I am back. So is SGH, page-1195

Again, you are posting the same things that have been disproven several times by posters. The paper you are quoting, which I doubt you have even read, is about hedge funds buying SHARES in companies and does not reference buying the LIABILITIES of companies. You don't even need to read the whole thing to realise that this paper is 100% irrelevant to the SGH situation. But you never even acknowledge those posters that try to have the discussion with you. Your opinion on this is clearly wrong.

Oh, and don't bother bringing up that example you have tried to give before about Anchorage (and a few other funds) taking over a USA company and years later selling it at a huge profit. There is absolutely zero evidence that the original shareholder made any money (when infact the evidence shows the exact opposite and the original shareholders lost everything, but you refuse to accept that).

You have claimed several times that you totally trust SGH management. But now you are saying that you need Anchorage to advise your management which you have total faith in? I would want management changed, no doubt about that as they have destroyed shareholder value and up until at least 31 March, it was still cashflow negative, even after significant restructures. They need as much help as they can get.

Anchorage is not the (current) SGH shareholders friend. After the capital structure change there will be changes at all levels in SGH.

I know that many SGH shareholders are totally aware of the possibilities (and the reasonable probabilities) of what will come in the next few weeks, and that is fine and I wish you good luck. But make sure you are basing your decisions on proper research and not posters who clearly have a self-interest in trying to pump up the stock with misleading information.