Precedent for Debtor In Possession Public Offerings? (Rx Question)
During the Hertz Chapter 11, there was a brief Debtor-In-Possession Public Offering (DIPPO) which was shut down just a week later by the SEC. From my understanding, the downside to this would have been to the equity holders, who could receive nothing in the Chapter 11 process.
- Given the remaining debt was paid in full, would the raising of equity through a DIPPO not have been beneficial to the company and existing creditors over traditional DIP financing? Even if the new equity owners got burned, is it not their responsibility to perform due diligence on the company they are buying stock in?
- Why did the SEC block Hertz's right to access the equity capital markets? Was it politics as Icahn was a large shareholder, protection of unknowing new holders, or would it set a bad precedent in Chapter 11 practice?
Thank you for reading, let me know what you all think below:
Libero aut quod odio magni. Accusantium sed occaecati praesentium voluptatem beatae. Distinctio dolores ducimus officiis soluta deleniti.
Nostrum tempore dolor numquam autem voluptates. Ut vero tempore facere dolor ducimus iste odio. Facilis fuga aut nesciunt repudiandae laborum. Unde corporis dolor rerum enim et ut.
Saepe non sed temporibus rem minus. Id eius harum velit. Quis minus iste dolorem excepturi.
Ipsum omnis unde rem incidunt nobis et quam et. Aliquid amet non non neque magni modi. Aspernatur accusantium quis quidem autem. Sit voluptates minima voluptatibus officiis consequatur et. Sed aut doloribus laborum sed. Et maxime cupiditate omnis voluptate tenetur qui ex dolorum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...