Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,707   Online: 920
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    I am not a Financial Analyst, but after reading the below, I gave my opinion.... I never said it is right or wrong, just the cold hard truth of what might transpire shoud the IP sale go on before or after bankruptcy....
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-property.html
    zsas,

    You mis-understand. I'm not calling you out on anything, just throwing out how I thought things worked in my (truly) uneducated financial worldview. If you feel I put you on the spot I apologize.

    s-a

  2. #12
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Semi - Sorry for being over sensitive. I am just so sad re this whole Kodak issue (reguardless of why we are here today), tis like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Looks like the wagons are circling now and just kills me to watch it!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    I am not a financial guru but I was always under the impression bondholders made a return based on the risk of their investment, much like stockholders. The assets of a company, including sales history and estimates of future sales, serve to indicate the potential risk to payback to the bond purchaser but are not themselves used as collateral for bonds. How can they be, they're owned by the stockholders? The bonds might not be repaid. That's the risk you took on the chance of some return. This is why I can take part in a bond sale by Kodak without owning any shares of Kodak stock. And vice versa.

    Of course a company's Board can write whatever agreement they want but doesn't doing so imply Kodak was selling risk-free investment? I'm probably completely wrong; that's why I let others manage my vast empire of holdings.

    s-a
    Speaking very broadly, I's suppose it depends what is meant by "Bond" in the particular country or jurisdiction. Here in the UK there are lots of "Bonds"...it's really just another name for a loan. But, like any loan or mortgage, it may (or may not) be secured, perhaps on specific assets of a business.

    I've not studied EK's account, but I suppose that Bonds could be secured on the specific collateral of patents or some other asset? IDK?

    e.g. I have a mortgage loan on my house....I own the house, and the bank demands a rate of interest to reflect the risk of me not paying back their investment. However, if I went bankrupt, they would have a "first charge" on the house...so they would have their loan fully repaid from the sale of the house, before any other creditors had anything paid off their debts. Similar, if or when I move house, I have to arrange to either repay the bank, or arrange for the loan to be secured against the collateral of my next house.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Semi - Sorry for being over sensitive. I am just so sad re this whole Kodak issue (reguardless of why we are here today), tis like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Looks like the wagons are circling now and just kills me to watch it!
    If you're a glutton for punishment you can swing by www.slashdot.org and check out the Kodak story. I have nothing against Technology but, jeez Louise. And they think Apple users have swallowed some kool-aid.

    s-a

  5. #15
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    Speaking very broadly, I's suppose it depends what is meant by "Bond" in the particular country or jurisdiction. Here in the UK there are lots of "Bonds"...it's really just another name for a loan. But, like any loan or mortgage, it may (or may not) be secured, perhaps on specific assets of a business.

    I've not studied EK's account, but I suppose that Bonds could be secured on the specific collateral of patents or some other asset? IDK?

    e.g. I have a mortgage loan on my house....I own the house, and the bank demands a rate of interest to reflect the risk of me not paying back their investment. However, if I went bankrupt, they would have a "first charge" on the house...so they would have their loan fully repaid from the sale of the house, before any other creditors had anything paid off their debts. Similar, if or when I move house, I have to arrange to either repay the bank, or arrange for the loan to be secured against the collateral of my next house.
    Bonds are almost always secured against assets. After the taxman and sureties they are first in line for recovery of assets in bankruptcy. The issue here is the risk of those sold assets (the patents) falling into management hands.

    The bondholders are calling Kodak's loans. Or at least threatening to do so. This is the way bondholders vote against their confidence in management. The bondholders are clearly worried that a Kodak based on its digital/analog portfolio sans patents will not be equal to the collateral obligation at time the loan was issued. Nor do they have faith that Kodak to pay the coupons on the bonds faithfully. Management appears to want to sell the patents to substitute for revenues from day-to-day activities. The story is from the Chief Operating Officer, no less, the person responsible for day-to-day. Shareholders also see this, so they are selling the stock.

    Kodak management has responded (and it is their fiduciary obligation to do so) by hiring legal counsel. The market and third parties haven't much faith in management utilizing either current revenues or funds from the sale of intellectual property.

    As noted in another post, this may only be decided by a judge if the creditors and Kodak management cannot hammer out an agreement.

  6. #16
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Bonds are almost always secured against assets. After the taxman and sureties they are first in line for recovery of assets in bankruptcy. ...
    Unless the workforce is the UAW.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,051
    If the bonds were secured by patents and the patents were sold, the bond holders have to be paid. There would be no security for the bond if Kodak no longer owned patents. Same principle as selling a mortgaged home. The lender gets his money first, you get what is left over.

  8. #18
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    What I find really surprising is that their Digital Imaging IP portfolio is only 10% of their IP portfolio. Hard to tell whether that is measured in terms of actual numbers of patents or perceived value. But when you factor in the natural expiration of IP over time and that the digital IP should be the freshest, this is very surprising number. It suggests to me that Kodak really didn't make a serious foray into digital and/or was very unsuccessful in doing so.

    Then again, when Kodak was at the top of their game in film-related research, they were probably patenting left and right. I just wonder how much of that IP still carries value.

    If they are indeed selling off their digital IP, well that's great.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #19
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    I hate to be a sky is falling believer, but the two below articles are just making me think the wagons are circling, and fast (bond holders and now Fuji):
    1) Eastman Kodak Could this American Icon Go Bust (written 10/15/11)
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2997...n-icon-go-bust

    2) Fuji Sues Kodak Over Digital Patents (written 10/14/11)
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...a-patents.html


    I know 'keep your head down, don't look at the train wreck and make pictures', but reading these articles just pains me...

    The Fuji lawsuit adds quite a wrinkle, could they sell their digi patents when they might have some of those very patents named in a lawsuit with Fuji now?
    Last edited by zsas; 10-15-2011 at 08:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    The Fuji lawsuit adds quite a wrinkle, could they sell their digi patents when they might have some of those very patents named in a lawsuit with Fuji now?
    Well it'd be a nice way to prevent Kodak's IP from entering the marketplace, right? Kodak wants to sell their IP but nobody will pay much for it if they think it might be litigated anyway.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin