This is enough to make me turn Democrat!

[GG]

The sad part is that the disclosure requirements are now so vast that 98% of stockholders in a given company don't even bother to read the prospectus, S-1, 10-K or other documents in which they are so painstakingly laid out.

310891[/snapback]

 

The heck with that. Who has time to read a 300 page prospectus?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The sad part is that the disclosure requirements are now so vast that 98% of stockholders in a given company don't even bother to read the prospectus, S-1, 10-K or other documents in which they are so painstakingly laid out.

310891[/snapback]

 

Well...personally, I don't usually. Logic behind that decision being that there's plenty of organizations out there that compile the data I find relevant for my purposes, actually reading the company's documentation thoroughly doesn't usually buy me much over that, and won't protect me from cases of outright fraud (as I don't really know how to detect it from a fraudulent 10Q or 10K anyway)...so usually, why bother? From a risk-reward standpoint, it's not cost-effective for me.

 

Of course, that's a conscious decision based on an actual risk-reward analysis, and it doesn't mean that I can't read corporate documentation if I feel so compelled. And in most of the recent instances of corporate fraud, there were indications outside regulatory disclosure that would indicate the companies were flaky anyway (e.g. Enron's persistent and vocal statements that they couldn't provide full disclosure as required by regulations because to do so wold divulge trade secrets. "We can't tell you, because if we do we won't make money"??? If that's not a giant red flag, I don't know what is...)

[KD in CA]

The heck with that.  Who has time to read a 300 page prospectus?

310904[/snapback]

 

Exactly. But let's force everyone to prepare a 300 page prospectus anyway....but hey, I'm not complaining. They pay a lot for people who know how to write those things!

[KRC]

Damn, I suddenly feel like George trying to get some chicken-vegetable from the Soup Nazi! 

310820[/snapback]

 

It just gets me that people bich up a storm about something, but refuse to get up off of their lazy azzes to actually do something about it. If you are that passionate about something, use that energy to get things changed.

[ASCI]

Show me the money. ill gotten gains should be given back to the shareholders:

 

Thousands of former Enron employees saw their retirement funds disappear when the energy giant collapsed -- but Kenneth Lay has millions socked away in lawsuit-proof investments.

 

The Lays paid about $4 million -- an amount greater than Lay's entire salary from Enron that year -- to buy variable annuities that will, starting in 2007, guarantee the couple an annual income of about $900,000. While stocks and most other ordinary investments are open to attack by creditors, life insurance policies and annuities are protected in many states. Variable annuities of the sort purchased by the Lays are basically tax-deferred investments wrapped in insurance policies.

 

Six states -- including Texas, where the Lays live -- provide the maximum degree of protection to investments in variable annuities, leaving them virtually impervious to attack by creditors.

 

Where is Tommy Delay on this one I though he wants to “Stopping Abuse, Protecting Consumers”

 

WorldCom filed for bankruptcy-law protection from creditors in July 2002, hoping to shed nearly all its $41 billion in debt and emerge as a reorganized company.

 

Bernard Ebbers still owes Worldcom $400 million in loans that were obtained under dubious circumstances

 

Where is Tommy on this one? Do you think I could get away with changing my name to escape $41 billion in debt or never have to pay back a company I stole $400 million from?

 

Thats right i have to keep on telling myself Toms looking out for the little guy.

[GG]

Show me the money.  ill gotten gains should be given back to the shareholders:

 

You continue to show an incredible knack of ignoring factual circumstances in each case you cite, in continuing to spew CommonDreams.org rhetoric to "protect the little guy."

 

I'm glad that this country is still run by people who strive to live under its laws instead of a lynch mobs pandering to populist whims that usually follow the predictable "rich bad - poor good" attitudes.

 

I've got a puzzle for you. If you say that ill gotten gains should be returned to the shareholders in the same breath that you rail on the new bankruptcy law, what do you do in the case of a Bernie Ebbers?

 

You see, most of the guys who committed fraud crimes, did so to prop up the stocks of the companies they ran. Basicaly, their entire net worth was tied up in the stock of their former companies. After filing for Ch. 11, those companies' stock is worthless, rendering the net worth of those guys, worthless. Since those guys owe a lot of money to their former companies, and can't repay, they likely will file for personal bankruptcy.

 

Under the old law, they could escape much of the obligation to reapy, since their assets are worthless. Under the new law, they would likely have to agree to some kind of a payment plan.

 

Of course, you hate the new law, so that's quite a pickle you've gotten yourself into by parroting something you don't understand.

 

Where is Tommy Delay on this one I though he wants to “Stopping Abuse, Protecting Consumers”

Where is Tommy on this one?  Do you think I could get away with changing my name to escape $41 billion in debt or never have to pay back a company I stole $400 million from?

 

I guess you missed the point that the creditors can't own your soul, but thay can own the soul of a corporation. Notice that you failed to provide an answer to the question, of how would you rather see the outcome of the bankruptcy. Since MCI didn't have enough assets to repay $41Bn in debt, what should happen to the company? Should it be killed and all employees thrown out on the street, because the old management was a bunch of crooks? The new MCI is not the same entity as the old Worldcom.

 

Thats right i have to keep on telling myself Toms looking out for the little guy.

310998[/snapback]

 

Yeah, and ask yourself if you'll be willing to trade a $900,000 year annuity for 20 years in jail.

[ASCI]

I guess you missed the point that the creditors can't own your soul, but thay can own the soul of a corporation. Notice that you failed to provide an answer to the question, of how would you rather see the outcome of the bankruptcy. Since MCI didn't have enough assets to repay $41Bn in debt, what should happen to the company? Should it be killed and all employees thrown out on the street, because the old management was a bunch of crooks? The new MCI is not the same entity as the old Worldcom.

 

No you miss the point, a portion of their profits should be take for repayments for the debt they owe, just like Tom would have us do with his new bankruptcy Bill. Whats fair is fair.

[GG]

No you miss the point, a portion of their profits should be take for repayments for the debt they owe, just like Tom would have us do with his new bankruptcy Bill.  Whats fair is fair.

311214[/snapback]

 

What is fair is for you to understand the issues, before posting.

 

Let me type slower. After Worldcom filed for Ch. 11, it didn't have enough assets to repay all the debt. The creditors had a choice of shutting the thing down, sell all the assets, or to try to reorganize the company with less debt and hope to get a higher repayment later on.

 

In the court supervised bankruptcy process, the holders of the old debt understood that it didn't make sense to shut the company down. They became the new owners of the new compny, now called MCI, and also own some of the new debt.

 

Chances are, they won't recover their original investment, but they are a lot better off then shutting the company down in 2002.

 

If your position is that the company should be liable for all the old debt, then that kind of flies in the face of bankruptcy law that has been working very well.

[KRC]

What is fair is for you to understand the issues, before posting.

 

Let me type slower.  After Worldcom filed for Ch. 11, it didn't have enough assets to repay all the debt.  The creditors had a choice of shutting the thing down, sell all the assets, or to try to reorganize the company with less debt and hope to get a higher repayment later on.

 

In the court supervised bankruptcy process, the holders of the old debt understood that it didn't make sense to shut the company down.  They became the new owners of the new compny, now called MCI, and also own some of the new debt. 

 

Chances are, they won't recover their original investment, but they are a lot better off then shutting the company down in 2002.

 

If your position is that the company should be liable for all the old debt, then that kind of flies in the face of bankruptcy law that has been working very well.

311270[/snapback]

 

...but...but...but...Delay Bad.

[Campy]

...but...but...but...Delay Bad. 

311271[/snapback]

Delay is pretty much a scumbag - but it seems you don't think so?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Delay is pretty much a scumbag - but it seems you don't think so?

311285[/snapback]

 

NEWS FLASH: *ALL* politicians are crooked.

[KD in CA]

Delay is pretty much a scumbag - but it seems you don't think so?

311285[/snapback]

 

 

Sure he is. And so are the rest of them. But this thread was started with an attempted to portray the common-sense legislation on bankruptcy that was just signed into some evil doing of Delay. And the person who started it has yet to show that he has any understanding of bankruptcy laws, much less make any argument as to what is wrong with the new one.

 

I haven't read the new law, but I have read 3 different articles on it that stated that the new rules applied to people who were above their state's median income level. If that's true, wouldn't these be all the "rich" Republicans that are always getting the tax cuts anyway?

[KRC]

Delay is pretty much a scumbag - but it seems you don't think so?

311285[/snapback]

 

You really like putting words in people's mouths, don't you? "Saddam was responsible for 9/11," "KRC doesn't think that DeLay is a scumbag," etc.

 

Maybe, one of these days you will be right. Your track record shows otherwise, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

[Campy]

You really like putting words in people's mouths, don't you? "Saddam was responsible for 9/11," "KRC doesn't think that DeLay is a scumbag," etc.

 

Maybe, one of these days you will be right. Your track record shows otherwise, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

311340[/snapback]

Note to self: Never ask Ken to clarify one of his posts. He seems much more comfortable slinging insults.

[KRC]

Note to self: Never ask Ken to clarify one of his posts.  He seems much more comfortable slinging insults.

311370[/snapback]

 

Note to self: Don't bother answering Campy's posts. It does not matter what you say. He will just make up what he wants to hear.

[Campy]

Note to self: Don't bother answering Campy's posts. It does not matter what you say. He will just make up what he wants to hear.

311372[/snapback]

You went into one of your stereotypical rants of "Bush/Delay bad.." and I asked for clarification.

 

You seem comfortable picking and choosing snippets of posts and threads to argue, but GAWD FORBID someone does the same to you.

[KRC]

You went into one of your stereotypical rants of "Bush/Delay bad.." and I asked for clarification. 

 

You seem comfortable picking and choosing snippets of posts and threads to argue, but GAWD FORBID someone does the same to you.

311379[/snapback]

 

No, you did not ask for a clarification. You told me what me opinion was. Can't see the difference?

[Campy]

No, you did not ask for a clarification. You told me what me opinion was. Can't see the difference?

311384[/snapback]

 

"Delay is pretty much a scumbag - but it seems you don't think so?"

-OR-

"Can't see the difference?"

 

That curly looking seven-shaped object at the end is generally referred to as a question mark. It signifies that the preceeding was an interrogative statement. Interrogitive statements (questions) are generally followed by an answer. I would think that "But it seems you don't think so?" or "Can't see the difference?" would be less statements of fact and more requests for clarification.

 

But that's right, I'm the only one who sees what I want to see.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks for not bothering to use the PM function, gents. I miss high school.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Thanks for not bothering to use the PM function, gents.  I miss high school. 

311529[/snapback]

 

Does this mean RkFast and I can get back to our crap throwing contest?