As a guy who reads AND WRITES these for a living I can assure you that there IS something materially positive in the 8k - SPECIFICALLY THE WAIVERS.
Anyone who has ventured skin deep in this company's financials knows of the existing default within the loan covenants - the subsidiaries can't pass up to the holding company anymore so they HAD to accomplish the Amendments.
The reality is Lenders take something whenever they give. It is the "quid pro quo" which is involved with a lender's concession. The more that the Lenders tie up (i.e. collateralize), the less that there is available for equity (using that term liberally) holders which dictated the drop in share price.
The company got the waivers and it desperately needed same to survive.
There is risk here to shareholders but Shorts have risk here as well.
I am hardly "pumping" this stock, I can't even pretend to recommend it as a "buy" (share price is once again approaching its recent lows). It is possible it will survive.
"Done" you obviously have a short position in the stock which is evident by your constant bashing and repetitive posting and even misinformation.
You are simply the reverse of the blind positive pumpers - I suspect you already know that you may need to cover but it is a 50/50 at this point.
G'Morning - the Waivers (preventing default) remain in place through the LOC's - it would be a problem the the reinsurers too
Looks like at least YOU finally got to the correct report. You are evidently a basher nothing more - perhaps less....
Go to Tower's web site, then investors, then SEC filings, it is the latest filing and can not be legitimately confused.
As stated last night, the latest 8k essentially ties up equity of the company - this reduces value for shareholders, which in turn decreases share value and MAY have played a role in the drop yesterday.
As I mentioned yesterday, it could also be an institutional investor(s) exiting because of risk and concern here - I believe there has been a lot of that of recent and completely understand same.
They ARE favorable - they prevent a contractual default and I think you ALREADY know that (admittedly, I am not entirely confident that you comprehend because you are NOT as bright as I originally believed)
My posts are entirely consistent. The 8k was necessary for the survival of the waivers via LOC's - the alternative was DEFAULT.
The terms eat up equity which could have trickled down to shareholders.
This is what I said last night - let me make is simple for you:
If a barn is on fire and a bucket of water is tossed on the flames and puts out the fire - there still is fire damage, and the fire itself was not good - but the bucket of water was favorable - even if it cost a premium.
Unfortunately for TWGP there remains hot embers. and serious fire damage......hence the risks which I have referenced.
You a boring basher who obnoxiously posts - "where is the 2Q report" with dull repetition...it is posters like you (AND the blind pumpers) which stop YAHOO from producing a bonafide message Board for securities
The Oct 18 waiver simply waives the default that was created when the company failed to deliver its Q2 financials by Aug. 29. It resets the required date to Oct 30 and gives the bank sole discretion to move this date to Nov 29. BUT, the waiver comes with strings attached (ropes, really) requiring SinkHole to establish deposit accounts and immediately move $240 million into those accounts acceshttp://games.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AsH3idX0q303aDzT_bqLB_neAohG;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdWkzZ2l1BHNlYwNVSCAzIERlc2t0b3AgVG9wIEJhciAxMDA-;_ylg=X3oDMTBzOTkyZWtoBGxhbmcDZW4tVVMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdAM-sible by the bank, and further requires SinkHole to take steps cancelling the LOCs by Nov. 29, with constant notification of progress toward this end. What is even more entertaining is the requirement by the bank that SinkHole complete and file the bank's "Know Your Customer" forms.
It remains a mystery why, once the the level of reserve hit was determined and the amount of goodwill to be written off three weeks ago, why SinkHole could not deliver the financial statements that had been due Aug 29, and instead accepted the rather onerous terms of this waiver.