Replies to post #3636 on Windstream Holdings Inc. (fka WINMQ)

[rokkdatstock]

Since Vanguard didn't move the needle I'm guessing there's a story behind the "purchase". WINMQ was already BK..was it averaging down? Nothing about it makes sense. Desperation? When the 10K from last year was all the hyped rage...nothing happened beyond a momentary flash. Knowing that the Q1 will have the BK, the Delisting and the recent collapse of the share price I think we're in for a much lower price. Obviously it's just a guess but it's an informed one.

[linda1]

A Fraudulent Conveyance Action must be filed
by this Tues, March 26, 2019, according to this post
- dated March 20, 2019 - I found on Seeking Alpha:


“ Well, one more "uncertainty" that may help once
it is cleared is the March 26th deadline
(fourth anniversary of the Uniti spinoff from WIN)
for a fraudulent conveyance action.


While it may have no legal merit, such a filing would
be a major PR event in an already skittish market.
The fact that they didn't just suspend the dividend
and wait til year end to see what they have to pay
out to preserve REIT standing, arguably bespeaks
a feeble effort to project confidence. “


20 Mar 2019, 05:16 PM


If you have the time, can you check what the Statute
of Limitations is for Fraudulent Conveyance? I think
both UNITI and WIN’s headquarters are in Arkansas.

[linda1]

Arkansas’s Statute of Limitations is 4 years for
Fraudulent Conveyance - with an exception
that I don’t think applies here.


So if the spin off of UNITI is dated March 26, 2015
then the Bondholders will have to file their lawsuit
for fraudulent conveyance by Tues, March 26.


This would account for the talk about it so early in
the bankruptcy proceedings.


If an Action is filed against UNITI then this could
cause the WINMQ stock price to spike.


Arkansas Law on Fraudulent Tranfers:


“ (a) under § 4-59-204(a)(1) not later than
four (4) years after the transfer was
made or the obligation was incurred or, if later,
not later than one (1) year after the transfer or
obligation was or could reasonably have been
discovered by the claimant; “