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.

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

To: kollmhn who wrote (239)	8/31/2012 8:46:33 AM
From: billgatesisevil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3620

You continue to make implications that are false as a matter of law. I am sorry, but that is the fact of this matter. Do not be surprised if and when it goes against you. As for not letting go, you have made no reference to any case or statute. Please do so. Yes, a carve out is permitted in a DIP. However, I am starting to smell a rat in the DIP lender. Now please cite the law and not your opinion. Chapter 11 is on line. The matter of the priority of the DIP lender is well established in the Bankruptcy law. You are and will remain incorrect in that matter in the generalized case. Your reference to a carve supports the priority of the DIP. Now please address the item at hand and not waffle. I do not argue that a carve out may not be permitted by the judge. This is a court of equity. As a practical matter, the judge could decide to equitably subordinate the first lien debt and the lawyers involved to the common if he felt there was sufficient malfeasance. He probably won't, but there is a bit of the smell of the badges of fraud per 13 Eliz. c5. in the DIP agreement. In particular, the following from your post supports my assertion as to the priority of the DIP: "The rationale for this is that the cost of obtaining the DIP lenders’ recoveries should not be borne by the professionals engaged by the debtor." Sans carve out for the professional fees of the debtor, the DIP primes everything. However, in the case of ATPG, the carve out is for the use by the DIP to secure their lawyers and their portion of the first lien loans and the lawyers for the debtor but not any lawyers for any other creditors. The original assertion was that waging a 600 bn trough in front of some lawyers would make them gather around the trough like a herd of pigs. That is, was, and will be totally false and unsupportable by the law. Sorry, you continue to make material misstatements in this case. I may be being picky here, but I have learned that such picky things matter in recovery.