Analysis shows $375 million set aside. The modified 6th plan dated 2/08/2011 shows the same amount of $375 million. Between those two dates, the court ruled to set aside $337 million for the DIMEQ claim. Is it correct to assume the debtor continues to disregard the DIMEQ claim even though the court has ruled to reserve the $337 million?
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up