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.
Non-Tech : Derivatives: Darth Vader's Revenge -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1032)12/2/2001 1:49:53 PM
From: Ahda  Respond to of 2794
 
I hope so. Every one is going to dodge this as to non clear law, to me it was a clear lack of complete audit.



To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1032)12/4/2001 2:21:39 PM
From: crh02  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2794
 
Just a side query. Several years ago when I was active in the corporate restructuring game it was uncertain if, in Chapter 11 proceedings, futures contracts might be deemed executory contracts should the creditor so move. This type of situation could have allowed the creditor to cherry-pick the profitable contracts while eschewing the losers.

Is the current BK law clear in this point?



To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1032)12/4/2001 5:06:44 PM
From: Paul Berliner  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2794
 
Hi Henry. Hope all is well. I just wanted to add my two cents that I think Dynegy purposely f-cked Enron huge. They never had any intent of acquiring Enron. They feigned acquisition interest to get a look at the trading books, then went the other way on all of Enron's positions and made a bad situation for Enron even worse. That's what I think pushed Enron, the sixth largest company in the world in terms of annual sales, into the abyss. While Dynegy's actions are despicable, considering how many people Enron employs and Dynegy's full knowledge of the repercussions of its actions, business is still business and what Dynegy did is probably perfectly legal.