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

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

  • Larry8888nyc Larry8888nyc Jul 21, 2000 3:08 PM Flag



    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • extortion?

    • Could someone explain the $20 Million to current management?

    • If the institutions like the deal, they can have
      it, I suppose. For me,
      the prospect of $20 million
      to current management, fees to everyone in sight,
      and a bailout of CCA (with our money, of course) is
      just too ghastly to for me to put a personal stamp of
      approval on it. I know this is emotional, but the
      combination of losing 80% of my investment AND getting
      screwed at the same time is just too much.

    • vote no. Let the institutions decide. They have the time, money, and expertise to better evaluate this than I.


    • <"My own conclusion is that based on the PZN
      track record, there is no way the retail holders can
      see the hidden traps laid for them. Institutions may
      have more insight unless they just quietly unload and
      just give up">

      Exactly right. Given all the
      sleazy tricks of current management, and the complexity
      of everything they do, the retail shareholder is
      much better off giving an implicit proxy to the
      institutions. We can do that by voting NO. That does not mean
      we want the deal to fail. It just means we want it
      to pass IF AND ONLY IF it gets support from the

      Regarding the posibility that the institutions are bailing
      now, I do fear that, but I do not see enough liquidity
      to allow them to do so. I am eager to see the June
      30 filing for Dreman et al.

    • What is truly amazing is that Doc and company
      have manuvered the company into this position, that
      CCA gets away with witholding rent payments (maybe to
      keep them away from litigants), and that PZN
      shareholders face a "cash call" from a company that may or may
      not be able to stay afloat. Fees to all, except you.
      $20 mil to insiders who did not have to put up their
      own money. What a farce! Would you put up new
      capital, given the character of the people running this
      operation? I sold when PL bailed, they obviously saw
      something they did not like.

    • It means to shareholders:
      "bent over or face
      the consequences".

      Personally I'd rather die
      than being raped or being a vegetable for life.

      But that is a question of self-estime and is personal
      to each of us.

      You made a case for a no win
      situation in which I would hate to be in. That is why I
      bailed some times ago. In the PZN game, whatever table
      offering you play, you lose. The game is

      The key point to watch now is if the price slide
      slowly but surely. I would be very concerned by the
      remaining institutions "quiet selling".

    • out the consequences of FAILING
      TO PASS this
      plan , you will change
      your mind. It voids the
      extension of credit by the senior
      creditors and Chapter
      7 liquidation will be
      a distinct possibility.
      I will
      no longer post on this subject.
      And I
      still have 6300 shares that
      will vote Yes.

    • Even if you are right in this post, what is
      relevant is that the current board and the creditors are
      electing the new board.
      Creditor have put their neck on
      the line and will fight for their beef only. The
      current board just wants a bonus of $200MM and may be
      have an hidden agenda to keep manipulating the co
      under the cover of a new board.

      This should be a
      red flag to the shareholders as they are cut out of
      the loop for voting the decision makers.
      After all
      what has happen, only a deal like the PL deal is
      acceptable to shareholders. Less than that and you take a
      big chance with your money.

      IMO this deal is
      probably worst than the blackstone deal because of the new
      "confict of interests" the election of the new board

    • Saying NO to the deal based on the mathematics of

      At first, it appears to go against sound investment
      logic. However in this unique case, I agree 100% that it
      would make the most sense.

      My own conclusion is
      that based on the PZN track record, there is no way
      the retail holders can see the hidden traps laid for
      them. Institutions may have more insight unless they
      just quietly unload and just give up (very possible.
      PZN is not a good PR in any portofolio).

      I am
      also always questioning "this deal or no deal". These
      guys have ways to push any given deal that pleases
      them before looking at anything else. Making the
      little guy feel there is no choice and that they must
      suck it up.

      Besides, it fits in the scheme of
      saying NO to anything presented by the current PZN Board
      for principle. Rejecting that deal would be a win or
      lose it all gamble that is certainly a best
      alternative to a deal that is bleak at best.

      another post it would appear that the current board has
      control over who the new board will be and that new board
      will select the officers. Same old sh*t. This is no
      good. A deal like that leads nowhere given PZN
      What kind of confidence can you get from people
      nominating other people in a position in which they screwed
      everything up to start with?
      Only in sham companies do
      you see the failures nominating other (failures) for
      they own benefits. This is total non-sense and hints
      things to come.

      Disclosure: No position, just
      opinions and using PZN as an investment educational tool.

    • View More Messages
28.56-0.61(-2.09%)Feb 9 4:02 PMEST