|
Post by proforkodak on Sept 7, 2012 18:24:01 GMT -5
Rochelle writes: >>>" Mr. Pro asks about cash held by foreign subsidiaries. That cash is not readily available and may never be available to US creditors and shareholders. If the cash were repatriated, there would be significant tax liabilities. Second, foreign creditors, such as pension funds and governments, are not about to allow the cash to leave their jurisdiction. I have not seen any reputable source recently who is willing to say that foreign cash can be used when Kodak exhausts its rapidly declining domestic cash"<<<
FACTS:
1) In the first 9 months of 2011 Kodak repatriated $300 million of cash from its foreign subsidiaries to the US. This FACT directly disputes what was written by Rochelle.
2) ALL the assets of Kodak are available to the creditors and shareholders of Kodak. This is a basic FACT from US bankruptcy law. 3) Kodak has operating loss tax carry forwards(NOLs) of over $3 billion, so Kodak would pay virtually no tax on repatriation of cash at this time. This FACT can be seen by the tax rate comments in the 2011 10K.
FACTS: A) Bill Rochelle is badly bungling the reporting about the FACTS surrounding the Kodak ch.11.
B) Bill Rochelle seems to NOT understand basic US BK law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2012 22:24:51 GMT -5
Fungibility between worldwide EK operations
Fungibility between worldwide EK operations I work for a municipal organization that manages a large number of physical sites. We use a Property Based Management plan. Each location must stand on its own income and expenses. This holds the site managers accountable for results but also helps to closely identify areas of weakness or concern. Upon identification; a problem at a weak site must be addressed in some form or fashion to correct the problem. The expertise of the whole municipal group can be used to assist, but cash cannot be transferred to the weak location. One tool that is used to strike a balance between sites is “Fungibility” between the locations. A profitable location is allowed to send small amounts of non-cash assistance to the weaker locations through legal means. The weaker location can benefit in many non direct ways from the stronger locations; bulk procurement, bulk contracts, flexibility of staff etc. I personally don’t know if Kodak’s worldwide locations can or cannot directly help by providing cash for the US debts. However you would think there would be unlimited opportunities for “Fungibility” between the International groups. Certainly the survival and prosperity of the US operations is to their primary interest. If the UK cannot send cash directly, it can certainly contribute its share from the international group through indirect means. In Kodak’s case you would think that a number of non-cash assets from the international group could ultimately be moved around and then indirectly “Monetized” to cancel out a portion of the debts. My point is in no way to take sides in the foreign cash controversy. (I believe Pro) But I am just filtering some thoughts through my personal perspective and this should not be an obstacle for EK. EK International Operations: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, US, Venezuela, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Turkey, UK, Australia, China, India, Korea, new Zealand, Thailand
|
|
|
Post by proforkodak on Sept 7, 2012 22:51:44 GMT -5
>>>"I personally don’t know if Kodak’s worldwide locations can or cannot directly help by providing cash for the US debts."<<< NOBODY CARES what you KNOW!! People who have BRAINS, which you OBVIOUSLY lack care about the FACTS: FACTS: 1) In the first 9 months of 2011 Kodak repatriated $300 million of cash from its foreign subsidiaries to the US. This FACT directly disputes what was written by Rochelle. 2) ALL the assets of Kodak are available to the creditors and shareholders of Kodak. This is a basic FACT from US bankruptcy law. 3) Kodak has operating loss tax carry forwards(NOLs) of over $3 billion, so Kodak would pay virtually no tax on repatriation of cash at this time. This FACT can be seen by the tax rate comments in the 2011 10K. People who know NOTHING about a SPECIFIC situation would be BEST served to READ the FACTS about that SITUATION rather than PULL EXCREMENT out of their RECTUM and attempt to spread it over this particular MB!!!! Do you understand? Or do I NEED to draw you a MAP to YOUR ANUS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2012 23:22:13 GMT -5
(I believe Pro) Pro I acknowledged your expertise in the post and stated my own limitations. My post wasn't meant to state facts. I should have been more clear or not tried to dialog regarding the obviousness of the international equity.
|
|