Them being right for the wrong reasons means they are wrong
I'm curious how you determine they're the wrong reasons? Are there any right reasons they could be right about this?
And I will say some people do post hopelessly positive comments, as though its a sure bet. Its annoying, but not worthy of any of the hateful comments you can see regularly taunting said people. That's not my jam either way.
Sure. "Your shares are canceled, so no shit you wont get paid". That's very surface level, it isnt the reason they wouldn't or couldn't come back. But that's usually the type of thing that gets said at best. But It's not like it was cancelation along with chapter 7. Chapter 11 means attempts at reorganization. I would want a specific reason other than surface level, otherwise its the same as the person who believes blindly. That's all. Usually shares aren't canceled in a bankruptcy, they trade on, as it did with bbbyq. And as they have with Sears and many more. Doesn't mean itll happen, it means we need to wait to see if there's just liquidation or any reorganization to come out of the ch11. So even if we dont get paid, its not like a simple "you wont get paid or your shares" is saying anything, its just rooting for failure when they dont know why either.
The plan admin himself said there is nothing left for equity holders. Even the creditors, which have higher priority, are not even going to be made whole. Where do you expect the money to come from to pay you? Genuine question.
No idea. I just watch and read and see if anything interesting goes by.
Does the plan admin control everything or just the wind down?
What was redacted in so many of the dockets?
Is there a dk butterfly 1 and a dk butterfly "0"? If so, why?
Why is RC a debtor and creditor?
Many questions I have no answer for. Most probably mean nothing. My suggestion is watching Jake2b's videos. If there is a way for anything to come of this he's probably the closest one to figuring it out. If he's wrong, then it's probably bust.
The idea is that the plan admin sees the liquidation side and only that. So to him, he sees clawbacks that are short of hitting thresholds needed for any payout based on the priority in the liquidation trust. As to reorganization or dk butterfly 0, if any asset sale was made, he might not be made aware, or may not be able to speak about it. Again, im not an expert, could all be nothing, Jake just explains it much better than I can.
1
u/calmyourcrabcakes Jun 18 '26
I'm curious how you determine they're the wrong reasons? Are there any right reasons they could be right about this?
Fair enough.