Only one matters and that is the one that maximizes value for the equity holders, which are the fulcrum holders, and the board of directors/management have a fiduciary duty to do that. That said, the only thing to consider is whether the EC's plan is feasible, as in can they carry the additional debt? As the judge told me directly to my face last year, nothing would make him happier than the equity holders getting a significant recovery. He had his chance today and you see what happened. 20 something meetings? lol
It's a fact of life that sometimes things don't turn out how they should, and in normal civil proceedings you can always appeal. I believe that can happen here in some form, but if the plan gets approved before the appeal happens, then all is moot and you're toast anyway.
In my opinion, i think the judge probably thought svp and canyon were getting a sweet deal, and overlooked the extra little bit the EC plan provided to existing shareholders. If svp and canyon offered a higher conversion price which resulted in existing equity receiving a substantially higher percentage of the newco, then this may have went the other way.
In summary, the judge threw us under the bus, i watched another hundred something K disappear and my a-- is out. Ive had all i can stand. Ive got better things to do than watch another Kmart.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
