|
Post by pearlhandle on Aug 19, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -5
Sub, in doc. 4896, Kodak is begging the court to overrule all of our objections - and they indicate that the majority of our objections surround the valuation of Kodak. They indicate that we shareholders have not proven our valuation objections as fact. In the meantime, thay have indicated in one of their doc's that they have taken Kodak's word as to their real value. Therefore, I look at this circle of proof neglect as being a monkey on their back as well as ours. Couldn't Greenwald file an objection to their objection with an indication that the shareholders would be pleased to file proof of under valuation by Kodak if the court would pass on the confirmation tomorrow, and allow at the least a fair valuation by an independant firm. Judge Gropper could uphold the objection of the trustee for bonuses for Kodak management, and use that 3-4m to fund the valuation. Evidentally, Kodak management doesn't think a 3-4m bonus for themselves would hurt the financial stability of Kodak. So, put those monies to work for something that would benifit many instead of a few greedy.
|
|
|
Post by subzeroooo on Aug 19, 2013 20:37:20 GMT -5
Pearl: Judge has already stated there is no hidden value that the shareholders claim. We have no more money to pay for Greenwald's services. If UST's objection is sustained then we will get some extra time. But I am not expecting anything good from the judge. Let us see what tomorrow brings for us.
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 19, 2013 21:22:12 GMT -5
Ashan is that exactly what the judge said, or did he say the shareholders did not prove any hidden value?
|
|
|
subzeroooo
Aug 19, 2013 21:56:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by arcticfox on Aug 19, 2013 21:56:27 GMT -5
Ashan is that exactly what the judge said, or did he say the shareholders did not prove any hidden value? This shows exactly why you guys are in the situation you are in... The judge spelled out in exacting detail why there was no evidence of hidden value in his ruling. Did you bother to take the time to read it? Due diligence people! Learn from your mistake and do research and analysis before you invest in a stock. And you must continue to read and analyze available information after you've invested in a stock. Crying conspiracy, injustice, and fraud base on your own lack of understanding and laziness will not accomplish much. You guys got steamrolled in court and none of you appear to understand why. Now you are even blaming the judge. Sigh..
|
|
|
Post by littlefred747 on Aug 19, 2013 22:18:03 GMT -5
Ashan is that exactly what the judge said, or did he say the shareholders did not prove any hidden value? This shows exactly why you guys are in the situation you are in... The judge spelled out in exacting detail why there was no evidence of hidden value in his ruling. Did you bother to take the time to read it? Due diligence people! Learn from your mistake and do research and analysis before you invest in a stock. And you must continue to read and analyze available information after you've invested in a stock. Crying conspiracy, injustice, and fraud base on your own lack of understanding and laziness will not accomplish much. You guys got steamrolled in court and none of you appear to understand why. Now you are even blaming the judge. Sigh.. Fox...you hangin around cuz you love us, or do you just like the smell of death? No smarmy response needed...I already know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 0:07:54 GMT -5
Hey fox I have not seen the likes of a computer in over a week and do not have a smart phone. Sorry to burst your bubble chief..Now get back to cleaning bedpans!
|
|
|
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 0:13:04 GMT -5
Hey fox I have not seen the likes of a computer in over a week and do not have a smart phone. Sorry to burst your bubble chief..Now get back to cleaning bedpans! Nice excuse. Is that the same excuse for not doing your due diligence for the past 2 years?
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 0:43:28 GMT -5
O.K. fox what will be done with the objections filed by the trustee tomorrow? Are they taken out completly by the debtors or some kind of other fix?
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 1:10:49 GMT -5
Fox now that you have time what would your advice have been to Golden about subscribing to the new shares. Also with all your DD have you come across where it states that Kodak claimed they were insolvent. I understand that may be implied by the filing of chapter 11, but Kodak said it was just having a liquidy issue in the U.S. Of course I am parapharsing. Another question that you may know the answer to is what law/statue allows for the cancelation of the companys complete stock when only a small percentage of the company is in chapter 11.
|
|
|
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 1:31:44 GMT -5
O.K. fox what will be done with the objections filed by the trustee tomorrow? Are they taken out completly by the debtors or some kind of other fix? Why does it even matter? Whether the trustee's objection to the Perez bonus and legal protection for management is accepted or modified by the judge it still doesn't change the outcome regarding the old common shares. This is the same kind of fallacy in thinking that got you guys all hyped up about your so called insider trading fraud. You guys focus on issues that are irrelevant to the survival of the commons. You guys have no clue as to what constitutes insider trading and what does not. How the bond holders and creditors trade their stakes in chapter 11 is their business. There is nothing that says they are not allowed to trade them. Furthermore they are entitled to information not available to the common shareholders because they are integrally involved in the structure of POR. There is no "insider trading" in the common sense of the term. You guys keep crying fraud and insider trading and yet you don't know what the rules are. Show me in writing where US law says that unsecured creditors cannot sell or trade their stake in bankruptcy. Are those creditors suppose to go down with the ship like you guys? Of course not. By not understanding the law and crying fraud and insider trading you guys only show your ignorance and embarrass yourselves in court. What the creditor do with their stake is none of your business. It doesn't change what's happening to your shares. I will use an analogy. Your house is burning down and you are in it. But instead of getting out or salvaging what you can you spend all your energy saying how you think your neighbor is a wife beater. Who cares? Maybe your neighbors are kinky and they like a little rough play. It's none of your business. The fact remains ....Your house is still burning down.
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 1:32:37 GMT -5
I must have hurt his feelings with the bed pan thing.
|
|
|
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 1:46:24 GMT -5
Fox now that you have time what would your advice have been to Golden about subscribing to the new shares. Also with all your DD have you come across where it states that Kodak claimed they were insolvent. I understand that may be implied by the filing of chapter 11, but Kodak said it was just having a liquidy issue in the U.S. Of course I am parapharsing. Another question that you may know the answer to is what law/statue allows for the cancelation of the companys complete stock when only a small percentage of the company is in chapter 11. I've told Golden on more than one occasion that risking 2 years worth of his income in subscribing to the new shares is foolish. I don't think it offers the kind of risk to reward ratio that he thinks he is getting. I've seen some of the numbers golden was saying about cash and book value. I've told him that they are wrong but he is not going to listen. He has his mind set on it and won't learn until he loses some money. That was the only way he learned from buying the common and it was the only way he learned from the mistake of getting into bonds. What can I say. I tried. As for Kodak insolvency, I don't know what you are talking about. Of course Kodak is saying that it is insolvent. Did you read the SEC filings, did you read the POR? Are you blind? Read the whole POR. I know what you are implying about Kodak foreign subsidiary not being under chapter 11... Yada..yada. yada. Kodak USA (the mothership) owns all of the subsidiaries and the whole company is insolvent. Only the US part of the business is under bankruptcy protection but the whole company is insolvent. Get it? I've been saying this for 2 years and you guys still keep regurgitating twisted misconceptions that Ken Luskiin fabricated years ago. Go look up the post on yahoo. I explain the issue in great detail on several occasions. Use the keywords "mothership" or "cashier" to search for those posts.
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 1:54:39 GMT -5
I ask you questions and you respond by asking me questions. So you are saying they did it and there is no law against trading on MNI because they are insiders.? WTF
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 2:38:12 GMT -5
Fox maybe you should call the banks and let them here your analysis. You could be their savior too. See fox what you never seemed to understand is whatever it is you are doing here did not get people to sell it made people not sell.
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 2:58:27 GMT -5
please cut an paste where it actually uses the word insolvent. I am not saying you cannot say a company is insolvent without using it, I just want to see where they actually use that word. The judge cannot modify all those objections In my opinion. I did not say that The POR will not pass today. We will soon see.
|
|
|
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 6:40:46 GMT -5
please cut an paste where it actually uses the word insolvent. I am not saying you cannot say a company is insolvent without using it, I just want to see where they actually use that word. The judge cannot modify all those objections In my opinion. I did not say that The POR will not pass today. We will soon see. Are you retarded? This is not meant to be an insult. No, seriously are you retarded? Insolvency means that a company is unable to pay all of it's creditors. The POR that Kodak and Lazard structured clearly explained why there isn't enough money to pay all the creditors. That's why the unsecured creditors are getting 5 cents on the dollar. That's why your sharea are going to be wiped. How much more insolvent to you want? If you refuse to exercise even the least bit of intellect and remain lazy like a slug, no amount of hand holding is going to help you.
|
|
ph9
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by ph9 on Aug 20, 2013 7:58:07 GMT -5
hey artic
do you know you probably die in short term because of your love of negative energy
you all with negative energy gonna die
|
|
|
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 8:04:45 GMT -5
hey artic do you know you probably die in short term because of your love of negative energy you all with negative energy gonna die What the fuck is negative energy? What is your idea of positive energy? Oh I know... " To DA MOON!!" Or how about this choice quote from Ken Luuskin "Morons! The patents will sell for $15 billion"
|
|
|
Post by jacksonhole1965 on Aug 20, 2013 11:26:18 GMT -5
So fox you cannot provide the insolvent statement.The company had a liqudity issue in the U.S.
|
|
|
subzeroooo
Aug 20, 2013 11:39:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by arcticfox on Aug 20, 2013 11:39:07 GMT -5
So fox you cannot provide the insolvent statement.The company had a liqudity issue in the U.S. You cannot read Jackson. And you are lazy. You should have gone to the court today and let the judge school you.
|
|