Written by Mattew Daneman Staff Writer August 13, 2013
We as Investors in EK got to back SBG, Democrat & Chronicle, the Civil Lawsuits, & even the Trustee. The Trustee states and so does D & C that: Kodak's reorganization plan contains language that seemingly blocks any civil suits against any of its executives for alleged mismanagement.
Kodak's Insurance Companies is also bringing up this issue with Judge Gropper on Tuesday. The Insurance Companies do not want to be holding the bag when EK goes free & clear as it exits BK.
D & C is also brings fault to Alix Partners for being the restructuring offer #$%$ the analysis for liquidating the assets. This is a very serious issue because now it involves Ernst & Young which the head of Alix Partners is associated with.
Ernst & Young in their docs will not take any liability in excess for that they are being compensated for. E & Y want to stop from being in named in any Civil Lawsuits that arise from the work they are doing for EK because the head of Alix Partners comes from E & Y.
Points from the Article in the Democrat & Chroncile:
*The court doesn't have the authority to take property not in bankruptcy, such as Kodak's foreign assets, away from shareholders.
* The value put on the company in an analysis by Lazard Freres & Co. is flawed
* Kodak is treating dirrent classes of retirees differently
* Kodak's reorganization plan contains language that seeming blocks any civil suits aganst any of its executives for alleged mismanagement
* Its hiring of related firms to provide both a chief restrucing officer and to do an analysis of what the company would be worth if it was liquidated creates a conflict of inteest
* Kodak's plan doesn't properly take into account roughly $3 billion in U.S. tax credits the company has socked away
* Kodak has colluded with a variety of financial firms to get a virtual lock on new Kodak stock
* there are more but this is the max for the MB
great argument.BK court has no authority to take foreign assets from shareholders. Either they file bankruptcy or the shareholders get shares in new company, pro rata value foreign company. If foreign company valued at 2 billions, dif on balance sheet 1.5 billions. It is like old shareholders contributing to new company 500 millions and it has to be reflected. S&C, Alix Partners not underlining that and E&Y too, this is gross negligence.
Someone brought up that the case of EK was similar to Enron.
The similar features are mismanagement by the Officers of EK and the hiring of the restructuring officer, Alix Partners.
There are 51,000 Investors of EK from the latest S & P Report.
If Judge Gropper says yes to the POR, there will be an appeal of his ruling. I think the Trustee will be in the spotlight from there on.
The lay Kodak investors have had their king Perez at the helm for many many eons. There is a very clear LONG track record of shareholders hanging on to their love ie Perez and not canning him for cause. They *choose* to keep him at the helm and have the Kodak stock crater. They love him so much that he is on the new Kodak BOD still and as a consultant at 1 million per year. One can argue that shareholders could have fired Perez for cause many years ago; but they did not. These same shareholders would have no qualms about firing a fry cook at McDonalds that is a failure; BUT they went along the Kodak drop with NO expression of firing the rotten Kodak management. When one mentioned on this board two years ago that Perez should be fired for cause the many many Kodaks longs backed Perez; the man they love as their Kodak guru. Thus when Kodak stock was 2 bucks the insane Kodak shareholders were in love with Perez; and any mention that he should be fired for cause got one attacked. Kodak shareholders purposely kept their love Perez at the helm; we folks who mentioned that he should be canned have always been attacked.
You see this is why the idiots on the other board need me there.
First off, most companies have a clause that says they can not be sued for more than they were paid.
The property not is BK is a subsidiary of Kodak. Technically they are not in BK, but when the owner of the mother company changes so go the subs.
As far as treating the retirees diff. The retirees in UK are not in Bk, and therefore are not forced to be crammed down on. Therefore they are buying out the liability with a business, making the balance sheet look pretty.
The NOL= if as you long state the NOL's are not transferable, then why mention them in the POR.