|
Post by pearlhandle on Aug 28, 2013 15:54:35 GMT -5
I don't believe EK has actually confirmed that Sept. 3rd is the actual date they will exit BK. Anyone read or heard a factual statement? Regarding the current stock, the only thing I have seen stated by EK is; "Existing stock will be cancelled as of the date that Kodak emerges from bankruptcy." So if the KPP deal has been pushed for finalization to Sept. 3rd, EK could wait to exit BK on Sept 4th, 5th, etc. Then the KPP yoke would be taken from EK's neck, and who knows what would happen.
Regarding the statement that EK will still be a publicly traded company after BK. Why would they make that statement? I would hope the statement isn't BS. If it is, it will be another lie to throw at them in a class action suite. If it is true, KKR would be out.
|
|
|
Post by kevinblandford on Aug 28, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Understand, an offer HAS NOT been made yet.
It will be an "unforeseen event"
The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
EK's words not mine.
Once KKR left the board, who could foresee what they would do?
Bottom line.
Nobody lied.
|
|
|
Post by pearlhandle on Aug 28, 2013 18:40:36 GMT -5
Understand, an offer HAS NOT been made yet. It will be an "unforeseen event" The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. EK's words not mine. Once KKR left the board, who could foresee what they would do? Bottom line. Nobody lied. Ah Kevin, nobody lied? Do you really think AP has ever told the truth to the employees and the investment world? And, I will disagree with you that EK making an unsolicited statement as they made would be construed as an unforseen event in a class action. In fact, making a statement like that this close to their exit from BK could very possibly be twisted by a good attorney as a statement made with an intention to move the SP the way they wanted it to move. Remember old slick Willie's statement - "what's the definition of IS?"
|
|