InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 203
Posts 13734
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 10/26/2008

Re: MrchntDeth post# 5340

Tuesday, 12/27/2011 9:21:58 AM

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:21:58 AM

Post# of 8307
mrcht, thank you for your thoughts and have a Happy New Year. Here is a post from steel on Y and thought he had an interesting perspective on DIMEQ. What are your thought on this?

This appeal centers upon the interpretation of § 101(16)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code. That provision states that "equity security" means "warrant or right, other than a right to convert, to purchase, sell, or subscribe to a share, security, or interest...." 11 U.S.C. § 101(16)(C) (2000). This appeal requires us to decide issues of apparent first impression in this circuit. 1 The primary issues to be determined are whether the proofs of claims of a group of equity holders that include shares of stock (with a redemption provision) and warrants (with a repurchase provision) are properly characterized as "equity securities" instead of "claims" under § 101(5) and whether these proofs of claims could also give rise to "claims" independent of the equity interests. The district court held that the proofs of claims of the equity holders were "equity securities" under § 101(16)(C), not "claims", that the documents that gave rise to them did not also contain independent "claims", and affirmed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the objection to these proofs of claims.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_su...

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.