True E. I am learning to not expect what "we" think should happen in her court. Thanks for the replies all. Observer's scenario isn’t that bad considering potential future exploits. Just hate letting the stolen property go by by. {it sucks}
The Leucadia holding company model, with over $5B of NOL in various levels of limitations, were restored to the level of 36% of the NOLs as tax assets in the 2010 10-K.
We have $14B of NOLs; assuming with equity continuing in control, and no limitation beyond a 2-year business continuity period, we can make something of it. We do not currently have Leucadia’s $$, but you've got to birth before you grow. At 7.5% of the NOL as our asset valuation, our tax value of $1B; not too shabby. If the other pieces we aim for can get met, and TPS gone, we look at a low end of $1.5B of valuation in a 50-50 NEWCO with preferreds and commons. Do the math and you can price the Ps, Ks and Commons. And that is at only a conservative 7.5% tax asset present valuation of the NOLs.
My personal opinion on this is that there seems to be a gap between the reality of THJMW's court and the concept that some have pushed which says that when A>L equity takes over. Who defines A versus L? Who decides when one exceeds the other?
A disconcerting thought regarding A>L in valuation is that, even if confirmed with higher values and the POR moves forward, there is merely a residual value via the liquidating trust that will drop some potential dollars to the preferreds. The problem is that the existing POR calls for someone else to own NEWCO not equity. See NOL valuation above; we don't get it.
