SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Ampex Corp.
AMPX 12.73+13.1%Nov 7 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: James Feldman4/20/2008 2:38:27 PM
   of 5839
 
As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtors [Ampex] filed a request to get an extension for immunity from lawsuits. Ampex claimed that “this relief is essential to the success of these cases, as the Debtors’ officers and directors are integral to the Debtors’ reorganization efforts and their day-to-day business operations. In sum, if current management were distracted from their central role in managing these estates during such a crucial time in the Debtors’ reorganization, it would have a detrimental impact on the Debtors’ estates and consequently all stakeholders.”

Ampex also said “the Debtors seek only to protect their reorganization efforts rather than inappropriately deprive any party of their litigation rights.”

On April 15, 2008 ValueVest objected to their motion, noting the following:

“However, D. Gordon Strickland, the Debtors’ Chief Executive Officer and President, Craig L. McKibben, the Debtor’s Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director, and Joel D. Talcott, the Debtors’ Vice President and Corporate Secretary apparently each only work on a part-time basis for the Debtors. See Debtor’s Form 10-K Report for Year Ended December 31, 2006 filed with Securities Exchange Commission at 25-26. Thus, the Debtors have not (and presumably cannot) establish their contention that “[p]rosecution of an action against the Debtors’ officers or directors during these cases. . . would undoubtedly distract the officers and directors in providing their essential services to the Debtors” (Stay Extension Motion at 18).

Conclusion from Judge Gonzalez:
For the reasons stated by the Court at a hearing held April 17, 2008, the Debtors’ Motion is denied, without prejudice.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext