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: pcstel who wrote (21758)	2/2/2001 11:29:11 AM
From: Rocket Scientist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Well, there are other ways into C.11 than via the "trustee" declaring default after being petitioned by 25% of the noteholders. In the Iridium BK case, three holders of just 4.7M$ worth of bonds made the filing. Here is Docket Item 1 from that case: ecf.nysb.uscourts.gov This is consistent with the remarks on the last cc that "any three b/h" could trigger a filing. But taking into account that L+Q (apparently) own more than 50% of the senior debt, it might be a short case. I certainly do believe that BLS and IJ have a lot more control of the situation than those selling G* at 50 cents a share realize, and I'm happy to be a buyer again at these levels.

To: pcstel who wrote (21758)	2/2/2001 11:29:14 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

pcstel: More to the point of all this 'stuff': If you assume BLS had his sht together back in the early formative days of G , and you assume that he is the "financial genius" many have labeled him - then would it not follow that he structured the entire arrangement for his (and Loral's) protection? I mean, HE WROTE THE RULES OF THE GAME. HE STACKED THE DECK IN HIS FAVOR! Jeff Vayda p.s. Sorry for yelling but used judiciously, it is effective - kinda like an explanation point.

To: pcstel who wrote (21758)	2/2/2001 12:36:55 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Pcstel, this is a good discussion you have started, but my read of the bond indenture is that the rights of the nolders of the Series A and B senior notes (these are the bonds, not be confused with other senior debt) to force bankruptcy is independent of the rights to force BK of other holders of senior debt. Pari passu relates to the equal priority of all senior debt holders in the distribution of assets in the event of BK. My take on the end game is a bit different. As you have identified, in terms of controlling the creditors committe, Q and LOR will call the shots, with the bondholders (Series A and B Senior Note holders) getting the same pro-rata share as Q and LOR do with respect to Q and LOR senior debt. To me this means that the likely scenario is that all the equity partners of GLP will be reduced to de minimus value. This means GSTRF equity, LOR equity, Q equity, and all the elephant turd SP's who invested in equity. The senior debt holders, Q, LOR, and the bondholders will accept some combination of equity and debt in the reorganization plan, or, if the system is sold, will pro-rata share in the proceeds. Again, as the drivers of the creditors committee, Q and LOR will have a great deal of power in getting the rest of the creditors to go along. Blackstone is trying to do pro-formas to show the future bankruptcy judge why GLP should be reorganized versus liquidated. All of course simply my considered opinion. The light bulb came on the day LOR bot the BoA loan to GLP. I've read the bond indentures also. <snooze>