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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pierre who wrote (21701)	2/1/2001 11:39:29 AM
From: Rocket Scientist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

I suppose it's possible Q could align itself with noteholders in a position adverse to what Loral would like to happen. Several things make it seem very unlikely to me. a. Loral is a major (if not majority) investor in SPs in several key markets: Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Russia, together accounting for 9 of the 26 deployed gateways. Q has no interests or rights in any of the deployed, commercially licensed GWs. b. Loral controls the geosynchronous fleet which is vital to IFN, and very useful in a number of other opportunities G* has or may have (remember the Mexican gas station deal was basically a bundled package of G* and GEO services) c. Loral controls LQSS, which owns the US FCC license. I can understand you or any investor being PO'd at BLS....and I'm certainly not rising to his personal defense. I think G* and Loral s/h would both be better off the sooner G* gets a new CEO. (One could argue Loral s/h would be better off if Loral got a new CEO, but that's a question for a different board) From BLS's published remarks its obvious he himself has acknowledged he lacks the skill to run a company marketing to end users. For that, and other reasons, new mgmt at G* seems imminent But Loral is not going to walk away from its investment in G, certainly not it's debtholdings, and other economic rights, in G* and I find it far more plausible that BLS and IJ will find common ground than that either of them will make a deal with some amorphous "unsecured creditors" committee at the expense of the other company.