If that wasnt the case they would have already liquadated. It doesnt mean that if the financial targets arent meant they wont liquidate. It said maximum value from operations, not no value in liquidation. If the risk benefit goes the wrong way they liquidate. Also, the liquidation plan filed which was linked to on another thread here is interesting. It specifically states that if they liquidate they wont try to sell the company as a going concern. Rather the plan is to sell spare parts, planes, gates etc. piecemeal over an extended period following an immediate shutdown of operations.
Tim, where did you get your law degree?[BR][BR]All that means if the company does not liquididate the creditors will get more money back over a longer period of time, if they liquididate they get less money because the company is no longer in business and RSA gets its money first. [BR][BR]Dont put out false information or your opinion, that is why you throw bags and not argue cases in court
When voting please consider the company''s statements below regarding their very own liquidation analysis and how it wouldn''t be the greater benefit to the stakeholders.
The Overview reads the following:
After careful review of the Debtors'' current operations, estimated recoveries in various liquidation scenarios, and prospects as ongoing businesses, the Debtors have concluded that the recovery to stakeholders will be maximized by the Debtors'' continued operation as going concerns. The Debtors believe that their businesses and assets have significant value that would not be realized in a liquidation, either in whole or in substantial part. According to the liquidation and other analyses prepared by the Debtors with the assistance of their financial advisors, the value of the Debtor''s Estates is considerably greater as going concerns than in a liquidation.
Note, they had TOP financial people who prepared this and they went over various liquidation scenerios and it all came out that a liquidation would produce lesser value to the stakeholders!
Realize that those who are telling you that somehow rampers will cause this company to liquidate, is not supported by the Overview of the company''s disclosure. Bronner knows this too.
Bronner, Pilots, management, and even the unions have protected their interest and are saying exactly what you would expect them to say.
IAM Local Chairman 1487
The liquidation analysis is required by law and is intended to persuade the creditors not an equity invester the company is better off alive than dead. The creditors have the ultimate vote on our future.Management must convince them it is in their interest to allow the company to exit C-11 and continue to operate.
On 1/9/2003 4:11:32 PM Biffeman wrote:
Tim, where did you get your law degree?
All that means if the company does not liquididate the creditors will get more money back over a longer period of time, if they liquididate they get less money because the company is no longer in business and RSA gets its money first.
Dont put out false information or your opinion, that is why you throw bags and not argue cases in court
Biffman, the Overviews conclusion is self evident and it does harm to justice for you to belittle the overview.
Actually Biffman I felt a personal blow I believe you intended for me regarding degrees and I didn't think it was appropriate.
But since you brought it up I guess I should tell you that I have a masters education and a PHD application pending at Northwestern University in Evanston. Those that know me know this.
A law degree it's not but any educated person or uneducated person can read the liquidation analysis and make the same conclusion that our company made. Let me make it simple for you biffman. Liquidation = less $, continued operation = more $ And if you are Bronner you want "more $". It is no less than unthinkable for you or anyone else to continue suggesting that the ramp will shut this place down.
If you or anyone else choose to say, "Help!" "Police!" "Murder!" without evidence and continue to believe that the company is in error or that the company just "made this up" then believe what you wish. But don't question a man's education if he differs with you.
I learned a long time ago that even though I was blessed enough to get an education that it doesn't give me a right to question another man's intellect or education.
Are you a bankruptcy attorney? Have you been to court and done bk cases? Do you have a law degree? Did you pass the bar?[BR][BR]You have done none of these, and Bronner will get his money one way or another, if we liquididate he gets his $300 million first, if we stay in business, he does not know what will happen.[BR][BR]But you are giving your facts on issues you do not know about nor have ever been educated on.
Your mind is made up. There is nothing that anybody can say that you would agree with other than your own opinion. You are angry and paranoid. Believe it or not nobody is out to get you. This is not personal, its business. U simply can not survive with our costs so high. That leaves only two options:
1- fix it
2- shut it down and sell the assets
You obviously want to shut it down.
My suggestion is that you vote yes, quit your job, and go to the employment office and find another job (if available).
The result for you is the same but the rest of us who want to work, feed our families, pay our mortgage...
can continue to do so.
Tim, the money paid did not go to union staff, it went to the attorney and financial experts, and in each of the past restructuring agreements, all of the unions were obligated to talk with the company in the event the DIP financing was at risk, you seem to have this problem of selectivily leaving out relevant facts. Section 1113 letters are intact and to this date no company has ever been sucessful at getting one overturned in court.[BR][BR]If you are so smart and know everything, why are you throwing bags instead of practicing law? If you actually believe this company wont liquididate then I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Ask Eastern or Braniff employees. [BR][BR]Don't you get the BIG PICTURE?
I realize that the leadership of ALL of the unions are dedicated professionals doing the absolute best that can be done, and voluntarily. If I berated the integrity of anybody it was unintentional and I humbly apologize.
This just sounds like more of the "turn the first one down, get a better deal" logic to me. If this is what you want, press on. But don't expect any sympathy from the rest of us if it blows up in your face. By this time tomorrow we should have an idea where the vote stands and sometime between then and the 16th what the company's responce will be. Another day, another deadline.
I hope you still don't pay to have an attorney at your closings?
BTW did you know that the attorneys manufactured the idea that the 1113 letter was rock solid last time?
And who exactly paid those attorneys last time biffman? Now that's what I'm talking about.
You seem to forget the facts that up to a mind boggling 1.25 million went to the union attorneys and staff last time. Do you think they are loyal to the union bosses & company or you?
a320, i simply pasted the company's own liquidation analysis and it is independent from me. Your rhetoric on the floor without substance surprises even me. Therefore carefully review my posting on it (with the quote button) and constructively tell me what is in error about it.