Comments on Robert Kronenberg's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/robert-kronenberg/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/77408/comments?source=feed#comment-168544 168544 Fri, 16 May 2008 00:28:17 -0400
The other numbers that change are the predicted share price if the new deal is rejected, which is now 31.375 instead of 32.50, and the total lost dividends, which are now .375 instead of 1.50.

I hate to change any of the numbers in the article. Thanks to retail pricing and gestalt psychology, 2.1 billion sounds like much more than 1.77 billion. It won't matter if the numbers stay the same. You've all sold anyway, haven't you? You're not waiting to see if they find a way to do you out of the 3.3% you're scheduled to make between now and next September if the deal is approved, are you?

Maybe some descendant of the Alamo with 500 shares and living in San Antonio will hire a lawyer and sue the bums in a Class Action. I hear Attrorney Joe Jamail currently has an opening on his calendar. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/77408/comments?source=feed#comment-168462 168462 Thu, 15 May 2008 20:35:50 -0400
I said the solution was so obvious that I did not bother to contact Clear Channel or Highland several weeks ago.

That issue could, as you noted, be solved with the $3.20

I wondered why would you sacrifice $3.20 per share when putting the $3.20 in escrow offering to buy the top riskiest slice of the debt for the $2.1 billion would make the fair value issue go away. It would have a two or three time limit and would preserve the chance for the $2.1 billion to go back to shareholders as the markets eventually normalize.

Ofr course, we both think the real issue was not fair market accounting losses but the underlying implicit unsaid message that, unless we get what we want, the deal will unwind and the stock will sink.

You're comments are right on.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/77408/comments?source=feed#comment-168033 168033 Thu, 15 May 2008 10:24:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/77408/comments?source=feed#comment-168026 168026 Thu, 15 May 2008 10:20:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-155993 155993 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:04:03 -0400
CC Media Holdings is not a “successor” of one of the commitment letter parties. It is a successor to a company called BT Triple Crown Capital Holdings III, which is a party to the Merger Agreement with Clear Channel, but never was a party to the commitment letter. The banks argued that CC Media Holdings was an “affiliate” (not a successor entity) of a party to the commitment letter (BT Triple Crown Merger Co.), but the Texas court found that it was not legally an affiliate.

PARAGRAPH TO WHICH CORRECTION APPLIES:
“The banks may have a valid argument that CC Holdings, as the successor of one of the commitment letter parties, should be forced to litigate in New York, but Clear Channel is not a party to the commitment letter or financing agreements, and the Texas case will continue at least as to Clear Channel.”]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72090/comments?source=feed#comment-150164 150164 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:53:40 -0400 Regards,
Shira Jacobson
Seeking Alpha Editorial Team ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72090/comments?source=feed#comment-149935 149935 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:48:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/72090/comments?source=feed#comment-149822 149822 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:34:06 -0400
"Theoretically, the banks can go out and get another loan somewhere else..."
You mean the *buyers* (Bain and Thomas Lee not the banks)

"If the banks cannot find another loan..."
You mean the *buyers* (again, not the banks).

Nice article.

In other words the banks are saying that if you can jump over the moon then you may have a case (and we're not certain about that as well), but since you can't jump over the moon, there is no case!

CrossProfit

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72011/comments?source=feed#comment-149528 149528 Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:16:36 -0400
The CCU board on Yahoo! Finance has some excellent contributors where all the legal documents are linked to or posted as soon as they become available.

The board participants vote 5 stars for all legal document related threads, so by setting the board filter to 5 stars, you can more or less get a clean list of interesting threads and directly retrieve all court filings.

In addition to crossprofit1 (Saul Sterman) posting on the board, there are other board participants posting timely and informative information, analysis and opinion; such as 'anxt' (a lawyer) and 'e9racer' (very resourceful) to mention a few.

You may need to put a few 'jokers' on your ignore list, however the majority are investors asking intelligent questions.

CrossProfit]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-149158 149158 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:06:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-148564 148564 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:24:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-147334 147334 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:40:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-147129 147129 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:53:06 -0400
Both parties should man up, sign the papers and finish it.

Wall Street and Texas.

Guess the pantyhose is too tight for both of them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-147000 147000 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:48:40 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-146916 146916 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:56:58 -0400 a dying business and fewer and fewer ears are listening...your endless shallow promotions appeal to fewer and fewer numbers...the
only way this deal makes sense is the immediate liquidation of all the assets...APPLE MICROSOFT AND THE LIKE are the only real winners! So I don't blame the banks for getting out...you've been lying about the numbers and the trends for years!
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/71542/comments?source=feed#comment-146833 146833 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:20:14 -0400