|
Post by busted1964 on Jun 4, 2013 17:08:19 GMT -5
dm.epiq11.com/KDK/Docket#Debtors=4597&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1Doc 3887 NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ET AL., FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 328(a) AND 1103, FED. R. BANKR. P. 2014, AND S.D.N.Y. LBR 2014-1, AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF BUCK CONSULTANTS, LLC, AS ITS ACTUARIAL CONSULTANT EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 1, 2013
|
|
|
Post by angelsrwatchn on Jun 4, 2013 20:30:03 GMT -5
Can you translate this?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 5, 2013 5:34:46 GMT -5
www.investopedia.com/terms/a/actuarial-consultant.aspDefinition of 'Actuarial Consultant' A professional who advises clients on which methods, processes, policies, plans, etc. they should consider when making financial, insurance- or pension-related decisions. Actuarial consultants calculate and analyze statistics, make forecasts, provide the most accurate information to clients and help them realize what their best options are. Investopedia explains 'Actuarial Consultant' Actuarial consultants are informed in many disciplines, including statistics, economics, law, probability, finance and risk assessment. They use this extensive training to ensure the advice they give is in the best interest of the client.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 5, 2013 5:35:53 GMT -5
Could it be that unsecured are beginning to ask "Hey not so fast, we know these assets are worth more than you are saying!!!"
SBG
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 5, 2013 6:19:30 GMT -5
www.kccllc.net/documents/1210202/1210202130603000000000024.pdf9. The Committee requests authorization to retain Buck to assist it in the critical task associated with evaluating the Debtors’ (and their subsidiaries’) worldwide pension liabilities. 10. During the initial stages of these Chapter 11 Cases, the Committee sought to avoid retaining its own actuarial consultant in order to promote efficiency and minimize the administrative burden imposed upon the Debtors’ estates.2 The Committee now requires the assistance of its own actuary, however, to analyze and advise the Committee with respect to key information it has received regarding the Debtors’ various retirement plans throughout the world and their ongoing funding obligations with respect thereto, particularly in the context of the Debtors’ proposed chapter 11 plan. The independent actuarial services that Buck will provide cannot be performed by the Committee’s existing professionals, and are necessary for the Committee to evaluate, among other things, the Debtors’ assumptions regarding the consolidated Its now clear that even the unsecured are NOT buying the bullshit anymore. They want proof of what things are worth and what the liabilities are. This process will go on for another 6 months minimum. SBG
|
|
kott16
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by kott16 on Jun 5, 2013 10:44:12 GMT -5
This is a very interesting and important document. It could explain why the DOJ U.S. Trustee is denying the request for an EC "at this time."
Look at who is listed on the document - essentially everyone. Adrian and Matt made the list as additional interested parties. I was not on the list probably due to when my request was delivered to the court - 24 May 2013.
An additional fact is the listing of 5% common shareholders as of the petition filing date. It includes Blackrock - 5.9%, Casacade - 5.0%, and Vanguard - 4.8%. Between these 3 alone they hold over 42 million shares.
We are not the only ones screaming about this POR. Document 3887 has been filed on behalf of the UCC by an attorney from Walmart as chair of the committee. It only asks for Buck to act as an actuarial for the worldwide funding of Kodak pensions; however, this may be just the start. The NOL's and patent valuation is probably on their radar as well. As an interesting aside it should be noted that Buck is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xerox Corporation.
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 11:21:12 GMT -5
Kott - It's interesting regarding Bucks being a subsidiary of Xerox. If Xerox were to be interested in Kodak, I would think that it would also be interested in what happens with PI/DI and RSS (Kiosks). The On-Demand Books deals serves as an example of what I mean. Also, take a look at the second link, rumors have it that Wal-Mart, not CVS will be the preferred big-box store delivery for on-demand books. I believe the KPP/DI/PI deal is far from done. Kodak makes news with On Demand Books – and that’s good news for XeroxOn Demand Books has announced a partnership with Eastman Kodak Company and ReaderLink to provide photo books through the KODAK Picture Kiosks. This is great news for the photo book market as well as the book publishing market. Both photo books and on demand self publishing books are solutions that are aimed at meeting the growing customer requirement of “what we want, when we want it, the way we want it.” This is a benefit that the Espresso Book Machine (EBM) and its supporting software technology uniquely bring to the consumer retail experience. This agreement will further enhance the growing reputation and value of On Demand Books’ EBM solution in both photo and books. This new growth channel for the EBM solution is also great news for us. Xerox is both a channel partner and an investor in On Demand Books. We have worked hard to help increase the visibility of On Demand Books and to investigate all of the potential opportunities and sales channels where the EBM technology can create an exciting and profitable retail experience. I believe this opportunity will further enhance the On Demand Books and EBM brand while at the same time create a second channel for sales – which Xerox views as complimentary to the book stores, libraries and universities where many EBMs are located today. The different needs and purchasing practices of end users is one of the reasons why EBM will succeed in various settings. Xerox will continue to support these kinds of efforts because we support books ~ and their long shelf life. So, what would drive you, as a consumer of photo or published books, to a retail outlet to try out this technology? digitalprinting.blogs.xerox.com/2012/09/kodak-makes-news-with-on-demand-books-%E2%80%93-and-that%E2%80%99s-good-news-for-xerox/#.Ua9h-Foo6CgOn Demand Books and E-Books Taking a New Place in Book Publishingsullivanstpress.com/2012/10/on-demand-books-and-e-books-taking-a-new-place-in-book-publishing/
|
|
kott16
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by kott16 on Jun 5, 2013 11:42:54 GMT -5
Logik - Good information about Xerox and the proposed KKP deal.
It would seem that there are a lot of companies that could benefit from what Kodak holds, Unfortunately, they have been playing hard ball with down and out Kodak. As a result Kodak says fine and they decide to sell the DI/PI to KKP. To top it off they then release a POR in which everyone except the 2nd lien gets burned.
If Kodak's goal was to stir up a hornet's nest it would appear that they succeeded. SBG is right. This could go on for another 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 11:45:30 GMT -5
Logik - Good information about Xerox and the proposed KKP deal. It would seem that there are a lot of companies that could benefit from what Kodak holds, Unfortunately, they have been playing hard ball with down and out Kodak. As a result Kodak says fine and they decide to sell the DI/PI to KKP. To top it off they then release a POR in which everyone except the 2nd lien gets burned. If Kodak's goal was to stir up a hornet's nest it would appear that they succeeded. SBG is right. This could go on for another 6 months. My fear is that if there is value in Kodak, another six months will take care of any equity value as it is bled dry by the lawyers. This reminds me of divorces where whatever wealth the couple has built is all eaten up by the attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 11:46:34 GMT -5
And that's fine by me. As I stated in Adrian's thread, more revenue streams and JVs will emerge during this time. When they do, the 'hidden assets' will be better revealed...and harder to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 11:49:57 GMT -5
Cox - Should this get pushed out another 6 months, I fully expect that future revenue streams will more than offset the legal costs. The billing statements hint at more JVs. And deals like Uni-Pixel may be right around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 11:53:56 GMT -5
Cox - Should this get pushed out another 6 months, I fully expect that future revenue streams will more than offset the legal costs. The billing statements hint at more JVs. And deals like Uni-Pixel may be right around the corner. Patience is a virtue. And I think we are all WAY more virtuous than we ever would have wanted to be as it relates to Kodak.
|
|
kott16
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by kott16 on Jun 5, 2013 12:05:53 GMT -5
Infighting and attorney's fees could definitely eat up equity if the valuation of Kodak was the only action occurring. The 5% shareholders are what got my attention, especially Blackrock.
Document 3887 states, "Buck has provided services to the Committee in advance of the Court’s approval of this Application in anticipation that its retention would be approved nunc pro tunc to May 1, 2013." The UCC was onto the KKP deal and the POR just hours after the POR was released.
The 5% shareholders - Blackrock, Cascade, and Vanguard - was current as of the filing date on 28 May 2013. So in other words, they have been holding a percentage of shares in excess of what would normally trigger the poison pill. The question now is have they been holding this many shares all along, or did they acquire them AFTER the POR was announced? This is potentially significant. It could mean that Kodak views their holding more than 5% of the shares as friendly, and so the poison pill has not been invoked.
|
|
sirbika
New Member
"If I had to do it all over again, I would go back to right now!"
Posts: 94
|
Post by sirbika on Jun 5, 2013 12:17:40 GMT -5
Thats a good point Kott! So in other words what advantage does Kodak have by dragging this on? If this was intentional to buy more time which it looks like it was, then what for? To give more time to other potential suitors who may want to buyout Kodak?
|
|
|
Post by We Got Hosed!!! on Jun 5, 2013 12:30:50 GMT -5
Infighting and attorney's fees could definitely eat up equity if the valuation of Kodak was the only action occurring. The 5% shareholders are what got my attention, especially Blackrock. Document 3887 states, "Buck has provided services to the Committee in advance of the Court’s approval of this Application in anticipation that its retention would be approved nunc pro tunc to May 1, 2013." The UCC was onto the KKP deal and the POR just hours after the POR was released. The 5% shareholders - Blackrock, Cascade, and Vanguard - was current as of the filing date on 28 May 2013. So in other words, they have been holding a percentage of shares in excess of what would normally trigger the poison pill. The question now is have they been holding this many shares all along, or did they acquire them AFTER the POR was announced? This is potentially significant. It could mean that Kodak views their holding more than 5% of the shares as friendly, and so the poison pill has not been invoked. Knott, Cascade, this is Bill Gate's investment fund? I thought they unloaded all their shares upon BK announcement. anyways, at least we have large entities that are holding commons with us. If they are willing to go down with the ship with millions then I'll just ride this bad boy to the finish. Certainly, the longer this drags the better for EK to find a suitor.
|
|
|
Post by subzeroooo on Jun 5, 2013 13:02:26 GMT -5
Infighting and attorney's fees could definitely eat up equity if the valuation of Kodak was the only action occurring. The 5% shareholders are what got my attention, especially Blackrock. Document 3887 states, "Buck has provided services to the Committee in advance of the Court’s approval of this Application in anticipation that its retention would be approved nunc pro tunc to May 1, 2013." The UCC was onto the KKP deal and the POR just hours after the POR was released. The 5% shareholders - Blackrock, Cascade, and Vanguard - was current as of the filing date on 28 May 2013. So in other words, they have been holding a percentage of shares in excess of what would normally trigger the poison pill. The question now is have they been holding this many shares all along, or did they acquire them AFTER the POR was announced? This is potentially significant. It could mean that Kodak views their holding more than 5% of the shares as friendly, and so the poison pill has not been invoked. Knott, Cascade, this is Bill Gate's investment fund? I thought they unloaded all their shares upon BK announcement. anyways, at least we have large entities that are holding commons with us. If they are willing to go down with the ship with millions then I'll just ride this bad boy to the finish. Certainly, the longer this drags the better for EK to find a suitor. Yes, Cascade Investment LLC is Bill Gate's investment fund. Just wondering why is he still holding? Anyways I was trying to find out how to contact Cascade. Anyone has a name and/or email contact for some fund manager there? Thanks!
|
|
sirbika
New Member
"If I had to do it all over again, I would go back to right now!"
Posts: 94
|
Post by sirbika on Jun 5, 2013 13:11:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by williedraton on Jun 5, 2013 13:30:50 GMT -5
Doesn't "petition filing date" mean January 19, 2012? So can we confirm whether or not they still hold their shares?
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 14:09:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 14:15:51 GMT -5
Docket #1041 (filed 4/27/12) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF ROBERT MISCHLER, ON BEHALF OF KPMG LLP
Debtors’ 5% Shareholders BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (5.9%) Cascade Investment, LLC (5.0%) Vanguard Group Inc. (4.8%)
|
|
|
Post by mglassma on Jun 5, 2013 14:44:11 GMT -5
Where does it say that Blackrock, Cascade and Vanguard are still holding a %5 stake? Is there a document that lists what they are currently holding?
|
|
|
Post by rub1331 on Jun 5, 2013 15:11:48 GMT -5
Where does it say that Blackrock, Cascade and Vanguard are still holding a %5 stake? Is there a document that lists what they are currently holding?
Doc #3886. Page #25
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 15:24:28 GMT -5
Where does it say that Blackrock, Cascade and Vanguard are still holding a %5 stake? Is there a document that lists what they are currently holding? Doc #3886. Page #25 Doc #3886, page 25 reads: 5% Shareholders (as of petition date) BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (5.9%) Cascade Investment, LLC (5.0%) Vanguard Group Inc. (4.8%) The key is "petition date". From page 2 of doc #3886: On January 19, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).I see nothing to indicate Blackrock, Cascade, or Vanguard are currently holding a stake.
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 15:32:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 15:38:49 GMT -5
I saw that report, but thought the companies being shown were from Q2 2010 (it shows "Current Portfolio: Q2 2010"). Would LOVE to be wrong on this!
|
|
sirbika
New Member
"If I had to do it all over again, I would go back to right now!"
Posts: 94
|
Post by sirbika on Jun 5, 2013 15:39:16 GMT -5
How about Blackrock and Vanguard EKDKQ positions?
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 15:43:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by logik360 on Jun 5, 2013 15:44:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coxatdotnet on Jun 5, 2013 16:04:24 GMT -5
It is certainly possible that Cascade bought back into Kodak, but my understanding is that they would have done so after March 31, 2013 in order to not be showing up on the institutional holder list: www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ekdkq/institutional-holdingsI'm not getting my hopes up, though.
|
|
|
Post by busted1964 on Jun 5, 2013 16:24:05 GMT -5
|
|