InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 17023
Next 10
Followers 4
Posts 555
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/15/2004

Re: NukeJohn post# 6123

Tuesday, 11/15/2005 2:07:02 AM

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:07:02 AM

Post# of 17023
In a nutshell:

The licenses have value to the licensee, IFX, based on the ability to sell product without paying based on the volume of product produced. (That's the benefit; the burden is the payment obligation.)

The licenses also have value to the licensor, RMBS, based on the payments to be received. (That's the benefit; the burden is the foregone opportunity to get paid based on the volume of product produced by IFX.)

In a deal like this, RMBS wants protection, and they don't want the licenses they have granted to GAIN value (to IFX or a successor) due simply to the fortuity of the sale transaction occurring.

IFX wants to be sure that they or the successor entity realizes the full value of the licenses based on the original agreement. IFX doesn't want the licenses to LOSE value due simply to the fortuity of the sale transaction occurring.

From there it's all details, with nuances due to the relative bargaining positions when they negotiated in March.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent RMBS News