...Where did you hear this story? I hope it
wasn't on the KM message board on Yahoo. Shorts can come up
with some incredible stuff on those boards.
version,
As I said above, I heard it on CNBC by Chuck Lebau (it seems every 5 minutes CNBC is covering KM now.) While thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.
If you were a (new) creditor, and you believed that KM was a viable business, yes, you would invest. _BUT_, you wouldn't want your money to go to the old creditors - what the hell would be in it for you then? Sooo, the company raised money by issuing new _____ (fill in the blank, I don't know if it would be convertible bonds, or some other convertible. I knew studing for that Series 7 would be worth something some day

)
Now, the "new" company has no desire to pay it's old debt anymore to the creditors it filed bankruptcy to - just let that stock, etc go to zero.
What I don't understand is, how is this legal? If it is legal, it may still be suicide, as if some of the old creditors are businesses you have to do do business with again (e.g., Martha Stewart) you had better pay up otherwise the new company may not be doing business with it either (how many suppliers are there out there?)
In either case, I had no problem with my dad taking a shot at KM. However, if the company itself becomes it's own shareholders enemy, well then, gee, who the hell is left standing being your "friend?" I advised my dad of this - he is not getting "shaken out."
nitro
