SWC - you continue to make a fool of yourself.
To all intents and purposes the business known as S&G went bust months ago owing hundreds of millions of dollars it couldn't even pay the interest on, let alone start to repay. The Banks that lent the money had sold their debts for a fraction of their face values a few months earlier to a few hedge and vulture funds, of which Anchorage Capital (AC) bought the majority. Without new money put in by AC trading would have ceased by now.
Why do you think anything that's going on now should take into account the interests of shareholders in a company that ceased to have any value belonging to them a long time ago - let alone have to be regarded as fair by people who show a fundamental lack of understanding of the basics of business.
AC probably sees more future return from continuing to trade SGH in the form recently outlined, than to break it up after either putting it into administration or going straight for a liquidation. Either way, shareholders wouldn't see a red cent because the full face value of the debt acquired at basement bargain prices (something like 25 cents on the dollar) is repayable to AC & co, who are in a position to demand anything they want.
Hedge funds don't do sympathy or what might be regarded as fair or not by anyone, let alone some cerebrally sub-normal types who write on discussion forums like this sometimes aspires to be. They do "money" - and the more for it for themselves the better. I shouldn't think they much care if they get more than 75% (they will) or not, because either way they win big. You on the other hand will lose even the pitiful amount the shares now trade at by voting 'no'. The shares aren't even worth the $0.069 quoted today.
You keep going on about a $1bn settlement that's apparently coming shareholders' way some time soon. Firstly, IF WTG is found to have a liability to SGH, residual shareholders from the failed times of the past won't see anything more than a tiny slither. Second, it can't be any more than WTG could be sold for, assuming anyone wanted it, which would be a tiny fraction of $1bn. Thirdly, I doubt any UK court will find anything other than AG knew the risks he was taking on, then went on to fail to run competently and effectively a series of different operations that had only recently been brought together in what he knew was presented as a single main operation, which was then fundamentally damaged by the UK Chancellor's new proposals for the industry, combined with much tighter regulation to reduce the high volume of 'ambulance chasing'. In a nutshell, AG wasn't clever enough to understand - nor was anyone else in SGH. The alternative (one I favour) was that the UK acquisition was a 'must' because something sizeable was needed in which to hide the sins of the past.
You won't understand any of the above so feel free to respond in your usual intellectual and fact-free way. You seem to have a few fans, for whom I feel desperately sorry. It must be awful going through life in a fog.
3c (or 0c) soon.
Expand
(20min delay)