Creditors maybe asking for extension
- Thread starter Elevation
- Start date
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
So much for Doogie's "hard" deadline. If the committee says "stand on your hind legs and bark," odds are Parker will do it.
It speaks volumes that they'd think about asking for an extension, though. Apparently the sweetened deal must not be that terribly impressive. If the deal was that good, it would be a no-brainer.
I personally think this was probably leaked by the "pro-merger" firm(s) on the official creditors committee to counteract the word that came out in the WSJ last week that the deal was DOA.
It speaks volumes that they'd think about asking for an extension, though. Apparently the sweetened deal must not be that terribly impressive. If the deal was that good, it would be a no-brainer.
I personally think this was probably leaked by the "pro-merger" firm(s) on the official creditors committee to counteract the word that came out in the WSJ last week that the deal was DOA.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
ClueByFour said: "So much for Doogie's "hard" deadline. If the committee says "stand on your hind legs and bark," odds are Parker will do it. It speaks volumes that they'd think about asking for an extension, though. Apparently the sweetened deal must not be that terribly impressive. If the deal was that good, it would be a no-brainer. I personally think this was probably leaked by the "pro-merger" firm(s) on the official creditors committee to counteract the word that came out in the WSJ last week that the deal was DOA.
USA320Pilot comments: Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. US Airways has been holding direct discussions with the official creditors committee during the past couple of days. There are apparently new developments and its unclear how this will proceed. I believe something will be announced in the not-to-distant future.
Bloomberg wrote: "There are several large creditors that have conflicts of interest in terms of their willingness or desire to work with Delta in the future," S&P's Corridore said in an interview. "Their best interests may not line up with the best interests of the creditors not on the committee."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot comments: Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. US Airways has been holding direct discussions with the official creditors committee during the past couple of days. There are apparently new developments and its unclear how this will proceed. I believe something will be announced in the not-to-distant future.
Bloomberg wrote: "There are several large creditors that have conflicts of interest in terms of their willingness or desire to work with Delta in the future," S&P's Corridore said in an interview. "Their best interests may not line up with the best interests of the creditors not on the committee."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
I agree, that asking for an extention means they are taking a very close look at this offer. If the creditors had no interest in the US offer, they would sit idle and watch the Feb. 1st deadline come and go. I take this as more of a postive move than a negative one to Parkers bid. 
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
even if they say go for the merger i would still think the govt/doj/dot would reject it on anti trust grounds more than likely due to overlapping the shuttle and the slots being mjor part of it all?
Did "Doogie" extend the deadline yet? I didn't see that.
I think they can sell one of the shuttles so I dont think that will be a deciding factor. I really thought that this was pretty much a done deal from the beginning but I have my doubts at this time. After all the Delta employees are doing to stand alone I really dont WANT to merge with them. Hp employees have had their hands full dealing with system migrations and that is even though the US east employees are pulling together to help. I cant imagine trying to merge systems with employees who didnt want to merge. Hopefully, if this merger does not take place both airlines will succeed as either a stand alone airline or a merged airline with willing participants. Mama
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Bloomberg wrote: "There are several large creditors that have conflicts of interest in terms of their willingness or desire to work with Delta in the future," S&P's Corridore said in an interview. "Their best interests may not line up with the best interests of the creditors not on the committee."
Regards,
USA320Pilot [/font]
[/quote]
Lost in all this hysteria is the very essence of bankruptcy: it's a judicial proceeding in equity and law. I'll say it again: equity and law. Certain decisions and courses of action are solely within the trustee's power or the creditor's committee, etc. Those are legal powers as defined in the Bankruptcy Code which comes from Congress. (We still happen to be a democratic republic.) The judge too has his/her own legal powers as defined in the Code. But what the judge has that all other parties don't, even Delta, is the power to make decisions in equity. That equitable power is vast and is only limited by the express limitations coming from statutes (ie legal powers). In a criminal trial, for example, the judge ultimately rules on the admission of evidence based on equity (is it fair to have this evidence presented against the accused?) The idea goes way back to when we had courts of equity and two parties would appear before a judge who would basically just concluded yes/no, that is/is not fair. A little over 200 years ago, courts of law and equity merged and now western countries have a hybrid. So, what does this have to do with the creditor's committee? Conflict of interest matters are not legal matters, but issue of equity. That means the judge can invoke his/her broad powers to what he/she thinks is right. We all know there is a lot of horesplay going on among the creditors. This is going to be very contentious and will no doubt end up with the judge getting involved. That's where the rubber will meet the road: no more BS hysteria or press leaks etc. Rest assured there are plenty of experts retained to review each plan and each will have to stand on their own merits. One would think that if Delta's stand-alone had any substance, then why all the hysteria? Gamesmanship will only go on for so long.
Regards,
USA320Pilot [/font]
[/quote]
Lost in all this hysteria is the very essence of bankruptcy: it's a judicial proceeding in equity and law. I'll say it again: equity and law. Certain decisions and courses of action are solely within the trustee's power or the creditor's committee, etc. Those are legal powers as defined in the Bankruptcy Code which comes from Congress. (We still happen to be a democratic republic.) The judge too has his/her own legal powers as defined in the Code. But what the judge has that all other parties don't, even Delta, is the power to make decisions in equity. That equitable power is vast and is only limited by the express limitations coming from statutes (ie legal powers). In a criminal trial, for example, the judge ultimately rules on the admission of evidence based on equity (is it fair to have this evidence presented against the accused?) The idea goes way back to when we had courts of equity and two parties would appear before a judge who would basically just concluded yes/no, that is/is not fair. A little over 200 years ago, courts of law and equity merged and now western countries have a hybrid. So, what does this have to do with the creditor's committee? Conflict of interest matters are not legal matters, but issue of equity. That means the judge can invoke his/her broad powers to what he/she thinks is right. We all know there is a lot of horesplay going on among the creditors. This is going to be very contentious and will no doubt end up with the judge getting involved. That's where the rubber will meet the road: no more BS hysteria or press leaks etc. Rest assured there are plenty of experts retained to review each plan and each will have to stand on their own merits. One would think that if Delta's stand-alone had any substance, then why all the hysteria? Gamesmanship will only go on for so long.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
You know, I was right about Doug having no leverage. Remember that other thead? You know you do--I find your sudden interest in the creditors interesting, as you were previously convinced that they mattered very little. Remember those little statements I made about the creditors being the sole source of influence, and how you disagreed? I love how you are now jumping (damn near leaping) over to my way of thinking. (see http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...&st=0&# for those of you who might have missed it).
But to be fair, here's the thing: much like the US BK case, I have much, much better information than you do. And it's not from kissing his behind while Driving Ms. Doogie. Simply put: much like when I knew more than you about both US BKs, I find myself on a daily basis in very close communication with an entity that happens to be owed a whole ton of money and who makes a product without which most commercial aircraft won't leave the ground. The beauty of this is that said entity (particularly in the Delta case--now with merger freshness!) is going to win regardless of which way the cookie crumbles (planes still have to fly) and might just be talking with both sides.
Wait--technically some of that's not true. In the second US BK (which, if you recall, I called at 5, 3, 1, and .25 month marks before the filing), said entity was not owed a bunch of money since it forced US to net 0 terms months before. Plus--I came across all these tidbiths of truth without either pressing a glass against the MEC conference room door or having my nasal cavities implanted in Senior Parker's posterior region.
That said, I'll still know what's going to happen long before you will--since lawyers from all sides (and the airplanes they represent) do not want to piss my associates off and, unlike some, I don't make it a point to wear my super-kewl-insider-info shirt every time I post to an internet bulletin board.
To recap: Doogie still has no leverage. And you really need to be careful about playing "who knows what about the bankruptcy situation." Your historical batting average in this regard really is not that stellar.
Keep up the one-liners. It's like batting practice.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
ClueByFour,
I'm not going to go tit-fot-tat with you. You can insult people, purposely mispronounce names, call them names, and show disrespect, which I believe gives you zero, nada, and no creditability because your thoughts and comments are irrelevant.
My kids are shown the importance of respect and they understand common courtesy, which people like you and L4P clearly do not understand.
I'm not sure why you hate US Airways so much, but would it not be better for your mental health to focus on something positive? Man, I truly feel sad for you then, again, I could care less because "who you associate with is who you become."
You have been wrong more than right and you clearly have an "ax to grind", which is sad and I feel sorry for you.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. In regard to batting averages, I will compare mine to yours any day, since I played college baseball. Did you?
I'm not going to go tit-fot-tat with you. You can insult people, purposely mispronounce names, call them names, and show disrespect, which I believe gives you zero, nada, and no creditability because your thoughts and comments are irrelevant.
My kids are shown the importance of respect and they understand common courtesy, which people like you and L4P clearly do not understand.
I'm not sure why you hate US Airways so much, but would it not be better for your mental health to focus on something positive? Man, I truly feel sad for you then, again, I could care less because "who you associate with is who you become."
You have been wrong more than right and you clearly have an "ax to grind", which is sad and I feel sorry for you.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. In regard to batting averages, I will compare mine to yours any day, since I played college baseball. Did you?
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
ClueByFour,
I'm not going to go tit-fot-tat[sic] with you. Blah-blah-blah...
P.S. In regard to batting averages, I will compare mine to yours any day, since I played college baseball. Did you?
Okay, :wacko: won't go tit-for-tat, but before closing the post, :wacko: does exactly that! Oh, the irony; perhaps a course in logic would help? And the laughs just keep on coming! I'll take creditors along with equity and law for 1000, Alex.
