PRXI - Premier Exhibitions

[DukeCrow]

5) his downside of $3-4 p/share sounds too good to be true to me... what is different now vs. 1-2 years ago when this was trading at much less than $1?

If you look at the acquisition by DinoKing (where Sellers literally gave half the company away for no reason), they included a contingent payout if the operating company hit certain targets (expansion into Macau, renewal of Cedar Fair contract, etc). The problem was that the company had no cash to make the payments, so DinoKing could force their hand to make the (fixed) payments in stock. So it was like a death spiral. The lower the stock went the more stock that would be issued to make those payments. It was an egregious term agreed to by Sellers (who should be sued for his negligence). With the stock below 20 cents, the dilution would have been so massive that shareholders would have been diluted into non-existence.

 

I'm guessing the terms aren't valid in bankruptcy, but I'm not sure. Hopefully, if they are still valid, they're just another creditor that has to line up and can accept payment after the reorg plan is executed -- and they can't just dilute the hell out of current shareholders.

[DukeCrow]

 

Great news for the contingent payouts, lol!

[bskptkl]

google says:

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2006/10/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/commercial-real-estate-leases-how-are-they-treated-in-bankruptcy/

 

not sure details of lease in this particular case

 

Looks like lease was 10 years and they owed $45.8 mm on it on May 2014.

 

On April 9, 2014, the Company entered into a 130-month lease agreement for exhibition and retail space with 417 Fifth Avenue Real Estate, LLC in New York City, New York. This lease includes approximately 51,000 square feet of space at 417 Fifth Avenue between 37th and 38th streets in the Grand Central district and is near Bryant Park, the Empire State Building and only a few blocks east of Times Square.  Specific information about the exhibitions that will be opening in the space will be released at a later date.  In the first fiscal quarter of fiscal 2015, we purchased a $800 thousand certificate of deposit and pledged it as collateral for this lease.  An additional $900 thousand in collateral is due in the first fiscal quarter of 2016.  The lease commenced in July 2014 and we expect to begin presenting exhibitions in the leased space during the fiscal fourth quarter of 2015. Total future minimum payments under this lease are approximately $45.8 million.

 

So they would reject it in bankruptcy and landlord would be capped at 15% of remaining or roughly $5 million.

This got settled for $5.5 mm according to docket #943 filed earlier this month.

[bskptkl]

5) his downside of $3-4 p/share sounds too good to be true to me... what is different now vs. 1-2 years ago when this was trading at much less than $1?

If you look at the acquisition by DinoKing (where Sellers literally gave half the company away for no reason), they included a contingent payout if the operating company hit certain targets (expansion into Macau, renewal of Cedar Fair contract, etc). The problem was that the company had no cash to make the payments, so DinoKing could force their hand to make the (fixed) payments in stock. So it was like a death spiral. The lower the stock went the more stock that would be issued to make those payments. It was an egregious term agreed to by Sellers (who should be sued for his negligence). With the stock below 20 cents, the dilution would have been so massive that shareholders would have been diluted into non-existence.

 

I'm guessing the terms aren't valid in bankruptcy, but I'm not sure. Hopefully, if they are still valid, they're just another creditor that has to line up and can accept payment after the reorg plan is executed -- and they can't just dilute the hell out of current shareholders.

 

Look at docket #8 filed 6/14/16 for a breakdown of equity outstanding. I believe the "exchangeco" shares are based on the contingent payout and there may be some grounds to claw them back. I know the equity committee has explored the issue.

 

37. As of June 9, 2016, the there were 65,000,000 shares of Company

common stock, $.0001 par value authorized, of which 7,938,396 shares were issued

and of which 7,938,195 are outstanding. In addition, the shareholders of 1032403 B.C.

Ltd. (“Exchangeco”) have the right to exchange all of the 1,434,723 outstanding shares

of Exchangeco for 1,434,723 shares of Premier common stock at any time and without

payment of any further consideration. In addition, the holders of the Exchangeco

shares own one share of Class 1 Special Voting Stock and one share of Class 2 Special

Voting Stock which have no rights to dividends or payments upon liquidation but entitle

the holder of the Class 1 or Class 2 Special Voting Stock to vote at any shareholder

meeting, together with the holders of Company common stock, a number of votes equal

to the number of Exchangeco shares held by such holder of Class 1 or Class 2 Special

Voting Stock.

B.

[DukeCrow]

5) his downside of $3-4 p/share sounds too good to be true to me... what is different now vs. 1-2 years ago when this was trading at much less than $1?

If you look at the acquisition by DinoKing (where Sellers literally gave half the company away for no reason), they included a contingent payout if the operating company hit certain targets (expansion into Macau, renewal of Cedar Fair contract, etc). The problem was that the company had no cash to make the payments, so DinoKing could force their hand to make the (fixed) payments in stock. So it was like a death spiral. The lower the stock went the more stock that would be issued to make those payments. It was an egregious term agreed to by Sellers (who should be sued for his negligence). With the stock below 20 cents, the dilution would have been so massive that shareholders would have been diluted into non-existence.

 

I'm guessing the terms aren't valid in bankruptcy, but I'm not sure. Hopefully, if they are still valid, they're just another creditor that has to line up and can accept payment after the reorg plan is executed -- and they can't just dilute the hell out of current shareholders.

 

Look at docket #8 filed 6/14/16 for a breakdown of equity outstanding. I believe the "exchangeco" shares are based on the contingent payout and there may be some grounds to claw them back. I know the equity committee has explored the issue.

 

37. As of June 9, 2016, the there were 65,000,000 shares of Company

common stock, $.0001 par value authorized, of which 7,938,396 shares were issued

and of which 7,938,195 are outstanding. In addition, the shareholders of 1032403 B.C.

Ltd. (“Exchangeco”) have the right to exchange all of the 1,434,723 outstanding shares

of Exchangeco for 1,434,723 shares of Premier common stock at any time and without

payment of any further consideration. In addition, the holders of the Exchangeco

shares own one share of Class 1 Special Voting Stock and one share of Class 2 Special

Voting Stock which have no rights to dividends or payments upon liquidation but entitle

the holder of the Class 1 or Class 2 Special Voting Stock to vote at any shareholder

meeting, together with the holders of Company common stock, a number of votes equal

to the number of Exchangeco shares held by such holder of Class 1 or Class 2 Special

Voting Stock.

B.

 

Thanks for pointing me to that docket. That's interesting that the Equity Committee has explored a clawback of those shares. I'm sure that was brought up in the mediation.

 

That's not, however, the contingent payouts (or "Success Payments" as they called it in the merger agreement) I was speaking of. Here's a link from the merger agreement spelling out the "Success Payments." A total of $8.6 million that can be paid out in cash or shares -- not at the discretion of the company but at the discretion of the DinoKing shareholders. Good thing is that it looks like Cedar Fair is moving on from their Dinosaur exhibits and that is half the value of the contingent payouts.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796764/000117184315005188/gffdef14a_082815.htm#a_038

 

My understanding is that these payouts don't get extinguished in bankruptcy. They either survive or get renegotiated or exchanged. But achieving the targets seems to be getting less and less likely (the deadline for opening a Macau exhibit is June 30, 2018).

[DukeCrow]

Looks like mediation is still ongoing to resolve a few issues. The good thing is that the AdHoc Equity Group took part in the mediation, as well.

[bskptkl]

Looks like mediation is still ongoing to resolve a few issues. The good thing is that the AdHoc Equity Group took part in the mediation, as well.

I'm not so sure the AdHoc group isn't trying to surpress an auction in order to win a low ball bid. They ain't the little guy in this drama.

I think the formal EC is more in favor of an auction at Christie's or Sotheby's for example.

[DukeCrow]

Looks like mediation is still ongoing to resolve a few issues. The good thing is that the AdHoc Equity Group took part in the mediation, as well.

I'm not so sure the AdHoc group isn't trying to surpress an auction in order to win a low ball bid. They ain't the little guy in this drama.

I think the formal EC is more in favor of an auction at Christie's or Sotheby's for example.

Curious why you say that. Everything I've read points to them wanting to have a properly marketed auction process taking place over 9+ months, while the Equity Committee committed themselves to the mercy of the Debtors rushed auction process with no ability to solicit alternative bids or plans. Don't get me wrong, I do trust the Equity Committee, but I'm also glad the Adhoc group is there as another group to challenge the Debtors.

 

I don't trust the Dinoking insiders one bit. If anything, I would guess they would be the ones trying to win the Titanic assets in a low-ball bid. I'm very glad they have other groups keeping them in check.

[JanSvenda]

Hey guys,

 

equity holder here. I am going to write a report on Seeking Alpha because the recent share price action did not really reflect the developments in the court as there was nothing that would inherently change the dynamics of the thesis. Sure everything has been protracted and chaotic but we still do not know whether there is less interest in the artifacts. Furthermore, now that the exclusivity is gone, I believe that the proceedings could be sped up. If you think there is something I should pay an increased amount of attention in the report, let me know.

 

Re: AdHoc group - I think they might be open to run the biz as going concern as per docket #850, which is disconcerting.

 

I wrote the following email to their lawyer.

 

...I would like to ask the following questions;

 

1) Why does the Ad Hoc group think that they can offer an alternative when they did not finish their due diligence? Isn't there a risk that they would finish their due diligence and then reject the funding?

 

I am referring to this section of the objection;

 

'It just needs a little more time, and access to due diligence information'

 

The wording even seems to hint that they have not yet accessed any due diligence information.

 

2) Why does the group think that the entity is worth more as a going concern?

 

The exhibition business has been losing money in the past and even if this was due to the management, the cash flow stream was only attractive roughly 10 years ago. Who knows if the artifacts can attract such crowds again.

 

A public institution would be a better holder of the assets as they would not be forced to try to squeeze profit out of it.

 

Moreover, the fact that the company failed to sell the artifacts in 2012 already casts doubt on the value of the assets. However, more so on the value of the cash flow stream. The artifacts have intangible value that is certain, but the value of the connected cash flow stream is hardly the same.

 

Certainly, any argument of the Ad Hoc Equity Group is necessarily a forecast that would assume that past is not a good indication of the future which is a challenging argument to defend.

 

3) Why does the group think that there are alternatives (apart from their funding) when the management mentioned that they have tried searching for alternatives since bankruptcy and nothing clear came out of this effort?

 

I believe if one listens to the court recordings, one can see the reason for the sale quite clearly.

 

4) I do not understand the following sentence;

 

'Subsequently, the Debtors disclosed that their U.S. and French artifacts had only recently been appraised by “noted personal property and fine arts appraiser Richard Raymond Alasko” at approximately $218 million.'

 

The group is not well informed about the case or is unclear in wording. The appraisal happened in 2014, not recently - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796764/000117184314004750/exh_992.htm

[SnarkyPuppy]

Hey guys,

 

equity holder here. I am going to write a report on Seeking Alpha because the recent share price action did not really reflect the developments in the court as there was nothing that would inherently change the dynamics of the thesis. Sure everything has been protracted and chaotic but we still do not know whether there is less interest in the artifacts. Furthermore, now that the exclusivity is gone, I believe that the proceedings could be sped up. If you think there is something I should pay an increased amount of attention in the report, let me know.

 

Re: AdHoc group - I think they might be open to run the biz as going concern as per docket #850, which is disconcerting.

 

I wrote the following email to their lawyer.

 

...I would like to ask the following questions;

 

1) Why does the Ad Hoc group think that they can offer an alternative when they did not finish their due diligence? Isn't there a risk that they would finish their due diligence and then reject the funding?

 

I am referring to this section of the objection;

 

'It just needs a little more time, and access to due diligence information'

 

The wording even seems to hint that they have not yet accessed any due diligence information.

 

2) Why does the group think that the entity is worth more as a going concern?

 

The exhibition business has been losing money in the past and even if this was due to the management, the cash flow stream was only attractive roughly 10 years ago. Who knows if the artifacts can attract such crowds again.

 

A public institution would be a better holder of the assets as they would not be forced to try to squeeze profit out of it.

 

Moreover, the fact that the company failed to sell the artifacts in 2012 already casts doubt on the value of the assets. However, more so on the value of the cash flow stream. The artifacts have intangible value that is certain, but the value of the connected cash flow stream is hardly the same.

 

Certainly, any argument of the Ad Hoc Equity Group is necessarily a forecast that would assume that past is not a good indication of the future which is a challenging argument to defend.

 

3) Why does the group think that there are alternatives (apart from their funding) when the management mentioned that they have tried searching for alternatives since bankruptcy and nothing clear came out of this effort?

 

I believe if one listens to the court recordings, one can see the reason for the sale quite clearly.

 

4) I do not understand the following sentence;

 

'Subsequently, the Debtors disclosed that their U.S. and French artifacts had only recently been appraised by “noted personal property and fine arts appraiser Richard Raymond Alasko” at approximately $218 million.'

 

The group is not well informed about the case or is unclear in wording. The appraisal happened in 2014, not recently - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796764/000117184314004750/exh_992.htm

 

Quick reaction to this is-  if they are going to run this as a going concern-  how much cash flow do you suspect they generate annually?  When I last looked at this, I saw roughly ~$2.5mm (going off memory) in FCF but I was normalizing the first 9 months of FY2017

[DukeCrow]

Hey guys,

 

equity holder here. I am going to write a report on Seeking Alpha because the recent share price action did not really reflect the developments in the court as there was nothing that would inherently change the dynamics of the thesis. Sure everything has been protracted and chaotic but we still do not know whether there is less interest in the artifacts. Furthermore, now that the exclusivity is gone, I believe that the proceedings could be sped up. If you think there is something I should pay an increased amount of attention in the report, let me know.

 

Re: AdHoc group - I think they might be open to run the biz as going concern as per docket #850, which is disconcerting.

 

I wrote the following email to their lawyer.

 

...I would like to ask the following questions;

 

1) Why does the Ad Hoc group think that they can offer an alternative when they did not finish their due diligence? Isn't there a risk that they would finish their due diligence and then reject the funding?

 

I am referring to this section of the objection;

 

'It just needs a little more time, and access to due diligence information'

 

The wording even seems to hint that they have not yet accessed any due diligence information.

 

2) Why does the group think that the entity is worth more as a going concern?

 

The exhibition business has been losing money in the past and even if this was due to the management, the cash flow stream was only attractive roughly 10 years ago. Who knows if the artifacts can attract such crowds again.

 

A public institution would be a better holder of the assets as they would not be forced to try to squeeze profit out of it.

 

Moreover, the fact that the company failed to sell the artifacts in 2012 already casts doubt on the value of the assets. However, more so on the value of the cash flow stream. The artifacts have intangible value that is certain, but the value of the connected cash flow stream is hardly the same.

 

Certainly, any argument of the Ad Hoc Equity Group is necessarily a forecast that would assume that past is not a good indication of the future which is a challenging argument to defend.

 

3) Why does the group think that there are alternatives (apart from their funding) when the management mentioned that they have tried searching for alternatives since bankruptcy and nothing clear came out of this effort?

 

I believe if one listens to the court recordings, one can see the reason for the sale quite clearly.

 

4) I do not understand the following sentence;

 

'Subsequently, the Debtors disclosed that their U.S. and French artifacts had only recently been appraised by “noted personal property and fine arts appraiser Richard Raymond Alasko” at approximately $218 million.'

 

The group is not well informed about the case or is unclear in wording. The appraisal happened in 2014, not recently - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796764/000117184314004750/exh_992.htm

No offense, but if you trust management over the Adhoc Equity Group you are wildly misinformed as to the history of the company and insider motives. I'll try to comment on all your points later, but I'll quickly just say that the 2012 "auction process" was severely mishandled and poorly run. All it should be used as an example of is management incompetence.

[JanSvenda]

I certainly do not trust the management. I believe that the auction would be the best way to monetize the whole thing, that is why I raised the points with Ad Hoc group. Looking forward to your comments!

[DukeCrow]

Re: AdHoc group - I think they might be open to run the biz as going concern as per docket #850, which is disconcerting.

I think they're just making the point that the op biz is currently running cash flow positive so there should be no rush in liquidating assets. The sale should be done in an orderly process without a rush to sell for the sake of ending Ch. 11 as quickly as possible.

 

1) Why does the Ad Hoc group think that they can offer an alternative when they did not finish their due diligence? Isn't there a risk that they would finish their due diligence and then reject the funding?

 

'It just needs a little more time, and access to due diligence information'

 

The wording even seems to hint that they have not yet accessed any due diligence information.

The company is blocking them from doing proper due diligence. They're just putting out hypotheticals to prove a point, IMO.

 

I am referring to this section of the objection;

2) Why does the group think that the entity is worth more as a going concern?

 

The exhibition business has been losing money in the past and even if this was due to the management, the cash flow stream was only attractive roughly 10 years ago. Who knows if the artifacts can attract such crowds again.

 

A public institution would be a better holder of the assets as they would not be forced to try to squeeze profit out of it.

 

Moreover, the fact that the company failed to sell the artifacts in 2012 already casts doubt on the value of the assets. However, more so on the value of the cash flow stream. The artifacts have intangible value that is certain, but the value of the connected cash flow stream is hardly the same.

 

Certainly, any argument of the Ad Hoc Equity Group is necessarily a forecast that would assume that past is not a good indication of the future which is a challenging argument to defend.

The company had been profitable for quite a while until prior management made ill advised moves that put the financial health of the company at risk. The exhibition business had a positive NPV and appears to have one yet again. So the company is worth more as a going concern simply because the OP biz when run competently has a positive value. They can still monetize the Titanic assets without closing down the op biz. Personally, I don't care what happens to the op biz bc it's a small portion of the overall value of the company's assets. But I won't refuse any extra value that can be squeezed from the company.

 

3) Why does the group think that there are alternatives (apart from their funding) when the management mentioned that they have tried searching for alternatives since bankruptcy and nothing clear came out of this effort?

 

I believe if one listens to the court recordings, one can see the reason for the sale quite clearly.

Don't trust management. There is so much self-dealing with current management. Their incentives aren't aligned with shareholders at all. They are basically trying to steal the assets from shareholders any way possible (look at the terms of the "Success Payments" in the "merger" with DinoKing).

 

4) I do not understand the following sentence;

 

'Subsequently, the Debtors disclosed that their U.S. and French artifacts had only recently been appraised by “noted personal property and fine arts appraiser Richard Raymond Alasko” at approximately $218 million.'

 

The group is not well informed about the case or is unclear in wording. The appraisal happened in 2014, not recently - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796764/000117184314004750/exh_992.htm

I think they are trying to make the point to the court that the Debtors only disclosed the unappraised value of the assets in their original Ch 11 filing and didn't disclose to the court the actual appraised value until later during the French Artifacts Sale Motion.

 

Regardless, I certainly think that the Adhoc group and the Equity Committee are working in our best interests, while management almost certainly isn't. I'm very glad the Adhoc group came along to put some pressure on management to call off the rushed auction process while the Equity Committee's hands were tied (which was at least partially their own fault).

 

I look forward to your ideas and opinions on this. Hopefully, we can all have a great final outcome :)

[chesko182]

COURT APPROVES SETTLEMENT OF LARGEST GENERAL UNSECURED CLAIM

 

March 14, 2018 -- Premier has favorably settled the largest outstanding general unsecured claim against the estate. The creditor, 417 Fifth Ave Real Estate LLC, the landlord of Premier's former New York exhibition site, (the "Landlord"), had filed proofs of claim asserting claims totaling nearly $12.6 million for unpaid rent and construction loads. Under the settlement, the Landlord will be granted an allowed general unsecured claim only in the amount of $5.5 million and the remaining claims will be disallowed.

 

The Landlord's claim was settled after a day-long mediation in Tampa, Florida. The Equity Committee's counsel attended and participated in the mediation.

 

source: http://www.jndla.com/cases/premiercommittee

[chesko182]

thoughts at these levels? it seems extremely cheap... I expect some sort of plan to come up eventually.

 

This came was filed this week

 

http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/1ea2de23-b91a-496e-82b6-74e032f73547.pdf

[given2invest]

thoughts at these levels? it seems extremely cheap... I expect some sort of plan to come up eventually.

 

This came was filed this week

 

http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/1ea2de23-b91a-496e-82b6-74e032f73547.pdf

 

My thought is this:

 

In the last 10 years, PRXI is up there as an all time value trap.  I know cause many years ago I was in the value trap.  Could it work out for someone?  Maybe.  Good luck but you've been warned!

[SnarkyPuppy]

thoughts at these levels? it seems extremely cheap... I expect some sort of plan to come up eventually.

 

This came was filed this week

 

http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/1ea2de23-b91a-496e-82b6-74e032f73547.pdf

 

My thought is this:

 

In the last 10 years, PRXI is up there as an all time value trap.  I know cause many years ago I was in the value trap.  Could it work out for someone?  Maybe.  Good luck but you've been warned!

 

This has become a bankruptcy special situation with short term catalysts.  How is the history of the company remotely relevant here?  It's seemingly a +expected value bet based on recent appraisals relative to the capital structure & stock price.  You may have a variant view or no opinion - but not sure how it's anything short of lazy to opine by saying it's historically been a value trap? 

[cameronfen]

thoughts at these levels? it seems extremely cheap... I expect some sort of plan to come up eventually.

 

This came was filed this week

 

http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/1ea2de23-b91a-496e-82b6-74e032f73547.pdf

 

My thought is this:

 

In the last 10 years, PRXI is up there as an all time value trap.  I know cause many years ago I was in the value trap.  Could it work out for someone?  Maybe.  Good luck but you've been warned!

 

This has become a bankruptcy special situation with short term catalysts.  How is the history of the company remotely relevant here?  It's seemingly a +expected value bet based on recent appraisals relative to the capital structure & stock price.  You may have a variant view or no opinion - but not sure how it's anything short of lazy to opine by saying it's historically been a value trap?

 

Because while the Titanic assets are worth 200+ million dollars by outside assessors, no one ever wants to buy them.  Even in bankruptcy, you need someone to buy your assets.  I may go long (small speculative amount), but do you think that management didn't try to sell before resorting to bankruptcy.  Management has been trying to sell these assets for 6 years.  I know I have been burned by them before.  Therefore value trap and potential fatal flaw in the long thesis. 

[given2invest]

thoughts at these levels? it seems extremely cheap... I expect some sort of plan to come up eventually.

 

This came was filed this week

 

http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/1ea2de23-b91a-496e-82b6-74e032f73547.pdf

 

My thought is this:

 

In the last 10 years, PRXI is up there as an all time value trap.  I know cause many years ago I was in the value trap.  Could it work out for someone?  Maybe.  Good luck but you've been warned!

 

This has become a bankruptcy special situation with short term catalysts.  How is the history of the company remotely relevant here?  It's seemingly a +expected value bet based on recent appraisals relative to the capital structure & stock price.  You may have a variant view or no opinion - but not sure how it's anything short of lazy to opine by saying it's historically been a value trap?

 

Because while the Titanic assets are worth 200+ million dollars by outside assessors, no one ever wants to buy them.  Even in bankruptcy, you need someone to buy your assets.  I may go long (small speculative amount), but do you think that management didn't try to sell before resorting to bankruptcy.  Management has been trying to sell these assets for 6 years.  I know I have been burned by them before.  Therefore value trap and potential fatal flaw in the long thesis.

 

Thank you.  That's exactly why.

[701 LV]

Any idea why the jump today? News?

[bskptkl]

Equity committee filed a disclosure statement http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/5133b6e7-1d14-4883-81ad-58b7cfa72559.pdf

[bskptkl]

Equity committee filed a disclosure statement http://upshotservices.s3.amazonaws.com/files/497d5a77-fff2-49a9-98f0-c32110ea0410/5133b6e7-1d14-4883-81ad-58b7cfa72559.pdf

 

Financial analysis on p 106.

They used an estimate for French artifacts value of 40-60 million.

American artifacts value is TBD.

Yields equity price of $0.59 to $3.52.

 

[chesko182]

plus any upside in the american artifacts right? this is a full liquidation so no remaining operating company for the equity holders?

[bskptkl]

plus any upside in the american artifacts right? this is a full liquidation so no remaining operating company for the equity holders?

Plan has not been approved and will surely to be opposed by debtor however.

[chesko182]

plus any upside in the american artifacts right? this is a full liquidation so no remaining operating company for the equity holders?

Plan has not been approved and will surely to be opposed by debtor however.

 

does the debtor have a say on this? I thought equity and debt holders would be the only ones to vote (page 4 of the disclosure statement). I assume the debt holders would vote for...