Bill / Jerry / Taz / Anyone else,
I would like to know what you think about the 2012s being the "beneficial owners" of the Trust? Although Trusts are setup to protect assets from creditors, is it possible that the company was protecting the assets from "other" creditors such as 2014s, studios, wtc... for the benefit of 2012s?
Buffett, not the 2014's. The secured do have liens on the trademark which lives on in the trust. Do you think Cooley would be rewarded for a prestigious award for not supporting their clients? Who do you think their clients were? Not the studios.
If this won't convince you, you might as well forget trying to get to the bottom of this. The name "Blockbuster" is property of Trust.
"BLOCKBUSTER name, design and related marks are trademarks of the BB 2009 Trust and Blockbuster LLC."
This Trust, which grew out of the Alliance Agreement, and was created "pursuant" to the Trust Agreement, bears at least some responsibility for the decline in Same Store Sales, which was the whole justification for the sale of Assets to Dish.
If you think all this was "agreed to", with a end result of handing Dish our Assets, to 'take care" of the 2012's. or to "take care" of Icahn's notes, you're really reaching.
This was a well thought out plan, to effect some much more important conclusion. If all they wanted to do was protect the debt holders, they could have just handed them, collectively, all the assets to Liquidate as they please, without spending 40 million in legal fees, and without destroying the same store sales to the benefit of NCR.
It's real easy, it's called a pre planned restructuring and doesn't cost all that much compared to three years of wrangling with creditors, lojas, and Dish. Come to think of it, they were on the door step of this, but Icahn blocked the plan, to his own detriment, the result being equity is still alive.
Taz, when you say "trademark" I'm not sure which one you are referring to. I'm only talking about what we definitively know what's in the Trust and that is the Blockbuster Express trademark and likely the revenues from the agreement. Isn't it possible that the company created the Trust with NCR to protect the agreement and assets from 2014s to the benefit of 2012s? Do you know off hand the issue date of the 2014s?
I have a real hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Dish and Blockbuster are going to have to come up with a real good excuse why they put everyone through this. That's if we get something.