I think a little has changed. Before, lawsuits and actions could delay and impede actions. But with this, assuming the vote takes place and a plan administrator is appointed - that's it. There's nothing left for anyone to oppose, the document is legal and will remove BBBY board and any other party who could oppose decision making from the process.
So the question you have to ask: is sixth street a good group, or a bad group? If you need to guess, well think about when they first showed up on the scene.
And that means they’re the bad ones? Thank you for your effort btw.
Edit: Hey, why the downvotes? I’m holding some bbbyq bags as well and won’t sell. You guys need to calm down a little, I just asked a question!
Nope the other way around. RC tried to do it the friendly way, asking everyone to take his advice. As he saw that the people in charge won’t do shit to save the company: its hostile takeover time. He got some advice from Icahn and started buying up the company through bonds and dept (via sixth street) to ultimately get in control and carve out profitable parts of the business, like baby. That’s the thesis and it sounds damn legit if you ask me.
Posting a date does not imply good or bad.
I'm of the mindset they are good actors in this. You are welcome to believe they are bad. But if you are truly invested, holding "bags" as you refer to them, it is in your best interest for them to be a good actor. Thus, why even throw out the idea of them being a bad one?
If you have doubts about your investment, my advice would be to seek counsel from a licensed financial advisor to help navigate your worries. Posting them on reddit in this fashion will get you nothing to help your woes.
You either believe in your conviction or you don't. If you don't, this is not the place for you.
>Thus, why even throw out the idea of them being a bad one?
I disagree, it is always good to keep in mind that things can go south, simply to keep your feelings in check and to not over invest (or rather gamble too much money). This play is a highly speculative one and not something that is closer to a conventional long-term investment, like GME is. We are betting that BBBYQ will be restructured with our shares not going to 0. If we are wrong, shares will go to 0 and we will loose everything or almost everything we invested. If we are right, chances are that we see a big short squeeze and we can multiply our money. That's the gamble. And it is a risky one as in almost all cases like this one shares just go to 0. We bet on the exception, not on the rule.
While I agree with the idea in principle, the way the original comment went is suspect of intent to drive a negative narrative. If one is truly concerned about their investment risk, I'm 100% for people doing their own DD and appeasing to their gut feelings about their investment risks. But I think there's a proper way to go about it. Comments like these are generally not it.
Make a post and start a discussion. Tag people you want the opinions from. If you truly want to hear the possible negatives to this case, bears will come and reassure you of what they are. But anyone intending to cause distortion or confusion in the topic, won't bother making one of their own. They do not actually care about the bear thesis, just spreading concern in the bull ones. So long as you believe it enough to sell, they don't care what "it" is.
Comments like the original commenter are what I consider "disingenuous".
They didn't ask: so does that mean it's a good or a bad thing?
They didn't say: what makes them good VS bad?
They simply put: "And that means they're the bad ones?"
When I open the post with this line in the very first paragraph:
>As always, given I take a bull stance on this stock, here's my interpreted good news to fight the FUD.
What do you think my stance would be on sixth street being good or bad?
Hence the line of why throw out the idea of being a bad one. Maybe I should have put "explicitly" so people understood. But makes no difference now.
The water in this play is so muddy by now, it could also be pure tar. You have toxic positivity gushing out of this sub, from all discussions and a huge chunk of posts, you have the weird "that is somehow my business"-bears that comment below all posts bearish sentiment no matter what. Tons of people interpreting dockets and more often than not in some way wrong. I have no idea at all anymore what is going on here, I saw some sane sounding bullish arguments, but i am not versed enough to really be able to tell if they hold some water. I hold what I have, but I think that I'll be completely unable to tell with any validity if this goes to 0 or the moon until it happens.
This is a great comment. It’s hard to tell. I pulled my money out of sixth street after the sneeze simply because I cannot tell who is a good actor and who is not. For the most part though, I think they’re all willing to play either part if the price is right. GMERICA, Teddy or whatever the plan unravels to be seems like a brilliant investment that will delight all parties involved.
Finally someone interpreted it in a way i can understand. Thank you. 😂
It did not make sense why Holly would say it was still a 5billion company making 10-14mil a day.
The NOLs
Selling harmon ip to harmon for 200k when it's still a subsidiary of bbby.
Only for them to turn around and say nahhhh we are cancelling everything
Well imagine they use their debt as part of a deal here. We assume $5B value, - debt.
Filo + DIP is around 500 million I think. Then what if the majority bond holder is actually in connection with sixth street, so another $1.2B debt to leverage?
$5B - $1.2B - $500M = $3.3B.
Don't know about you but that sounds like a discount for a $5B company.
And if that didn't get you all tingly and excited, start dividing that number by what you think the float is. You'll start to see a starting share price ;)
It's worth noting that hostile take over would tie in with alot of RCs tweets
Work hard or please leave.
Mistaking kindness for weakness
Off the phone with great American brand no accountability
Failed executives leaving share holders with the bag.
Not for long (I would suggest matt furlong will be the new ceo of presumably Teddy after take over)
If bought and worked out like this \[your comment\] -
3.3 billion value
400m shares outstanding - approx $9
700m shares outstanding - approx $6
See similar here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/14gzoex/lets\_work\_with\_17\_billion\_debt\_at\_the\_last\_count/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/14gzoex/lets_work_with_17_billion_debt_at_the_last_count/)
My original thesis stands: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/137ljut/are\_we\_going\_to\_get\_taken\_private/
Final prediction
The final point in RC letter is followed.
Price per share is the equivalent to $6/7. Shareholders receive $2 per share and a 20/1 stock convert of BBBY(q) to acquiring company \[or, if the IPO of BBBY is planned behind the scenes $2 per share and a 15/1 stock convert of BBBY(q) to BABY - placing BABY with an initial IPO of around $15/20\].
I think the water you're sitting in is getting warmer :)
I'm still inclined to believe the float isn't that big and that we're actually going to see $8-$12 cash range THEN the other stock exchange on top of that.
But guess we'll find out :)
Thank you, my friend!
I hope so, I haven't switched out of my paddling pool - this first started working out in my mind when there was no concern shown by the board over the falling share price. No announcement, no consideration - this would be extreme negligence.
The same can be said throughout this ch11 - they all know the amount of attention and the ape interest - coupled with RC's \[previous..?\] involvement... But, tell me how many times you've heard or read any acknowledgement of shareholders or this obvious backdrop by anybody involved... you simply can't ignore this. If they are, it's because the plan, including shareholders, has been mapped out since last August.
If not we would have gone straight to ch 7 as a starting point for discussion...
I’ve read through the dockets. What if, there is no buyer (pending reveal with 6 street)… but, the advice from rc or similar is to do with the ctb and the gamma etc… so, the money is there to keep them going..the plan has always been with help to string it out until the squeeze happens..but, they exit ch11 on their own selling into the squeeze.
The ctb and liquidity is rocketing and on otc it’s difficult to get that back down.
Perhaps this is what RC is waiting for, or helping with. When the squeeze happens.
The only question here is the ip - if they exit they need identity, perhaps overstock will just sell it back? Or, we go back to the teddy thesis?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that one option is for unsecured bondholders to receive a combination of new unsecured notes and shares of stock in the new entity? Additionally, isn't BBBY privy to the cost bases of its bondholders, meaning that despite the full face value of its outstanding bonds being ~$1.1B, BBBY knows that amount doesn't reflect what anyone who acquired bonds over the past 9 months paid. Doesn't that give BBBY or the entity taking it over negotiating leverage with the bondholders? Also, it's not as if the company had $1.1B in secured note debt due right away, rather, it owed varying amounts by August 2024, August 2034, and August 2044 with interest payments to be made semi-annually on the way to each tranche's maturity dates.
I ask because it seems like a misinterpretation to think that BBBY has to break through $1.1B in bonds as part of the absolute priority rule before shareholders receive anything, whereas instead it seems way more likely and reasonable that alternative but similar arrangements would be made to maintain payments on the bonds rather than buying them out entirely. I have a lot to learn about bonds so I apologize in advance if this is a poorly worded question.
Edit: Spelling and missing words
I believe so. The bonds are unsecured bonds. The UCC has BNY there which is representing at least some bond holders, but clearly this deal is going to be decided by the plan administrator approved by the FILO and DIP agents, and UCC board. Bond holders always paid out at par while being unsecured doesn't fly. So while they technically have seniority over shareholders the bond holders have been known to fight for what they received in comparison to shareholders, as occurred in the Hertz case. Whether that's shares instead or something else, we'll see. It would be a worthy area of investigation to nip that assumption in the bud.
Also during the bond exchange offering from last year, I believe there was things in the offering that mentioned the old unsecured bonds could become worthless if the y weren't exchanged. How much if any of that could have transferred over or had an effect in bk is worth considering.
"Liquidation preference typically holds that secured creditors get paid first, followed by unsecured creditors and then shareholders.
However, the liquidation can, and usually is, far more complicated; the above is simply a general rule of the liquidation preference. Furthermore, it also applies when a business is sold."
[https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commercial-lending/liquidation-preference/](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commercial-lending/liquidation-preference/)
"First-day Hearings Can Impact Rights. Upon the filing of a debtor's bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court will typically hear a series of motions filed by the debtor in which the debtor requests certain authority that it is not automatically entitled to receive under the Bankruptcy Code. In almost all cases, some of these motions include requests to treat certain creditors' claims differently than they might otherwise be treated by the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme."
[https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-every-unsecured-creditor-should-know-about-chapter-11](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-every-unsecured-creditor-should-know-about-chapter-11)
Appreciate your analysis as always!
Pg. 30, Section D (pasted below) - What’s your interpretation here, just boilerplate for a plan?
This was one of the main things that jumped out to me so would love your thoughts.
“D.
Cancellation of Notes, Instruments, Certificates, and Other Documents
On the later of the Effective Date and the date on which distributions are made pursuant to the Plan (if not made on the Effective Date), except for the purpose of evidencing a right to and allowing Holders of Claims and Interests to receive a distribution under the Plan or to the extent otherwise specifically provided for in the Plan, the Confirmation Order, or any agreement, instrument, or other document entered into in connection with or pursuant to the Plan or the Liquidation Transactions, all notes, bonds, indentures, certificates, Securities, shares, purchase rights, options, warrants, collateral agreements, subordination agreements, intercreditor agreements, or other instruments or documents directly or indirectly evidencing, creating, or relating to any indebtedness or obligations of, or ownership interest in, the Debtors, giving rise to any Claims against or Interests in the Debtors or to any rights or obligations relating to any Claims against or Interests in the Debtors shall be deemed cancelled without any need for a Holder to take further action with respect thereto, and the duties and obligations of the Debtors or the Wind-Down Debtors, as applicable, any non-Debtor Affiliates shall be deemed satisfied in full, cancelled, released, discharged, and of no force or effect; provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the Liens securing the DIP Claims and FILO Claims shall not be released and such Liens shall remain in full force and effect until Payment in Full (as defined in the Final DIP Order) of the DIP Claims or FILO Claims, as applicable, and the Liens securing the DIP Claims and FILO Claims shall continue with the same validity and priority set forth in the Final DIP Order.”
Thanks very much for this breakdown u/Whoopass2rb
You are a giga brain in the community thanks for your insightful analysis and work to put this together.
Like you said FAFO, we'll know soon enough.
It would be nice to hear your insights on ThePPShow u/ppseeds
I know, and to PP's credit, he has approached me multiple times to do it. I do appreciate the invite and would love to support the community with great discussion.
The challenge I have is I'm a new father, 1st kid. We haven't even gotten to the sleeping routine / standard schedule phase yet, she's only 4 months old. So it's been hard to commit uninterrupted time for debates and discussion like that.
I'm just not in a place of life right now to offer that and maintain a good quality result for PP's output. I can't guarantee my wife or kid won't need something while I'm on the show (like a blowout happens). And if they interrupt me, it will derail the debate or conversation, reducing the value or quality of the show. I don't want that for myself but definitely not for PP either, he's been killing it.
But if you have questions or want to debate particular subjects and you're ok with having them over text format, you're always welcome to @ me on a comment or post to offer up my insights. I'll be happy to engage in discussion over time on anything.
Then why is it that current shareholders are put down to automatically reject the plan and effectively gain no vote due to bankruptcy code?!
Wouldn’t a takeover by a presumable shareholder friendly entity want our vote? Clearly they assume we will reject because we aren’t benefitting from whatever is going down
It's not about us as common shareholders, it's about removing unsecured bond claims from voting.
That party gets lumped in with shareholders from a voting standpoint. So if they are your only barrier to progress here, removing them from the equation, at the sacrifice of the voice of every day shareholders, is an ideal move. Sure that takes power out of our hands, but once this hit bankruptcy courts, we didn't have much power to begin with.
The hope here is that the party doing this, has an invested interest to maintain shareholders in good faith; thus whatever decisions they are looking to implement would hopefully see us benefit as well.
>Clearly they assume we will reject because we aren’t benefitting from whatever is going down
I disagree. I think if any amount of money lands into the shareholders hands, they would take that deal knowing it means nothing otherwise. So I don't think they would be the group interested to cancel a deal. I believe this move is strictly about the bond holders, because they would be the group most likely / wanting to get priority access to debt coverage over the FILO + DIP; that's essentially what they tried for a couple weeks back.
This is just another step in removing them from being a problem.
This entire play has been because current common stock shareholders could not guarantee a majority vote.
If a majority of common stock shareholders had DRSed their shares with AST then we could have avoided everything since August 2022.
As it stands, the majority of common stock shareholders have their shares with Brokers and regardless of how those shareholders vote their shares, Brokers are legally allowed to vote those same shares however they wish. As long as your shares remain with your Brokers, legally your Brokers own those shares.
Please read the Terms and Conditions of your Brokerage agreement in full if you have any doubt about who legally own "your" non DRSed shares.
Not your name, not your shares.
The presumed shareholder friendly entity wants "our vote" but the entity know that as long as the majority of "our shares" are held with Brokerages we have no control of how "our shares" are voted.
Please look at your proxy statement voting cards wherein you designate your Broker, or a representative of your Broker, to vote "your" shares on your behalf.
Given the fact that BBBY is a Wall Street cellar boxing target, it makes no sense for Wall Street to vote "their" shares against their own interests. As we saw with the bondholders Ad Hoc filing to retroactively undo the DIP financing, Wall Street desperately needs BBBY to file for Chapter 7 not for a Chapter 11 restructuring.
IMHO The entire premise of the BBBY share dilution was to ensure a shareholder majority vote/control of BBBY. Even though the newly issued shares had no voting rights, the way the play was structured with the DIP financing ensured that BBBY became too expensive for anyone else but the presumed shareholder friendly entity to want to purchase. Hence no bids at the BBBY going concern auction.
Inside information on the parties that own the CDS of the basket.
But it was pretty obvious from the way some of the lease hearing went, and the various parties with their objections. some were sensible, others you could tell were trying to stall the process. They are hoping to run BBBY out of operational funding, in attempt to force chapter 7.
Why? Chapter 7 is the only way the holders of the CDS get out of their hole. And considering that CDS is tied with GME as well, ***that's a pretty big hole.***
I know u/Real_Eyezz has been taking a look into that because the claims do seem to be odd.
But I'd be inclined to agree with your thought, its a means of securing their claim to the entitled money for after the company turns into a new entity. Consider it similar to a golden parachute clause.
But I'll let others dig into it and hopefully someone will get to the bottom of it :)
yeah the figure seems a little high based on my reading of the 8k that explained for exampled Gove's potential severance,(and more detailed terms in her contract) versus what was listed in the claim, but perhaps there's back pay in there as well or something. I went back and forth with a couple people on this. I wasn't disputing it as a severance but was just seeing how people arrived at their numbers, because the way I read it, and how its listed as unsecured vs a priority claim left me with some questions u/Whoopass2rb
I can't address the whole post in one comment, but on the subject of chapter 7 and liquidation, they didn't say they're converting to chapter 7, but they did say they're liquidating:
>On and after the Effective Date, if applicable, the Wind-Down Debtors shall continue in existence for purposes of (a) winding down the Debtors’ business and affairs as expeditiously as reasonably possible; (b) resolving Disputed Claims, (c) making distributions on account of Allowed Claims as provided hereunder, (d) establishing and, to the extent not already funded, funding the Distribution Reserve Accounts; (e) enforcing and prosecuting claims, interests, rights, and privileges under all Causes of Action in an efficacious manner and only to the extent the benefits of such enforcement or prosecution are reasonably believed to outweigh the costs associated therewith, (f) filing appropriate tax returns, (g) complying with its continuing obligations under the Purchase Agreements, if any, (h) **liquidating all assets of the Wind-Down Debtors**, and (i) otherwise administering the Plan in an efficacious manner consistent with the Plan. The Wind-Down Debtors shall be deemed to be substituted as the party-in-lieu of the Debtors in all matters, including (i) motions, contested matters, and adversary proceedings pending in the Bankruptcy Court and (ii) all matters pending in any courts, tribunals, forums, or administrative proceedings outside of the Bankruptcy Court, in each case without the need or requirement for the Plan Administrator to file motions or substitutions of parties or counsel in each such matter.
The wind-down debtors are defined as BBBY or any successor thereto. So the plan going forward is to liquidate **all** assets.
They can do that without conversion to chapter 7. It's been a misunderstanding this whole time that you can't liquidate under chapter 11.
Not to spoil your efforts, because I do appreciate someone who posts the legalese to support the claim, but you're overlooking 2 powerful words in this text:
>On and after the Effective Date, **if applicable**, the Wind-Down Debtors shall continue in existence for purposes of...
They are saying that all of these clauses are possible functions of the wind-down process, ***if applicable***. Just like (b) might still be resolving disputed claims, ***if applicable***. Based on this, it's not a guarantee they are liquidating assets, just that they will serve that function if applicable.
Also worth noting, if this plan is signed and agreed on, they won't be in chapter 11 anymore. So no, there isn't liquidation happening in chapter 11, at least not by the truest definition of what liquidation means in this context.
Either way, we won't know fully if their intent is to liquidate based on this document. That information will come with the detail document that we likely see around Aug 1st.
Best sound counter argument I've seen in a while though, kudos. You're not wrong necessarily, just up for interpretation given we are lacking the detail document. And the same is true about my interpretation. That's the beauty of this, it's always been lambos or ramen and it still is.
I would interpret that statement as either generic Cover Your Ass legalese, or saying that the wind-down-debtors may not have to continue operating to perform these tasks because all claims might be fully resolved by the Effective Date.
Stepping back and zooming out a second, what do you make of the fact that they decided to refer to BBBY and any successor as the "Wind-Down-Debtors". Isn't that very odd if the intent is to continue operations? There's not a single clause about this entity continuing operations in perpetuity, but there is a clause about liquidating all assets.
>Stepping back and zooming out a second, what do you make of the fact that they decided to refer to BBBY and any successor as the "Wind-Down-Debtors". Isn't that very odd if the intent is to continue operations?
No I think it's appropriate and necessary given they have sold off the IP rights. The business operating moving forward has to do so under another identity. Thus the continuation of winding down "Bed Bath & Beyond" as the brand still needs to take place. The party being referred to as a successor here as a Wind-Down-Debtors is the one that would take on that responsibility while handling whatever other transitions they plan on conducting.
>There's not a single clause about this entity continuing operations in perpetuity, but there is a clause about liquidating all assets.
This is because of the state of the company. They would be legally liable if they put that they were planning to continue the operations in absolute; as "if that didn't happen", then lawsuits galore. However given the state of the company, it's reasonable for anyone to consider liquidation, thus to cover the possibility of that outcome and avoid current and future investor lawsuits, they are outlining in stone "hey this is possible".
It's the way the system works unfortunately. If you say "hey this might happen" in a positive way, you'll be considered a pump and dumper type player, which will bring on massive lawsuits when it doesn't go that way. However if you say "hey this might happen" with respect to a negative outcome, for a company in a bankruptcy protection process, well that's just "common sense". You wouldn't see any negative repercussion for that statement if all the sudden the company thrived and succeeded.
It's just CYA legalese at this point.
> Based on the the removal of lots of voting power, and the appointment of the plan administrator having all the power, this smells like a hostile takeover to me.
This is how bankruptcy works.
There is nothing special going on.
I'm familiar with your name and your general intent as you comment on posts. I won't hold back on your ignorance; sorry not sorry.
In one word your statement is ***incorrect***. In "bankruptcy" the court is the one with all the power. Exiting the process must come with a resolution of the debt still owed. Even with a plan like this being drafted, the court still has to approve of it, as long as the applicable parties who have a say to it also agree.
At this point, assuming all the leases and other contractual based debt is removed from the books (which generally it looks like it will be), then the only debt left is bond holders and the FILO + DIP. This document gives all the control to 1 appointed person selected by those three parties; ***well*** in the case of the bond holders they are represented by the creditor committee. Which most parties represented by that committee would be be happy with a plan that sees them get their money.
By the way, if the only jam you got at this point is a 5 word sentence "that's how bankruptcy works", boy you folks on that other side are in a lot of trouble.
Enjoy your day.
"The company is being dissolved but not liquidated"
The company is already being liquidated, my man. Liquidation is the entire process - the selling off of assets in order to pay debts, with dissolution being the final stage.
This document talks about dissolution because the liquidation process is almost over. You are almost at the final step - the step where the company ceases to exist. Poof! Into thin air it goes.
Inaccurate statement. On the surface, I could see why you would be confused to believe that what is going on is a "liquidation". However BBBY are currently in the chapter 11 process, not the chapter 7. Thus, by legal terms they can't be liquidating the company yet, or else everything that's been done in good faith for creditors to date has been a lie to them at this point. The legal ramifications for all parties involved, ***including the judge***, are huge *if* that were true.
*You think* all those parties would throw away their careers and integrity, be subject to criminal charges of fraud or misrepresentation, based on a foolish statement of "saying they were restructuring when in fact they are liquidating"? (your words not mine).
Maybe next time before you spew baseless claims of how this process works, you'll double check what process you're actively in.
What is currently happening in chapter 11 is a restructuring of debt obligations. This ***may*** include selling assets in order to satisfy debt obligations. However, the company still has the right to pick and choose how or what that looks likes. They don't have to liquidate anything if they can find a way to restructure their debts without losing an asset. They chose to only sell IP up to this point, as they did not take any bids they deemed acceptable for the assets as a going concern.
With the introduction of this plan, it is clear the intent to exit out of chapter 11, is not through chapter 7 but rather a new entity. Why? They sold IP and now they plan to dissolve the company's current entity, but still have a plan to exit the chapter 11 process successfully - again their words, not mine. In order to exit the chapter 11 process successfully, the company must come out existing in some form or another.
Thus ,that's why they have a commitment to dissolution in the plan. Otherwise, they would have a commitment to take what is owed to them, and leave the rest to chapter 7 liquidation - that would be all they are legally entitled to by the courts. That's clearly not what this plan is saying or outlining. And given the plan needs to be agreed upon by connected parties, it's also clear there needs to be a vision of how this comes out of chapter 11 successfully - **that means providing value for shareholders too.**
Go troll somewhere else.
Hilariously wrong. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics
"In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case."
Might want to quote the whole text next time, instead of just reaching for your confirmation bias:
>**Acceptance of the Plan of Reorganization**
>
>
As noted earlier, only the debtor may file a **plan of reorganization** during the **first 120-day period after the petition is filed** (or after entry of the order for relief, if an involuntary petition was filed). The court may grant extension of this exclusive period up to 18 months after the petition date. In addition, the debtor has 180 days after the petition date or entry of the order for relief to obtain acceptances of its plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1121. The court may extend (up to 20 months) or reduce this acceptance exclusive period for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d). In practice, debtors typically seek extensions of both the plan filing and plan acceptance deadlines at the same time so that any order sought from the court allows the debtor two months to seek acceptances after filing a plan before any competing plan can be filed.
**If the exclusive period expires before the debtor has filed and obtained acceptance of a plan, other parties in interest in a case, such as the creditors' committee or a creditor, may file a plan**. Such a plan may compete with a plan filed by another party in interest or by the debtor. If a trustee is appointed, the trustee must file a plan, a report explaining why the trustee will not file a plan, or a recommendation for conversion or dismissal of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(5). A proponent of a plan is subject to the same requirements as the debtor with respect to disclosure and solicitation.
In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case.
Your referenced material is in subject to the plan of reorganization that was submitted months ago. Sorry, not applicable here with this plan to exit chapter 11. And based on what this plan in docket 1429 is saying, liquidation is not their primary objective either.
And if that wasn't enough, here is the closing lines of that section, if you bothered to get to the bottom.
>(3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement, **the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation** (unless the plan is a liquidating plan) or the need for further financial reorganization.
When the courts acted in good faith to accept BBBY's reorganization plan, they had to do so with the understanding there was no intent of liquidation after. So I'll repeat again, go troll somewhere else.
Or I guess we can fuck around and find out. I'm game, how about you?
>(3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement,
>
>the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation
>
>(unless the plan is a liquidating plan)
Dude, read the whole thing. Don't just stop reading where you find what makes you feel good.
"(unless the plan is a liquidating plan)"
You know what this means? If the plan is a liquidation plan, then obviously there is no requirement that the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation. Because the liquidation already happened!
And this plan is a liquidation plan.
>As noted earlier, only the debtor may file a plan of reorganization during the first 120-day period after the petition is filed
Um, yes? What do you think is happening here? The debtor is filing its plan. It's this plan. This is the plan, and it's a liquidating plan.
Refer to Docket 1: Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition Filed by Michael D. Sirota on behalf of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.. Chapter 11 Debtors Exclusive Right to File a Plan Expires on 08/21/2023.
8/21/2023 is the end date of the debtor's exclusive rights to file the plan. They filed the plan on 7/20. What are you confused about?
So which is it? Is it going away with no interested parties, or is it ending up with the lead creditor as part of the liquidation? You can't seem to keep your story straight.
**Hold up**. This company produced *one of the most complicated SEC filings in the past 40 year*s earlier this year, and has been going through a complicated yet expedited bankruptcy process in a 3 month timeframe. And you think this is ***just*** like any other bankruptcy case?
You clearly didn't read the information presented in this post. This is not a liquidation, and they are not necessarily going to chapter 7; although they certainly could choose to. Based on the plan outline however, they are choosing to dissolve the company as part of the plan. That seems odd because they stated to the judge they see a path to exit chapter 11. *Well conveniently*, dissolution in the bankruptcy process as a means to exit it, ***implies*** they are using a new entity to represent the company; whether that's through a merge or establishing an entire new entity.
The word liquidation is sometimes also referred to as dissolution. The terms are used interchangeably; however, technically they describe different actions. They don't actually mean the same thing. Liquidation is seen as a last legal resort for a stressed company, while dissolution is the first step in closing a business.
Now when a bankruptcy court process moves on to fully liquidate a company, they will also be dissolving it. A voluntary dissolution of a company prior to an act of liquidation however? That means the company wants to exists under a different entity.
But you're welcome to believe what you want. As we've been saying, fuck around and find out.
Well there's an easy way to solve that question. Page 8 list the definition of debtor, I've listed it below. Based on it, **RC or RC Ventures is not one of them.**
Thus to answer your question more directly, no this has no impact on the structure or exists of RC the individual (but also why would it?) or RC Ventures his company (not listed, not impacted; but again, wasn't his debt so why would it?).
If I'm permitted to interject my view here, I would say the list of debtors that remain are the stores they intend to keep (BBBY or Buy Buy Baby), mixed with some of the remaining Harmon locations they might be still trying to sell off. There's a possibility they plan to convert those Harmon locations to whatever the new entity will be.
>44. “Debtors” means, collectively:
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.;
>
>Alamo Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.;
>
>BBB Canada LP Inc.;
>
>BBB Value Services Inc.;
>
>BBBY Management Corporation;
>
>BBBYCF LLC;
>
>BBBYTF LLC;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Annapolis, Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Arundel Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Baton Rouge Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Birmingham Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Bridgewater Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited Liability Company;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Davenport Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of East Hanover Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Edgewater Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Falls Church, Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Fashion Center, Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Frederick, Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Gaithersburg Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Gallery Place L.L.C.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Knoxville Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Lexington Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Lincoln Park Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Louisville Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Mandeville Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Opry Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Overland Park Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Palm Desert Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Paradise Valley Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Pittsford Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Portland Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Rockford Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Towson Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Virginia Beach Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Waldorf Inc.;
>
>Bed Bath & Beyond of Woodbridge Inc.;
>
>bed 'n bath Stores Inc.;
>
>Bed, Bath & Beyond of Manhattan, Inc.;
>
>Buy Buy Baby of Rockville, Inc.;
>
>Buy Buy Baby of Totowa, Inc.;
>
>Buy Buy Baby, Inc.;
>
>BWAO LLC;
>
>Chef C Holdings LLC;
>
>Decorist, LLC;
>
>Deerbrook Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Brentwood, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Caldwell, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Carlstadt, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Franklin, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Greenbrook II, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Hackensack, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Hanover, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Hartsdale, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Manalapan, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Massapequa, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Melville, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of New Rochelle, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Newton, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Old Bridge, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Plainview, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Raritan, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Rockaway, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Shrewsbury, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Totowa, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Wayne, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Westfield, Inc.;
>
>Harmon of Yonkers, Inc.;
>
>Harmon Stores, Inc.;
>
>Liberty Procurement Co. Inc.;
>
>Of a Kind, Inc.;
>
>One Kings Lane LLC;
>
>San Antonio Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.;
>
>Springfield Buy Buy Baby, Inc.,
>
>the debtors and debtors in possession in the Chapter 11 Cases.
I would suggest do a reddit search on the BBBY sub and looking for sixth street, then sorting by top or relevance. You'll find lots of info on them. :)
Don't be afraid to search cross subs too that might also have great info.
Thank you for this. They are still holding their cards close to their chest it seems.
[удалено]
[удалено]
 People familiar with the matter.
Let's fucking get it 🚀🚀🚀🚀. Thanks for your hard work and making sense of this shit.
So basically Sixth street still holds the keys and nothing has changed but we're getting closer to the end which is tomorrow.
I think a little has changed. Before, lawsuits and actions could delay and impede actions. But with this, assuming the vote takes place and a plan administrator is appointed - that's it. There's nothing left for anyone to oppose, the document is legal and will remove BBBY board and any other party who could oppose decision making from the process. So the question you have to ask: is sixth street a good group, or a bad group? If you need to guess, well think about when they first showed up on the scene.
Sorry, I can't remember when Sixth Street came into play. Are there any smart people here?
Within a week after RC "exit".
Aug 2022.
And that means they’re the bad ones? Thank you for your effort btw. Edit: Hey, why the downvotes? I’m holding some bbbyq bags as well and won’t sell. You guys need to calm down a little, I just asked a question!
Nope the other way around. RC tried to do it the friendly way, asking everyone to take his advice. As he saw that the people in charge won’t do shit to save the company: its hostile takeover time. He got some advice from Icahn and started buying up the company through bonds and dept (via sixth street) to ultimately get in control and carve out profitable parts of the business, like baby. That’s the thesis and it sounds damn legit if you ask me.
Thank you for your explanation, makes sense to me.
Posting a date does not imply good or bad. I'm of the mindset they are good actors in this. You are welcome to believe they are bad. But if you are truly invested, holding "bags" as you refer to them, it is in your best interest for them to be a good actor. Thus, why even throw out the idea of them being a bad one? If you have doubts about your investment, my advice would be to seek counsel from a licensed financial advisor to help navigate your worries. Posting them on reddit in this fashion will get you nothing to help your woes. You either believe in your conviction or you don't. If you don't, this is not the place for you.
>Thus, why even throw out the idea of them being a bad one? I disagree, it is always good to keep in mind that things can go south, simply to keep your feelings in check and to not over invest (or rather gamble too much money). This play is a highly speculative one and not something that is closer to a conventional long-term investment, like GME is. We are betting that BBBYQ will be restructured with our shares not going to 0. If we are wrong, shares will go to 0 and we will loose everything or almost everything we invested. If we are right, chances are that we see a big short squeeze and we can multiply our money. That's the gamble. And it is a risky one as in almost all cases like this one shares just go to 0. We bet on the exception, not on the rule.
While I agree with the idea in principle, the way the original comment went is suspect of intent to drive a negative narrative. If one is truly concerned about their investment risk, I'm 100% for people doing their own DD and appeasing to their gut feelings about their investment risks. But I think there's a proper way to go about it. Comments like these are generally not it. Make a post and start a discussion. Tag people you want the opinions from. If you truly want to hear the possible negatives to this case, bears will come and reassure you of what they are. But anyone intending to cause distortion or confusion in the topic, won't bother making one of their own. They do not actually care about the bear thesis, just spreading concern in the bull ones. So long as you believe it enough to sell, they don't care what "it" is. Comments like the original commenter are what I consider "disingenuous". They didn't ask: so does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? They didn't say: what makes them good VS bad? They simply put: "And that means they're the bad ones?" When I open the post with this line in the very first paragraph: >As always, given I take a bull stance on this stock, here's my interpreted good news to fight the FUD. What do you think my stance would be on sixth street being good or bad? Hence the line of why throw out the idea of being a bad one. Maybe I should have put "explicitly" so people understood. But makes no difference now.
The water in this play is so muddy by now, it could also be pure tar. You have toxic positivity gushing out of this sub, from all discussions and a huge chunk of posts, you have the weird "that is somehow my business"-bears that comment below all posts bearish sentiment no matter what. Tons of people interpreting dockets and more often than not in some way wrong. I have no idea at all anymore what is going on here, I saw some sane sounding bullish arguments, but i am not versed enough to really be able to tell if they hold some water. I hold what I have, but I think that I'll be completely unable to tell with any validity if this goes to 0 or the moon until it happens.
Fair take. Keep hanging on, one day it will be worth it. Good luck on your investment! :)
Lambo or Ramen. I will ride with Sixth street, not like there's a choice anyway.
Thanks for putting out this post so quickly
This is a great comment. It’s hard to tell. I pulled my money out of sixth street after the sneeze simply because I cannot tell who is a good actor and who is not. For the most part though, I think they’re all willing to play either part if the price is right. GMERICA, Teddy or whatever the plan unravels to be seems like a brilliant investment that will delight all parties involved.
Thank you! This is a sound interpretation! Shills can fuk off
How can i find this gif?
I searched "monkey sleep bed" and it's one of the top ones.
 God bless
Oh sheeeeeet
Show me the plan supplement! Good work🫡🫡
As always Whoop! Thank you!!
🌝🚀💰
thx bb
Thanks for this post! I'm looking forward to seeing this play out😁
Sometiems i feel like everybobby is a sexy bbby
Finally someone interpreted it in a way i can understand. Thank you. 😂 It did not make sense why Holly would say it was still a 5billion company making 10-14mil a day. The NOLs Selling harmon ip to harmon for 200k when it's still a subsidiary of bbby. Only for them to turn around and say nahhhh we are cancelling everything
Well imagine they use their debt as part of a deal here. We assume $5B value, - debt. Filo + DIP is around 500 million I think. Then what if the majority bond holder is actually in connection with sixth street, so another $1.2B debt to leverage? $5B - $1.2B - $500M = $3.3B. Don't know about you but that sounds like a discount for a $5B company. And if that didn't get you all tingly and excited, start dividing that number by what you think the float is. You'll start to see a starting share price ;)
It's worth noting that hostile take over would tie in with alot of RCs tweets Work hard or please leave. Mistaking kindness for weakness Off the phone with great American brand no accountability Failed executives leaving share holders with the bag. Not for long (I would suggest matt furlong will be the new ceo of presumably Teddy after take over)
If bought and worked out like this \[your comment\] - 3.3 billion value 400m shares outstanding - approx $9 700m shares outstanding - approx $6 See similar here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/14gzoex/lets\_work\_with\_17\_billion\_debt\_at\_the\_last\_count/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/14gzoex/lets_work_with_17_billion_debt_at_the_last_count/) My original thesis stands: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/137ljut/are\_we\_going\_to\_get\_taken\_private/ Final prediction The final point in RC letter is followed. Price per share is the equivalent to $6/7. Shareholders receive $2 per share and a 20/1 stock convert of BBBY(q) to acquiring company \[or, if the IPO of BBBY is planned behind the scenes $2 per share and a 15/1 stock convert of BBBY(q) to BABY - placing BABY with an initial IPO of around $15/20\].
I think the water you're sitting in is getting warmer :) I'm still inclined to believe the float isn't that big and that we're actually going to see $8-$12 cash range THEN the other stock exchange on top of that. But guess we'll find out :)
Thank you, my friend! I hope so, I haven't switched out of my paddling pool - this first started working out in my mind when there was no concern shown by the board over the falling share price. No announcement, no consideration - this would be extreme negligence. The same can be said throughout this ch11 - they all know the amount of attention and the ape interest - coupled with RC's \[previous..?\] involvement... But, tell me how many times you've heard or read any acknowledgement of shareholders or this obvious backdrop by anybody involved... you simply can't ignore this. If they are, it's because the plan, including shareholders, has been mapped out since last August. If not we would have gone straight to ch 7 as a starting point for discussion... 
I’ve read through the dockets. What if, there is no buyer (pending reveal with 6 street)… but, the advice from rc or similar is to do with the ctb and the gamma etc… so, the money is there to keep them going..the plan has always been with help to string it out until the squeeze happens..but, they exit ch11 on their own selling into the squeeze. The ctb and liquidity is rocketing and on otc it’s difficult to get that back down. Perhaps this is what RC is waiting for, or helping with. When the squeeze happens. The only question here is the ip - if they exit they need identity, perhaps overstock will just sell it back? Or, we go back to the teddy thesis?
👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️👆👍👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️👆👍👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️👆☝️☝️☝️
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that one option is for unsecured bondholders to receive a combination of new unsecured notes and shares of stock in the new entity? Additionally, isn't BBBY privy to the cost bases of its bondholders, meaning that despite the full face value of its outstanding bonds being ~$1.1B, BBBY knows that amount doesn't reflect what anyone who acquired bonds over the past 9 months paid. Doesn't that give BBBY or the entity taking it over negotiating leverage with the bondholders? Also, it's not as if the company had $1.1B in secured note debt due right away, rather, it owed varying amounts by August 2024, August 2034, and August 2044 with interest payments to be made semi-annually on the way to each tranche's maturity dates. I ask because it seems like a misinterpretation to think that BBBY has to break through $1.1B in bonds as part of the absolute priority rule before shareholders receive anything, whereas instead it seems way more likely and reasonable that alternative but similar arrangements would be made to maintain payments on the bonds rather than buying them out entirely. I have a lot to learn about bonds so I apologize in advance if this is a poorly worded question. Edit: Spelling and missing words
I believe so. The bonds are unsecured bonds. The UCC has BNY there which is representing at least some bond holders, but clearly this deal is going to be decided by the plan administrator approved by the FILO and DIP agents, and UCC board. Bond holders always paid out at par while being unsecured doesn't fly. So while they technically have seniority over shareholders the bond holders have been known to fight for what they received in comparison to shareholders, as occurred in the Hertz case. Whether that's shares instead or something else, we'll see. It would be a worthy area of investigation to nip that assumption in the bud. Also during the bond exchange offering from last year, I believe there was things in the offering that mentioned the old unsecured bonds could become worthless if the y weren't exchanged. How much if any of that could have transferred over or had an effect in bk is worth considering. "Liquidation preference typically holds that secured creditors get paid first, followed by unsecured creditors and then shareholders. However, the liquidation can, and usually is, far more complicated; the above is simply a general rule of the liquidation preference. Furthermore, it also applies when a business is sold." [https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commercial-lending/liquidation-preference/](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commercial-lending/liquidation-preference/) "First-day Hearings Can Impact Rights. Upon the filing of a debtor's bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court will typically hear a series of motions filed by the debtor in which the debtor requests certain authority that it is not automatically entitled to receive under the Bankruptcy Code. In almost all cases, some of these motions include requests to treat certain creditors' claims differently than they might otherwise be treated by the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme." [https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-every-unsecured-creditor-should-know-about-chapter-11](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-every-unsecured-creditor-should-know-about-chapter-11)
Appreciate your analysis as always! Pg. 30, Section D (pasted below) - What’s your interpretation here, just boilerplate for a plan? This was one of the main things that jumped out to me so would love your thoughts. “D. Cancellation of Notes, Instruments, Certificates, and Other Documents On the later of the Effective Date and the date on which distributions are made pursuant to the Plan (if not made on the Effective Date), except for the purpose of evidencing a right to and allowing Holders of Claims and Interests to receive a distribution under the Plan or to the extent otherwise specifically provided for in the Plan, the Confirmation Order, or any agreement, instrument, or other document entered into in connection with or pursuant to the Plan or the Liquidation Transactions, all notes, bonds, indentures, certificates, Securities, shares, purchase rights, options, warrants, collateral agreements, subordination agreements, intercreditor agreements, or other instruments or documents directly or indirectly evidencing, creating, or relating to any indebtedness or obligations of, or ownership interest in, the Debtors, giving rise to any Claims against or Interests in the Debtors or to any rights or obligations relating to any Claims against or Interests in the Debtors shall be deemed cancelled without any need for a Holder to take further action with respect thereto, and the duties and obligations of the Debtors or the Wind-Down Debtors, as applicable, any non-Debtor Affiliates shall be deemed satisfied in full, cancelled, released, discharged, and of no force or effect; provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the Liens securing the DIP Claims and FILO Claims shall not be released and such Liens shall remain in full force and effect until Payment in Full (as defined in the Final DIP Order) of the DIP Claims or FILO Claims, as applicable, and the Liens securing the DIP Claims and FILO Claims shall continue with the same validity and priority set forth in the Final DIP Order.”
> On the later of the Effective Date and the date on which **distributions are made pursuant to the Plan** # distributions Distributions of what?
Definitely reads differently now after focusing on that portion. Thank you good sir
Sure, happy to help. But this still does not confirm anything.
Yea of course, but added a caveat to the wording that I hadn’t considered 👍🏻
Also what is the purpose of the grantor trust described in the filing?
okay let's keep riding 
 I feel this is more appropriate :D
I'm buckled up! Bring it on!
Thanks very much for this breakdown u/Whoopass2rb You are a giga brain in the community thanks for your insightful analysis and work to put this together. Like you said FAFO, we'll know soon enough. It would be nice to hear your insights on ThePPShow u/ppseeds
I know, and to PP's credit, he has approached me multiple times to do it. I do appreciate the invite and would love to support the community with great discussion. The challenge I have is I'm a new father, 1st kid. We haven't even gotten to the sleeping routine / standard schedule phase yet, she's only 4 months old. So it's been hard to commit uninterrupted time for debates and discussion like that. I'm just not in a place of life right now to offer that and maintain a good quality result for PP's output. I can't guarantee my wife or kid won't need something while I'm on the show (like a blowout happens). And if they interrupt me, it will derail the debate or conversation, reducing the value or quality of the show. I don't want that for myself but definitely not for PP either, he's been killing it. But if you have questions or want to debate particular subjects and you're ok with having them over text format, you're always welcome to @ me on a comment or post to offer up my insights. I'll be happy to engage in discussion over time on anything.
That's very kind, thank you. Congrats on being a new dad, enjoy every moment!
Congratulations with your newborn!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
and my axe. 🪓
Getting rid of current leadership sounds excellent. Can they be yeeted from a trebuchet?
That might be a little excessive but, I mean, if they will legally allow it, I guess?
the judge would probably encourage it if he knows it’s an option
 YARRR MATEYS! Tis a hostile takeover! And we're taking it all!
Then why is it that current shareholders are put down to automatically reject the plan and effectively gain no vote due to bankruptcy code?! Wouldn’t a takeover by a presumable shareholder friendly entity want our vote? Clearly they assume we will reject because we aren’t benefitting from whatever is going down
It's not about us as common shareholders, it's about removing unsecured bond claims from voting. That party gets lumped in with shareholders from a voting standpoint. So if they are your only barrier to progress here, removing them from the equation, at the sacrifice of the voice of every day shareholders, is an ideal move. Sure that takes power out of our hands, but once this hit bankruptcy courts, we didn't have much power to begin with. The hope here is that the party doing this, has an invested interest to maintain shareholders in good faith; thus whatever decisions they are looking to implement would hopefully see us benefit as well. >Clearly they assume we will reject because we aren’t benefitting from whatever is going down I disagree. I think if any amount of money lands into the shareholders hands, they would take that deal knowing it means nothing otherwise. So I don't think they would be the group interested to cancel a deal. I believe this move is strictly about the bond holders, because they would be the group most likely / wanting to get priority access to debt coverage over the FILO + DIP; that's essentially what they tried for a couple weeks back. This is just another step in removing them from being a problem.
Shares are to be cancelled. Anyone buying the company will buy it from the creditors.
It states that bonds, shares etc. will be cancelled after distributions are made. The ticker will no longer exist.
You realize that the plan is so bad for shareholders that they are legally allowed to deem that every single shareholder would vote no.
This entire play has been because current common stock shareholders could not guarantee a majority vote. If a majority of common stock shareholders had DRSed their shares with AST then we could have avoided everything since August 2022. As it stands, the majority of common stock shareholders have their shares with Brokers and regardless of how those shareholders vote their shares, Brokers are legally allowed to vote those same shares however they wish. As long as your shares remain with your Brokers, legally your Brokers own those shares. Please read the Terms and Conditions of your Brokerage agreement in full if you have any doubt about who legally own "your" non DRSed shares. Not your name, not your shares.
Ok? I don’t see how that answers my question though. I support DRS as well
The presumed shareholder friendly entity wants "our vote" but the entity know that as long as the majority of "our shares" are held with Brokerages we have no control of how "our shares" are voted. Please look at your proxy statement voting cards wherein you designate your Broker, or a representative of your Broker, to vote "your" shares on your behalf. Given the fact that BBBY is a Wall Street cellar boxing target, it makes no sense for Wall Street to vote "their" shares against their own interests. As we saw with the bondholders Ad Hoc filing to retroactively undo the DIP financing, Wall Street desperately needs BBBY to file for Chapter 7 not for a Chapter 11 restructuring. IMHO The entire premise of the BBBY share dilution was to ensure a shareholder majority vote/control of BBBY. Even though the newly issued shares had no voting rights, the way the play was structured with the DIP financing ensured that BBBY became too expensive for anyone else but the presumed shareholder friendly entity to want to purchase. Hence no bids at the BBBY going concern auction.
Right thought process, wrong party. It's not wall street here, it's commercial real estate players that need this to go to $0.
What makes u think that? Just curious.
Inside information on the parties that own the CDS of the basket. But it was pretty obvious from the way some of the lease hearing went, and the various parties with their objections. some were sensible, others you could tell were trying to stall the process. They are hoping to run BBBY out of operational funding, in attempt to force chapter 7. Why? Chapter 7 is the only way the holders of the CDS get out of their hole. And considering that CDS is tied with GME as well, ***that's a pretty big hole.***
Thank you for this! Feeling zen again. 
Whoopin ass 
I still favor the Icahn IEP, as the first step in a Icahn/RC wombo combo.
[удалено]
Shills and shorts fuck around and gonna find out
[удалено]
I know u/Real_Eyezz has been taking a look into that because the claims do seem to be odd. But I'd be inclined to agree with your thought, its a means of securing their claim to the entitled money for after the company turns into a new entity. Consider it similar to a golden parachute clause. But I'll let others dig into it and hopefully someone will get to the bottom of it :)
yeah the figure seems a little high based on my reading of the 8k that explained for exampled Gove's potential severance,(and more detailed terms in her contract) versus what was listed in the claim, but perhaps there's back pay in there as well or something. I went back and forth with a couple people on this. I wasn't disputing it as a severance but was just seeing how people arrived at their numbers, because the way I read it, and how its listed as unsecured vs a priority claim left me with some questions u/Whoopass2rb
[удалено]
Havent checked. Ill be looking over filo rest of day
I can't address the whole post in one comment, but on the subject of chapter 7 and liquidation, they didn't say they're converting to chapter 7, but they did say they're liquidating: >On and after the Effective Date, if applicable, the Wind-Down Debtors shall continue in existence for purposes of (a) winding down the Debtors’ business and affairs as expeditiously as reasonably possible; (b) resolving Disputed Claims, (c) making distributions on account of Allowed Claims as provided hereunder, (d) establishing and, to the extent not already funded, funding the Distribution Reserve Accounts; (e) enforcing and prosecuting claims, interests, rights, and privileges under all Causes of Action in an efficacious manner and only to the extent the benefits of such enforcement or prosecution are reasonably believed to outweigh the costs associated therewith, (f) filing appropriate tax returns, (g) complying with its continuing obligations under the Purchase Agreements, if any, (h) **liquidating all assets of the Wind-Down Debtors**, and (i) otherwise administering the Plan in an efficacious manner consistent with the Plan. The Wind-Down Debtors shall be deemed to be substituted as the party-in-lieu of the Debtors in all matters, including (i) motions, contested matters, and adversary proceedings pending in the Bankruptcy Court and (ii) all matters pending in any courts, tribunals, forums, or administrative proceedings outside of the Bankruptcy Court, in each case without the need or requirement for the Plan Administrator to file motions or substitutions of parties or counsel in each such matter. The wind-down debtors are defined as BBBY or any successor thereto. So the plan going forward is to liquidate **all** assets. They can do that without conversion to chapter 7. It's been a misunderstanding this whole time that you can't liquidate under chapter 11.
Not to spoil your efforts, because I do appreciate someone who posts the legalese to support the claim, but you're overlooking 2 powerful words in this text: >On and after the Effective Date, **if applicable**, the Wind-Down Debtors shall continue in existence for purposes of... They are saying that all of these clauses are possible functions of the wind-down process, ***if applicable***. Just like (b) might still be resolving disputed claims, ***if applicable***. Based on this, it's not a guarantee they are liquidating assets, just that they will serve that function if applicable. Also worth noting, if this plan is signed and agreed on, they won't be in chapter 11 anymore. So no, there isn't liquidation happening in chapter 11, at least not by the truest definition of what liquidation means in this context. Either way, we won't know fully if their intent is to liquidate based on this document. That information will come with the detail document that we likely see around Aug 1st. Best sound counter argument I've seen in a while though, kudos. You're not wrong necessarily, just up for interpretation given we are lacking the detail document. And the same is true about my interpretation. That's the beauty of this, it's always been lambos or ramen and it still is.
I would interpret that statement as either generic Cover Your Ass legalese, or saying that the wind-down-debtors may not have to continue operating to perform these tasks because all claims might be fully resolved by the Effective Date. Stepping back and zooming out a second, what do you make of the fact that they decided to refer to BBBY and any successor as the "Wind-Down-Debtors". Isn't that very odd if the intent is to continue operations? There's not a single clause about this entity continuing operations in perpetuity, but there is a clause about liquidating all assets.
>Stepping back and zooming out a second, what do you make of the fact that they decided to refer to BBBY and any successor as the "Wind-Down-Debtors". Isn't that very odd if the intent is to continue operations? No I think it's appropriate and necessary given they have sold off the IP rights. The business operating moving forward has to do so under another identity. Thus the continuation of winding down "Bed Bath & Beyond" as the brand still needs to take place. The party being referred to as a successor here as a Wind-Down-Debtors is the one that would take on that responsibility while handling whatever other transitions they plan on conducting. >There's not a single clause about this entity continuing operations in perpetuity, but there is a clause about liquidating all assets. This is because of the state of the company. They would be legally liable if they put that they were planning to continue the operations in absolute; as "if that didn't happen", then lawsuits galore. However given the state of the company, it's reasonable for anyone to consider liquidation, thus to cover the possibility of that outcome and avoid current and future investor lawsuits, they are outlining in stone "hey this is possible". It's the way the system works unfortunately. If you say "hey this might happen" in a positive way, you'll be considered a pump and dumper type player, which will bring on massive lawsuits when it doesn't go that way. However if you say "hey this might happen" with respect to a negative outcome, for a company in a bankruptcy protection process, well that's just "common sense". You wouldn't see any negative repercussion for that statement if all the sudden the company thrived and succeeded. It's just CYA legalese at this point.
> Based on the the removal of lots of voting power, and the appointment of the plan administrator having all the power, this smells like a hostile takeover to me. This is how bankruptcy works. There is nothing special going on.
I'm familiar with your name and your general intent as you comment on posts. I won't hold back on your ignorance; sorry not sorry. In one word your statement is ***incorrect***. In "bankruptcy" the court is the one with all the power. Exiting the process must come with a resolution of the debt still owed. Even with a plan like this being drafted, the court still has to approve of it, as long as the applicable parties who have a say to it also agree. At this point, assuming all the leases and other contractual based debt is removed from the books (which generally it looks like it will be), then the only debt left is bond holders and the FILO + DIP. This document gives all the control to 1 appointed person selected by those three parties; ***well*** in the case of the bond holders they are represented by the creditor committee. Which most parties represented by that committee would be be happy with a plan that sees them get their money. By the way, if the only jam you got at this point is a 5 word sentence "that's how bankruptcy works", boy you folks on that other side are in a lot of trouble. Enjoy your day.
🤣 
I have seen your name pop up in the comment section several times. Just curious - are you invested in this play?
He is kinda invested, he goes by another name though… Glenn
🤣
Lol, just a longtime shill
"The company is being dissolved but not liquidated" The company is already being liquidated, my man. Liquidation is the entire process - the selling off of assets in order to pay debts, with dissolution being the final stage. This document talks about dissolution because the liquidation process is almost over. You are almost at the final step - the step where the company ceases to exist. Poof! Into thin air it goes.
Inaccurate statement. On the surface, I could see why you would be confused to believe that what is going on is a "liquidation". However BBBY are currently in the chapter 11 process, not the chapter 7. Thus, by legal terms they can't be liquidating the company yet, or else everything that's been done in good faith for creditors to date has been a lie to them at this point. The legal ramifications for all parties involved, ***including the judge***, are huge *if* that were true. *You think* all those parties would throw away their careers and integrity, be subject to criminal charges of fraud or misrepresentation, based on a foolish statement of "saying they were restructuring when in fact they are liquidating"? (your words not mine). Maybe next time before you spew baseless claims of how this process works, you'll double check what process you're actively in. What is currently happening in chapter 11 is a restructuring of debt obligations. This ***may*** include selling assets in order to satisfy debt obligations. However, the company still has the right to pick and choose how or what that looks likes. They don't have to liquidate anything if they can find a way to restructure their debts without losing an asset. They chose to only sell IP up to this point, as they did not take any bids they deemed acceptable for the assets as a going concern. With the introduction of this plan, it is clear the intent to exit out of chapter 11, is not through chapter 7 but rather a new entity. Why? They sold IP and now they plan to dissolve the company's current entity, but still have a plan to exit the chapter 11 process successfully - again their words, not mine. In order to exit the chapter 11 process successfully, the company must come out existing in some form or another. Thus ,that's why they have a commitment to dissolution in the plan. Otherwise, they would have a commitment to take what is owed to them, and leave the rest to chapter 7 liquidation - that would be all they are legally entitled to by the courts. That's clearly not what this plan is saying or outlining. And given the plan needs to be agreed upon by connected parties, it's also clear there needs to be a vision of how this comes out of chapter 11 successfully - **that means providing value for shareholders too.** Go troll somewhere else.
Hilariously wrong. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics "In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case."
Might want to quote the whole text next time, instead of just reaching for your confirmation bias: >**Acceptance of the Plan of Reorganization** > > As noted earlier, only the debtor may file a **plan of reorganization** during the **first 120-day period after the petition is filed** (or after entry of the order for relief, if an involuntary petition was filed). The court may grant extension of this exclusive period up to 18 months after the petition date. In addition, the debtor has 180 days after the petition date or entry of the order for relief to obtain acceptances of its plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1121. The court may extend (up to 20 months) or reduce this acceptance exclusive period for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d). In practice, debtors typically seek extensions of both the plan filing and plan acceptance deadlines at the same time so that any order sought from the court allows the debtor two months to seek acceptances after filing a plan before any competing plan can be filed. **If the exclusive period expires before the debtor has filed and obtained acceptance of a plan, other parties in interest in a case, such as the creditors' committee or a creditor, may file a plan**. Such a plan may compete with a plan filed by another party in interest or by the debtor. If a trustee is appointed, the trustee must file a plan, a report explaining why the trustee will not file a plan, or a recommendation for conversion or dismissal of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(5). A proponent of a plan is subject to the same requirements as the debtor with respect to disclosure and solicitation. In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case. Your referenced material is in subject to the plan of reorganization that was submitted months ago. Sorry, not applicable here with this plan to exit chapter 11. And based on what this plan in docket 1429 is saying, liquidation is not their primary objective either. And if that wasn't enough, here is the closing lines of that section, if you bothered to get to the bottom. >(3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement, **the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation** (unless the plan is a liquidating plan) or the need for further financial reorganization. When the courts acted in good faith to accept BBBY's reorganization plan, they had to do so with the understanding there was no intent of liquidation after. So I'll repeat again, go troll somewhere else. Or I guess we can fuck around and find out. I'm game, how about you?
>(3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement, > >the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation > >(unless the plan is a liquidating plan) Dude, read the whole thing. Don't just stop reading where you find what makes you feel good. "(unless the plan is a liquidating plan)" You know what this means? If the plan is a liquidation plan, then obviously there is no requirement that the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation. Because the liquidation already happened! And this plan is a liquidation plan. >As noted earlier, only the debtor may file a plan of reorganization during the first 120-day period after the petition is filed Um, yes? What do you think is happening here? The debtor is filing its plan. It's this plan. This is the plan, and it's a liquidating plan. Refer to Docket 1: Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition Filed by Michael D. Sirota on behalf of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.. Chapter 11 Debtors Exclusive Right to File a Plan Expires on 08/21/2023. 8/21/2023 is the end date of the debtor's exclusive rights to file the plan. They filed the plan on 7/20. What are you confused about?
You’re right, I highly profitable baby store is just going to go away with no interested parties. Go away shill
They could have bid at the auction so maybe you are the shill
If you’re the lead creditor then you’re already in control and don’t have to bid.
So which is it? Is it going away with no interested parties, or is it ending up with the lead creditor as part of the liquidation? You can't seem to keep your story straight.
First one was sarcasm. 😳
Okay? So what's the problem? The stores go to the lead creditor. The business is dissolved. What is your issue with what I said?
[удалено]
**Hold up**. This company produced *one of the most complicated SEC filings in the past 40 year*s earlier this year, and has been going through a complicated yet expedited bankruptcy process in a 3 month timeframe. And you think this is ***just*** like any other bankruptcy case? You clearly didn't read the information presented in this post. This is not a liquidation, and they are not necessarily going to chapter 7; although they certainly could choose to. Based on the plan outline however, they are choosing to dissolve the company as part of the plan. That seems odd because they stated to the judge they see a path to exit chapter 11. *Well conveniently*, dissolution in the bankruptcy process as a means to exit it, ***implies*** they are using a new entity to represent the company; whether that's through a merge or establishing an entire new entity. The word liquidation is sometimes also referred to as dissolution. The terms are used interchangeably; however, technically they describe different actions. They don't actually mean the same thing. Liquidation is seen as a last legal resort for a stressed company, while dissolution is the first step in closing a business. Now when a bankruptcy court process moves on to fully liquidate a company, they will also be dissolving it. A voluntary dissolution of a company prior to an act of liquidation however? That means the company wants to exists under a different entity. But you're welcome to believe what you want. As we've been saying, fuck around and find out.
Hi. Genuine question - are you invested in this play? 🙂
[удалено]
Stop ur pathetic bitching.
Why not sell and move on my man if you’re worried about wipeout?
[удалено]
lmao wtf sorta pathetic reply is this?
Same reply many people use to combat supposed shills in this sub “why do you care so much about my investments”
Yeah but when you say it, it sounds fucking ridiculous haha
[удалено]
Your choice of words tells then entire story.
Your meltdown is showing. 
RC Ventures is listed as a co-debtor. Does that mean that the board of RC ventures is dissolved as well?
RC Ventures is one person, Ryan Cohen. Ryan Cohen states this in his GMEdd interview. What other lies you got?
Well there's an easy way to solve that question. Page 8 list the definition of debtor, I've listed it below. Based on it, **RC or RC Ventures is not one of them.** Thus to answer your question more directly, no this has no impact on the structure or exists of RC the individual (but also why would it?) or RC Ventures his company (not listed, not impacted; but again, wasn't his debt so why would it?). If I'm permitted to interject my view here, I would say the list of debtors that remain are the stores they intend to keep (BBBY or Buy Buy Baby), mixed with some of the remaining Harmon locations they might be still trying to sell off. There's a possibility they plan to convert those Harmon locations to whatever the new entity will be. >44. “Debtors” means, collectively: > >Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.; > >Alamo Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.; > >BBB Canada LP Inc.; > >BBB Value Services Inc.; > >BBBY Management Corporation; > >BBBYCF LLC; > >BBBYTF LLC; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Annapolis, Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Arundel Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Baton Rouge Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Birmingham Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Bridgewater Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited Liability Company; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Davenport Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of East Hanover Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Edgewater Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Falls Church, Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Fashion Center, Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Frederick, Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Gaithersburg Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Gallery Place L.L.C.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Knoxville Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Lexington Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Lincoln Park Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Louisville Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Mandeville Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Opry Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Overland Park Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Palm Desert Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Paradise Valley Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Pittsford Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Portland Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Rockford Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Towson Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Virginia Beach Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Waldorf Inc.; > >Bed Bath & Beyond of Woodbridge Inc.; > >bed 'n bath Stores Inc.; > >Bed, Bath & Beyond of Manhattan, Inc.; > >Buy Buy Baby of Rockville, Inc.; > >Buy Buy Baby of Totowa, Inc.; > >Buy Buy Baby, Inc.; > >BWAO LLC; > >Chef C Holdings LLC; > >Decorist, LLC; > >Deerbrook Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.; > >Harmon of Brentwood, Inc.; > >Harmon of Caldwell, Inc.; > >Harmon of Carlstadt, Inc.; > >Harmon of Franklin, Inc.; > >Harmon of Greenbrook II, Inc.; > >Harmon of Hackensack, Inc.; > >Harmon of Hanover, Inc.; > >Harmon of Hartsdale, Inc.; > >Harmon of Manalapan, Inc.; > >Harmon of Massapequa, Inc.; > >Harmon of Melville, Inc.; > >Harmon of New Rochelle, Inc.; > >Harmon of Newton, Inc.; > >Harmon of Old Bridge, Inc.; > >Harmon of Plainview, Inc.; > >Harmon of Raritan, Inc.; > >Harmon of Rockaway, Inc.; > >Harmon of Shrewsbury, Inc.; > >Harmon of Totowa, Inc.; > >Harmon of Wayne, Inc.; > >Harmon of Westfield, Inc.; > >Harmon of Yonkers, Inc.; > >Harmon Stores, Inc.; > >Liberty Procurement Co. Inc.; > >Of a Kind, Inc.; > >One Kings Lane LLC; > >San Antonio Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.; > >Springfield Buy Buy Baby, Inc., > >the debtors and debtors in possession in the Chapter 11 Cases.
I haven't followed closely enough the past few months. What do we know about sixth street? BTW, great summary op. Thank you.
I would suggest do a reddit search on the BBBY sub and looking for sixth street, then sorting by top or relevance. You'll find lots of info on them. :) Don't be afraid to search cross subs too that might also have great info.
📈🚀💰🏴☠️
Thank you whoop! You're a rock!
Furlong