nah, it's still trading. it changed tickers last wednesday to dxmmq. a q gets added to the end of the ticker symbol to denote that it is in bankruptcy. it closed today at $0.005.
search filings for dex one. you need to look at 2 different filings to see the original covenants, initial proposed amendments and revised proposed amendments.
first, find the 8-k filed on sept 18, 2012. look at the lender discussion material. starting on page 22, you will find the original covenants and the initial proposed amendments.
find the 8-k filed on dec 6, 2012. look at the lender presentation. starting on page 28, you will find the initial proposed amendments and the revised proposed amendments. the revised proposed amendments were accepted.
i'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but hopefully it helps.
their covenants include interest coverage and leverage, and they're measured at the subsidiary level. they have not publicly disclosed which 2 silos defaulted, i would imagine that would at least be disclosed in the 10-k when it is ultimately filed. it may also be disclosed in a future bankruptcy related filing.
agreed, and that's what i'm saying. that's called negotiation, and how negotiations usually unfold..you ask for something more favorable than you're really willing to accept so that after you make some concessions, you end up at a place where you're still comfortable. if the lenders wouldn't have accepted that original proposal, the dexo/spmd merger would not have happened (wouldn't really matter much, but i think rhd was better off without spmd), but their debt also would have came due in 2014, and they would have faced bankruptcy then.
the issue isn't the lenders being tight. given the level of risk involved, the covenants are reasonable, and their 10% avg interest rate is probably on the low side. the issue is that the company way over leveraged themselves a decade ago. these lenders already took a huge hit in the 2009/2010 bankruptcies for several billion dollars, and they knew they would likely take it again.
the 2013 amendment resulted in looser covenants than what they were prior to the amendment. i've explained this to you already. the revised amendment, which is the one that ultimately was accepted, had tighter covenants than the initially proposed amendment, but still looser than they were prior to the amendment. again, if you want me to lay out all of the credit facilties, what the covenants, interest rates and maturities were originally, what they were in the initially proposed amendment and what they were in the revised amendment, i will do so. but, it's all there for you to go find for yourself.
There were two versions of the amendment. The revised version is the one that was ultimately passed. It was more restrictive than the initially proposed amendments but more relaxed than the covenants were prior to the amendment. If you want me to, I can lay out what the covenants were originally, what they were in the initially proposed amendment and what they were in the revised amendment to prove this point.
like i said, i'm not foolish enough to think i can influence stubborn fools that are emotionally attached to a stock to the point that they are not willing to listen to reason. i have served as a voice of unbiased reason to counter pumpers like yourself that have been blinded by your foolish vision of grandiose returns on a stock that has been heading towards worthlessness for quite some time. i know that i have helped at least a few investors avoid making a bad investment in this stock, and i do know that i have in fact helped some see the light and sell before this thing finally busted. the fact that you suggest i should not be giving investment advice when i have nailed this stock with 100% accuracy for quite some time speaks volumes about you. as i have said before, i hope this failed investment at least serves as a learning experience for you. because, you see, this isn't about me being right or wrong. i knew all along i was right, but i don't like seeing anybody lose money. my goal has not been to be right. it has been to prevent others from losing money. while i did help prevent some people from losing money, i obviously didn't prevent you from losing money. some people in this stock were helplessly lost, and you were unfortunately one of them. i couldn't help you on this one, and i knew that all along. but, maybe, just maybe, you can learn something from this experience that will help you in the future.
"I have not invested as much as you have in DXM. I have invested money ..you have invested your identity and life mission."
the manner in which you're reaching here kind of sets up the whole rest of your rant. trust me, this isn't my life mission. my life has purpose, and this isn't it.
"Who mad the bad investment decision ??"
you're the one that lost money, not me, so you.
"You describe your self as an expert on DXM with the traits of sammaritan trying to warn credulous investors of the impending disaster that is actually happening. You do not realize that your pedantic, patronizing and biased approach, if any thing, causes the opposite reaction to readers."
i haven't been trying to change people's minds like you and sebas and dave. you guys are a lost cause, too emotionally attached to this stock to see the reality. i have been trying to counter you guys to hopefully provide some rational perspective to people that read these boards but don't necessarily participate. based on a few emails i have received, i have in fact been successful there. as far as being pedantic, i have discussed quite a few topics here, primarily the relevant and critical topics such as their fundamentals (past present and future), valuation and relevant bankruptcy law. i have done so in a manner that has in face been quite unbiased, which is why i have hit the nail on the head. you, on the other hand, are obviously biased by your emotional attachment to the stock, which explains why you have refused to accept the facts and why you act shocked by this bankruptcy announcement.
" It is turning our that you were right and if that makes you happy so be it. Being right and happy rarely go together though. I doubt that any readers of this board ever believed you and got out of this investment because of your warnings and you should not be giving investment advice... good or bad in any case."
so, the fact that you are stubborn somehow erodes my credibility and i should not give advice? ok.
kkwc has frequently served as paulson's outside legal counsel in the past. google kleinberg, kaplan, wolff and cohen and paulson, and you'll see proof of what i'm saying. the shares held by kkwc were acquired by them in a private transaction with paulson. it's pretty safe to say they are representing paulson in this matter. paulson, in the past, has been a creditor in some of the secured credit facilities. i believe they still are. if kkwc is representing paulson in their capacity as a sr secured creditor, you don't want them representing you, nor would they be able to.
The higher interest rates were in exchange for some relaxation of covenants and maturity extensions. I'm not sure how that is greed. It would in fact be greedy of you to expect the creditors to make those concessions without anything in return.
The creditors are much less greedy than you are. They have collectively lost far more than shareholders here.
Learn a lesson, stick to safer mutual funds. You lack the ability to properly evaluate a high risk company and the associated risks. This filing should come as no surprise, and you and Dave and Sebastian and endoptions look like a bunch of fools when acting like you have somehow been wronged. The only people that did you wrong here is yourselves. You made a #$%$ poor investment and lost it all. Suck it up and place the blame where it belongs.
In short, no, they were not myopic. It was acknowledged in the last bankruptcy that the debt would continue to be an issue and that the company could potentially face another bankruptcy. Don't be confused by that last bankruptcy...it's primary purpose was to effectuate the acquisition of spmd by demo. Other than some relatively minor adjustments to the terms and covenants and claims that the acquisition would make the combined company stronger and therefore better able to meet debt requirements, it really wasn't intended to be any sort of solution to the long term debt issue in the typical sense of a bankruptcy.
Isn't this the law firm that Paulson is dealing with? If so, this firm is representing another class of creditors and likely cannot represent you.
The 6.5b valuation was for a company, rhd, that was much stronger than even the combined company of dexo/spMD today. Furthermore, the passage of time has proven that 6.5b was way too high. So, yes, the "evaluation" was totally wrong if youre talking about the old one. Fwiw, even the new valuation is too high.
I'm no Joe Walshas fan, but this bankruptcy isn't his fault. It's not Obama's fault, and it's not George bush's fault. If you want to place the blame on people, the blame should go to Dave Swanson, Peter McDonald, and Steve blonde for orchestrating too many leveraged buyouts a decade ago on the rhd/dex one side and Verizon. Senior leadership for saddling idearc with too much debt when they spun that company off. This bankruptcy follows a line of two prior bankruptcies (counting rhd/deco and idrc/sped as one bankruptcy) that has been years in the making. The companysimple productssimply do not add value to their customers...customers have more logical options for digital advertising solutions. Furthermore,one of the digital offerings they have hung their hat on is seo...but, dexo can't even successfully Seo themselves...neither vertically nor horizontally.
thanks for the intro, kinged. i do believe there is some upside here, but i maintain my belief that there won't be any significant oil recovery until at least q4 2016, but most likely not until 2017...by significant, i mean oil prices returning above $80 or so. i figured their credit facility would be cut somewhat when they went through the redetermination, as we discussed a couple of months ago. i'm not too concerned though, they still have plenty of liquidity with about $900m still available on the credit facility. in my mind, the key will be the manner in which they balance cash flows by maintaining capex at a reasonable level while not harming their ability to be poised for growth as the industry begins to rebound. in the meantime, there are a lot of variables to keep an eye on, including us shale production volumes, iran, saudi arabia / aramco, etc.