Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Zenith - One and Only -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NRugg who wrote (6345)	10/6/1999 11:44:00 PM
From: Robert Utne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6570

Norman, Thanks for the recap. I also heard, on numerous occasions, from a broker at a major brokerage company, that Goldman Sachs was shorting Zenith in 1997 because they were tipped that Zenith was filing a prepackaged Chapter 11. I am aware, also, that one (if not two) of Zenith's directors have ties with Goldman Sachs. I believe that there is ample evidence of self dealing among Zenith's directors and LGE for the Delaware State Chancery Court to take appropriate actions in behalf of the entire community of Zenith.

To: NRugg who wrote (6345)	10/7/1999 2:26:00 AM
From: stilts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6570

My guess is that Pennsylvania Merchant Group was acting on behalf of LG. I have heard that under bankruptcy principles, the debt owed to a controlling shareholder, such as the debt owed by Zenith to LG, is equitably subordinated to other debt. In view of the suspicious nature in which the LG debt was incurred, the equitable subordination argument would likely be a slam dunk winner if made by the bondholders. Therefore, LG needed to control a substantial portion of the bonds to avoid the possibility of the bondholders arguing for such an equitable subordination, which would give them priority over LG in respect of foreclosing on the patents and other assets. On another, but related, issue, if any of the purported bondholders were simply "fronts" for LG, then perhaps their non-disclosure of that fact is a fraudulent concealment. (And also, they arguably wouldn't be "parties in interest" entitled to participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.) stilts