InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 888
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/03/2006

Re: wall_street61 post# 2570

Monday, 08/05/2013 6:19:02 PM

Monday, August 05, 2013 6:19:02 PM

Post# of 2919
>>I think the better question is why did YOU sat there on the call and didn't ask anything of substance? You've got some experience.

First, I didn't find your questions to be substantive - I found them to be loaded rhetorical questions - as you've already stated they were meant to be. As Brazil can attest, EG was not one of the firms I suggested - so I was on the call first and foremost to gauge their competency, given my experiences in bk. As I stated just after the cc concluded here, I was impressed with what I heard. I was not looking for them to have answers to questions that aren't ripe yet - so I didn't ask those. If I had heard something that seemed amiss, I would have asked. Honestly, when I saw your questions come across, I knew you knew better.

>>Furthermore, why don't you show us ONE case where the UST has appointed an EC based on bad books and a market tested stalking horse that falls well short of covering liabilities?

The alleged 'market tested' stalking horse is not for all the assets - you know the Trustee is going to consider indications of value for what is in China & OK - as well as the fact that the US Trustee knows a stalking horse is just that - and given that it's a very meaningful number I think the stalking horse bodes in favor of an EC, as does the bad books because as you know there are two primary tests for an EC: 1) not HOPELESSLY insolvent and 2) a showing that mgmt cannot adequately represent the interests of equity - and bad books are huge plus on that front.

>>Why don't you come clean and tell everyone here that if the debtor wants to sell all their crap, an EC can't do a dang thing about it?

It's an uphill battle, but the EC can try. They often do - and they more often than not, yes they fail - but now always. We both know in these cases where the EC fights against a sale that the EC must bring financing to the table to take out the creditors if they are going to be successful. Of course, in the current case, do shareholders want to see the sale of the Chinese assets averted if that is the case here? That's the exact opposite of the sentiment I sense on this board - and you know that - so once again you are posing loaded questions just to ask them. For the record, I don't believe you have a secret ulterior agenda - I think you are just really jaded on bk right now and it's clouding your judgement. Was it Chemtura that did that? (Yes, I was on Trident EC)
Join InvestorsHub

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.