RE:intrigued to know what discount they got...........Rad10, I am pretty sure that everyone wanted to know the answer to that question, but I was not at all surprised that Oberman declined to answer. These negotiations are always bound by strict confidentiality until the proposal is announced.
The fact that someone voluntarily took a discount, however, shows what makes this situation so interesting: The unsecured debt, and possibly, the lower tier of the secured debt, are not worth their full face value, and the negotiations should not treat them as if they are. The unsecured debt is, in fact, worth no more than the common equity. If one, two or three years from now, the company cannot meet its obligations to the senior secured debt, it potentially falls into foreclosure to those guys, with nothing for anyone underneath. All subordinate stakeholders, second tier secured debt, unsecured debt, and common equity, have a common interest in making sure that that does not happen, and are wise to act well before any impending due date. They are all in the same leaky boat and have to work together to try and repair the leak, collectively bailing water in the meantime.
Adding to the intrigue is that none of these players needs its position to be recognized at full face value in order to score a win. If, for example, the unsecured debt referred to in the conference call was discounted by 40%, but a holder had purchased his or her position for 15 cents on the dollar, as some of the debt was selling most recently, he or she would have won a 4-bagger in a very short period of time. I am pretty well certain that no one in this game at this point purchased his or her position at full face value, so everyone is free to compromise and still potentially have a very nice gain. Because of that, there is a very wide range of outcomes.
Meanwhile, it is not clear to me who is fighting for the common equity, and how hard they are pushing. Management may be satisfied to simply get new, re-jigged options -- options in the money -- and may not care who are the common equity holders after the restructuring. In this sense, they are clearly conflicted. The Board is supposed to counteract that, but the company does not really have a trustworthy board in this regard. Or, to put it more accurately, we have not seen any evidence that it does. In fact, the evidence points the other way: Kupinsky, still mysteriously the current chair, has done no good for anyone but himself throughout the whole sorry story of Concordia. He currently owns no shares, and I doubt that he gives a damn.
Lucky27, I do not believe that you will regret your recent averaging down activity. You will, however, always regret your purchases at above $6.00. The company had still not fully cleaned house at that point. That said, while I do not see an immediate pop to that level, if the restructuring goes well, a recovery to that level and above is certainly not out of the range of possibility within, say, two or three years.