Old Jul 1, 13, 3:21 pm
  #857  
saranyc
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Born and raised in South Carolina, now in New York City.
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by Jasper2:21022844
Originally Posted by saranyc View Post
Well considering that debt holders are owed money (that they lent to the company) and could theoretically force the company to liquidate in order to pay them back, the downsides of a merger are probably better than the alternative.
Debt holders are like any other stake holders. The court ultimately decides who gets paid, how much, when, and in what form. Yes, there is a pecking order (bondholders, shareholders, creditors, employees, etc.) But there is no "theoretical." The only unanswered question is "Will the Justice Department approve." Everything else is already lined up.

I think it's a fair conclusion that all that is left is for the ink to dry.
When I say theoretical and you say there is a pecking order we are saying the same thing. Bond holders have first priority because without their capital the other stakeholders wouldn't have a company to have a stake in in the first place. Bond holders seem to think this is the best option for them to get their money back and the court agrees. Don't be too sure that if the govt disagrees the other stakeholders will be better off.
saranyc is offline