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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : ATPG Shareholders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: billgatesisevil who wrote (154)8/29/2012 3:51:54 PM
From: billgatesisevil  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3620
 
I should explain why these loans are afforded that kind of uber-superior status. The law recognizes that it is better to have a company survive in some form than to have it go into chapter 7. If nothing else, some of the jobs of the employees may be salvaged. In order for them to do so, they almost always require some sort of funding during the period before they emerge. They also are not the best of credit risks. I mean, shit gang, these are companies that are bankrupt. The law thus allows them to seek a loan that will see them through the process till they emerge. Now, are you going to loan an estate money and pray that it doesn't turn into a Dickens novel and have the lawyers eat it with their fees? Not me, and not any DIP lender I have ever heard of. Thus the court allows the DIP lenders to go to the head of the trough when it comes to disbursements at the end of the bk period. Quite simple and logical actually.



To: billgatesisevil who wrote (154)8/29/2012 5:19:12 PM
From: Area51  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3620
 
If the DIP loan can't be used for anything except paying back the DIP loan (which is what the original statement literally said) then it is not of much value. I expect it can and will be utilized to pay company operating and capital expenses for the next months so they can keep the lights and such. To say that nobody will get a dime until the DIP is repaid isn't true unless you define who "somebody" is. If you define "somebody" as a debt holder or a common stock holder of the company then you are likely correct. A51



To: billgatesisevil who wrote (154)8/29/2012 6:58:39 PM
From: silkscreen121 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3620
 
It appears in this case that he is at least 80% right and you are at least 80% wrong, so perhaps you owe him an apology. Don't take this too hard. We all make complete fools of ourselves if we jabber on for long enough.