I find it remarkable that the case against WTG is dismissed as desperate and embarrassing, going nowhere.
The company isn't insolvent, it can't trade insolvent. However it is propped up by lenders funds. How do you propose Anchorage and others will recoup their outlay, plus a decent return, if nothing comes from the claim? Many posters say the SGH model is broken and it never was viable. Therefore if that is a reasonable assumption there is no possibility of trading back to normality and the business must be worthless.
We have a contradiction on this forum. Posters on the one hand spouting on about the hard-nosed business savvy New Yorkers while at the same time posting that the SGH claim is laughable.
If the claim is laughable doesn't that paint New Yorker in a bad light. Taking on a basket case without due diligence on the likliehood of recouping outlay + interest? That sounds familiar!
Because if zero $$ are coming in from WTG then I can't see where the value is. Negative net tangible assets.
No remedy from WTG and the lender group can only rely on trading to earn their return. That would surely be years away and that is if the model is not actually broken - hardly the normal mode of operation of a shark circling hedge fund looking for quick wins.
I don't really know the outcome of the claim (obviously, or guess) but I'm sure Anchorage have a reasonable idea of the likliehood given a remedy goes straight towards paying down their investment.
SGH Price at posting:
7.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
