Cancelling a stock does NOT mean that stockholders will get nothing.
This may in fact be the case, but typically there is a small percentage that goes to the shareholders in a bankruptcy. Typically this is done to prevent the corporate board and CEO from destroying even more value from the bondholders, i.e. legal blackmail.
This was the case of Visteon corporation in the recent past, and is actually pretty typical in bankruptcy cases where there are significant assets controlled by the company like EK.
However, in this case, because EK went to the courts when they had money rather than negotiating with the bondholders up front, there might be nothing for the shareholders. If true, this would be yet more proof in the incompetence of the current CEO and board in failing to do their job of protecting their shareholders.
I find it strange that I get a couple hundred page bundle in the mail just a few days before the scheduled vote. In it, I can't (quickly) find the basic answers that most people making a decision like this would want to know.
My read is that:
A. I get a couple bucks a share (highlighted over and over) that I have to pay taxes on for a company that I don't want to sell.
B. I get a 25% stake in a highly leveraged company
My questions, if anyone knows the answer:
1. How much cash (not counting loans) is T-mobile pumping into the joint venture?
2. What is the anticipated value of the merged company and based on what assumptions?
3. How/why will the merger benefit the company?
Unless I can digest the 200+ pages and am happy with the answer, I will probably be inclined to vote no.
I believe that the current company is undervalued, which is why I own it. They are profitable and growing with little debt, so I don't understand why they want to burden the company with a huge new debt. If they returned at least most of the current market value in cash or we retained most/all of the new company as shareholders, I could be inclined to vote in favor.
Ironically, I wouldn't mind buying bonds for PCS at 6%, if they weren't about to overload it to the point that it could potentially go under.
I guess for now I'll keep reading. At least the date may have been extended (I need to confirm this still).
Asprin seems largely irrelevant to the HVAD discussion, since I would expect that most (likely all) recipients would be put on coumiden as a blood thinner which is much more effective. This is also true of many people with various heart problems or with any foreign material in the blood stream. e.g. stents. Plavix the new class of new blood thinners including pradaxa not requiring INR monitoring are also available today in the US with prescription. Any of these would likely be a better choice than aspirin for the longer term.