RE:RE:RE:teeveejd43xl wrote: But why are you defending a deal where the common shareholders get money from the debenture holders, if you have no economic interest?
These are opinion boards and I am intrigued by the outcome of the Aspenleaf offer. My opinion is based on my belief that the alternative to Aspenleaf's offer is worse for both shareholders and debenture holders, both in the short term aftermath of a negative vote and the longer term. Furthermore, the Aspenleaf deal is certain, whereas the future of ARN and the value of shares and debentures is uncertain and likely more negative than positive.
For example, look at the depth for both debentures and the depth for the shares. The depth suggests that if the deal is effectively dead, the price and liquidity for both shares and debentures will immediately drop a long ways. IF I was going to speculate on ARN, I would have shorted the debentures as the potential loss would be capped by $.825 and the potential gain is covering in the $.50-$60 range, however, regardless of market depth, and the few people on this board who are against the Aspenleaf deal, I believe shareholders and debenture holders will hold their noses and vote with their wallets and certainty rather than uncertainty.
All of the above aside, I also believe the greatest risk to approval of the Aspenleaf deal is how both LTS and CPG vote, if they vote, as together they hold about 38% of the shares so effectively have a veto on the Aspenleaf offer, however, it appears to me that LTS and CPG are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't, faced with significant dilution either way (assumes ARN debenture hodlers eventually repaid with shares at 95% of market).