Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. Message Board

  • di_vur_se_fi di_vur_se_fi Aug 2, 2005 6:51 AM Flag

    Wording of kkd statement

    the AP Paul Nowell version:

    http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050801/APF/508010735

    "Negotiating for an equity-based success fee reflects our strong confidence in the long-term prospects of Krispy Kreme," Cooper said in a statement released by Krispy Kreme. "While the company still faces a number of challenges, we believe that Krispy Kreme has a bright future."

    ---

    the wsj Mary Ellen Lloyd version:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/1,,BT-CO-20050801-005220,00.html?mod=COMPANY

    "Negotiating for an equity-based success fee reflects our strong confidence in the long-term prospects of Krispy Kreme," Cooper said in a statement. "While the company still faces a number of challenges, we believe that Krispy Kreme has a bright future."

    ---

    Anybody see the difference?

    The AP guy says "in a statement released by Krispy Kreme".

    The wsj gal says "in a statement".

    The difference is absolutely critical as I have previously mentioned.

    These are the contacts listed at the bottom of the prnewswire version:

    /CONTACT: Media, Brooke Smith of Laforce & Stevens, +1-212-242-9353
    ext 135, or bsmith@laforce-stevens.com ; or Investors, Laura Smith of Joele
    Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher, +1-212-355-4449 ext 154/

    kkd didn't hire these folks for nothin'.

    Can someone try to get a copy of the "statement" from the above listed contacts?

    If that fails can someone try to get a copy from either the AP or the wsj author.

    Depending upon what we then find out and whether a copy is even available, can someone point out to the AP guy that what he has written re: "Krispy Kreme" MAY BE slightly inaccurate.

    If he is unresponsive, then I would suggest going to other members of the press, pointing out the nuanced statement.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Your definition(s) looks good to me -- upside down or can't pay. What's with the challenge?

      As to the three creditor rule, is that iron clad? And isn't it more of a formality? Depending on the situation, there is frequently a main creditor who is the "driver" of the involuntary. There are always some small fry wandering around who haven't been paid and who the main creditor can add to the petition. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is case law on the "creditors" being as weak as unpaid utility bills and the like.

      My understanding is is that an involuntary is often threatened or filed for the purpose of intimidating officers/directors. The idea is to force them to acknowledge your much ballyhooed "zone of insolvency", and to shift their fiduciary responsibilities to the best interests of creditors, rather than equity holders.

      I await your response with bated breath!

    • Your definition(s) looks good to me -- upside down or can't pay. What's with the challenge?

      As to the three creditor rule, is that iron clad? And isn't it more of a formality? Depending on the situation, there is frequently a main creditor who is the "driver" of the involuntary. There are always some small fry wandering around who haven't been paid and who the main creditor can add to the petition. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is case law on the "creditors" being as weak as unpaid utility bills and the like.

      My understanding is is that an involuntary is often threatened or filed for the purpose of intimidating officers/directors. The idea is to force them to acknowledge your much ballyhooed "zone of insolvency", and to shift their fiduciary responsibilities to the best interests of creditors, rather than equity holders.

      I await your response with baited breath!

    • Combining a "protege" with chocolate is a notorious recipe for bad decision making.

    • yes and i appreciate it very much as well.I know i was busting you on my post, but i can't say that i'd prefer you wern't here, or that you 'owe' anything to any of us.

      it's just i kinda wish you'd post in a more detailed manner - it's annoying to decode little messages.

      and tell Ms. Cooperscraft to give you a break :)

    • "Got to run now - probably check in real quick later when the wife is not looking. "

      Dam! I thought I was the only one with this problem!

    • Cooperscraft -

      I for one enormously appreciate the insight you bring to this board.

      This whole situation is at the same time very educational and also fascinating to watch. Kind of like a horse race, when you have a lot of money on a horse.

    • I seriously doubt that KKD could accrue reserves beyond what is reasonable when they are under such an intense accounting spotlight. Do you really think this scenario is credible??

    • Yes, it is likely that we are seeing "monumental errors brought on by ego and hubris". But, let us be somewhat circumspect in our analysis of who is committing these errors.

    • 3) i know SP talks to them daily. it doesn't take a genius to know that
      2) ok, good to see you got your thinking still in order
      1) i don't know where you pulled the issue of reserves from. you were talking about valuation. i thought it meant valuation based on cash flow. if you're talking BS, well, the BS is so screwed up anyway right now! do they need valuation companies to do that?

      old posts: why don't you link to them?

      cooperscraft, i've met many great people on these msg boards, fellow money managers, even friends. people with whom i talk about my investments and even hang out with, etc etc. These types of contacts allow you to collaborate with others, expand your career and, to the very least, for those who are just individual investors, make connections to work on future opportunities together..

      with that in mind, I am puzzled by why you always give really short answers that sound like you're doing us a favor, or charging us by the individual character or something.

      you seem to have a lot of knowledge and intelligence and it's too bad you don't articulate it well enough. it makes the difference between people liking or not liking you.

    • ok now i tooooootally lost you.

      first you say:

      <<SP plays along because they need some bad historical financial trackrecord (for some peroid of time) on which Blackstone/Houlihan/Jefferies/Lazard can offer lowball valuation to bring reorg equity home to Mr. Fortgang at Silver Point. >>

      i asume this means that they have to wait until these people can assign a lowball valuation.

      but then you talk about SP + panagos

      i don't get it.

      1)what needs to happen for SP to get those valuation documents? step by step. what are the events that need to happen?

      2)what about 10/17? will SP wait and wait and wait and let 10/17 pass them by?? didn't you once assert "ch.11 by 10/17"?

    • View More Messages
 
KKD
19.21+0.06(+0.31%)Jul 6 4:04 PMEDT