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: silkscreen12 who wrote (301)	9/2/2012 2:19:48 PM
From: rickhammer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3620

So the UK can't do its own thing, Could it with permission from the DIP lender? It's my recollection that they have a large payment due ,I want to say in April, of 130 million to the Chinese, I'm guessing that has a lot to do with the specific mention of "Octobouy" in the filing.I'm certainly no expert here,but what if they were able to swing a deal,lease back, that management had been talking about? Would it be in the DIP lenders interest just to let the Chinese have it. My understanding was such a deal would pay for its completion. That and the sell down of their interest in Cheviot which would seem to be more valuable with a completed Octobouy, and a project that was still somewhat on schedule,They may not get as good as a deal, but it seems like it would surely be better than the alternative.If they got approval to pursue these deals, it doesn't seem like they would incur any cost to the BK estate. It seems that it would increase the value of the company overall? So, what would be the possible reasons for the DIP lender to object? I'm sure there are some.

To: silkscreen12 who wrote (301)	9/2/2012 2:24:50 PM
From: mrpanick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3620

ATP owns the subsidiary, but it's not in bankruptcy. The UK sub could borrow money at the subsidiary level and ATP's ownership of the subsidiary equity would be structurally subordinated to that debt. I'm not sure what you mean by "restricted subsidiary"? Does it's corporate charter restrict it from borrowing or finding a joint venture partner to complete a project? Why would ATP go to the trouble to put out a press release saying that the UK subsidiary was not part of the bankruptcy if they didn't have some ideas in the works?