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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (147011)	5/9/2002 2:45:46 AM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573824

Ted, re: "its a recourse clause and I suspect it was put in by an attorney" Well of course. But whose attorney? <g> Who is the direct beneficiary of the clause? (I was just being petty to say Dynergy didn't bury the clause...) re: convertible Yes, this was CPN. DYN's cash position seems like nothing given the business run rate. Presumably they also have some lines of credit? CPN had some debt (bonds, convertible?) that had a put feature this past April so they issued convertibles to cover this emerging obligation. The additional equity was to rebalance their debt:equity balance. Not a great time to sell stock when the shares are at book value. Plus CPN chose to cancel some turbine contracts which cost another $180M or so. Pretty tough business. At least the CA contract revisions were pretty good IMO. CA basically dropped some years off the end and got slightly lower rates. I guess this isn't OT here? <g> -PT