https://www.wsj.com/articles/avaya-veers-toward-bankruptcy-filing-11671144276?st=xlnqrh3akrha6yz&reflink=desktopwebshare_twitter
12 replies (most recent on top)
Apollo is NOT a secured creditor! They hedged a bet, a bet that IF Avaya goes into bankruptcy, they have right of first refusal t secure Avayas assets with the plan to sell it off in parts. Apollo ONLY succeeds by forcing Avaya to default with the creditors and then their "bet' (which was buying I to the B3 bonds that are not die for 5 years) enables them to accelerate a forced bankruptcy.
The situation now is Apollo is trying to force the current creditors (none of which are secured...becoming secured is one of the negotiation points).
Apollo wins by devaluing the company.
I'm confused!
If Apollo is a secured creditor and Avaya is not able to fulfil their financial obligation towards them, then shouldn't Apollo be entitled to do what it takes to somehow get their money back? Be it BK or otherwise? How is Apollo the bad guy here?
I would be more concerned with "the agreement would absolve directors and executives from any litigation" part of the suggested agreement by Avaya.
In my opinion, some past (or current?) directors and/or executives have indeed committed financial crimes and at the very least they should be held accountable.
Avaya doesn't have time to fight the WSJ. They r working to overcome Apollo. Apollo WANTS Avaya to spend energy fighting the fallout of the WSJ. That way Apollo can maneuver to take control. Avaya must fight to keep Apollo out
That wsj article was very damaging. I would have thought though that if it wasn't factual Avaya would have responded right away to say so.
I think the id--t that wrote the wsj article did it on purpose to crash the stock, the comments were months ago about the survivability. That specific article caused a 60 percent drop in stock price, I think they should be sued and lose everything if there is any untruthful responses from that article. F wsj
How is it legal to absolve parties of wrongdoing and litigations? Serious question from a shareholder and ex-employee that got railroaded by these crooks? Can we complain to the SEC or an attorney general to stop this deal in its tracks?
I thought i was the only saying ...'What the he......" with those posts.
She oscillates between breaking all the rules to say whatever she pleases, and then bragging about it as if she is invincible, to being a snowflake at the slightest hint that she may be inappropriate.
we are lucky if she has pants on
I thought i was the only saying ...'What the he......" with those posts.
She oscillates between breaking all the rules to say whatever she pleases, and then bragging about it as if she is invincible, to being a snowflake at the slightest hint that she may be inappropriate.
we are lucky if she has pants on
It is nuts.
but then again, we still get the joy of a chick who posts her outfit changes all day. Today she bragged about buying a $2000 pair of boots (if only they were the only boot or attire purchase we have been blessed to know in the last 30 days). meanwhile she doesnt even know the definition of a proper cowboy boot.
and she has a paycheck.
ridiculous town.
There is a difference between civil liability and criminal liability. The proposed agreement would apply only to civil liability. In my opinion, Enron-style crimes may have been committed by some of our directors and executives, and that an extended visit to the Graybar Hotel might be appropriate. But that's just wishful thinking. The question I have is whether the directors and executives who got us into this mess, and are no longer with the company, would be protected from civil litigation. I hope not.
absolve directors and execs from any litigation? So basically someone is saying there is definitely wrongdoing here, but legally allowed to be absolved of it and that we will do it....kudos. Amazing how corporates cheat and get the easy way out isnt it.
NOTE: the agreement would absolve directors and executives from any litigation.
That means there will be another shoe to drop with some damning news. They are clearly choosing to accept BK to avoid the consequence whatever the next bo-b drop will be.