Replies to post #32823 on Sears Holdings Corp. (fka SHLDQ)

[justthefactsmam]

i didn't say otc stocks were worthless.

that's the problem with people who don't bother to read what's posted, it is they who twist the words.

chemist ask if i still thought shldq would continue to trade if old sears were liquidated.

i believe my answer was that so long as old sears was in existence its stock would probably continue to trade.

i then added if judge drain were to declare old sears to be administratively insolvent that old sears would be left to fight things out without the protection of bankruptcy court and the stock might be declared (by old sears) to be declared worthless in a way which would remove any ambiguity as to what worthless meant.

so, read what i wrote instead of twisting what i said.

i believe i have been very clear and transparent about my feeling as to what is going to happen with shldq. that doesn't mean i have an agenda or that i am short the stock. i'm just expressing my opinion and in most instances i have backed my opinions up with direct citations to posted documents which have been filed in this case.

when the documents say that old sears must be liquidated within three taxable years after the closing date, that is not an opinion. it is a fact. if you or others choose to ignore facts such as these, that is your option. however, don't suggest it is i who am twisting facts.

the documents say when transform holdco purchased substantially all of the go-forward assets of old sears in a such a manner as to be considered a tax reorganization, that is a fact.

then the order stated that transform holdco purchased substantially all of the go-forward assets free and clear of liens and debt, that is a fact.

all of the baggage was left behind with old sears and it is a problem with which old sears has to deal, not lampert.