Spansion - Milliardenfirma und Pennystock

was bedeutet das für spansion?
wann steht eigentlich der nächste wichtige termin auf dem programm?  

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...f=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

muß immer wieder aus den US-Boards zitieren, da ich die Dockets nicht so ganz verstehe.

dass Spansion bzw. die oberen "Damen und Herren" mit allen Mitteln versuchen, die Altaktionäre loszuwerden, dabei aber ausnahmsweise mal an einen Richter geraten sind, der ihnen die Suppe versalzen wird.

Ich hoffe mal, dass der Richter denen ne ganze Saline reinhaut :) Scheint ja bei US AGs derzeit Mode zu sein, mit fadenscheinigen Begründungen und Geld wie Heu (siehe CIT, 6 Milliarden mehr Vermögen als Schulden, trotzdem CH11 mit Abschüttelung der dämlichen Altaktionäre) sich der unliebsamen Deppen (aka Alkaktionäre) zu entledigen.Ich finde es prima, dass das hier zumindest nicht ungefragt durchgeht und hoffe darauf, dass irgendwann mal einer feststellt, dass das eigentlich Richtung Betrug geht.

Ist aber nur meine eigene, ganz persönliche Meinung.

 

 

Hörfähigkeit  für 11/25/2009 am 10:00 morgens am US-Konkursgericht festgelegt , 824 vermarkten Str., 5. Florida., Gerichtssaal  

Spansion ROM (Flash) Memory, Part Number AM29F010B-55EI and Spansion Fine Pitch Ball Grid Array, Part Number S29AL016D90BAI for the Tomahawk Block IV Missile

Solicitation Number: N0001909RX007
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Naval Air Systems Command
Location: NAVAIR HQ

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) intends to negotiate and award a modification to Contract N00019-09-C-0007 for a Life-of-Type parts buy of the obsolete Spansion ROM (Flash) Memory, Part Number AM29F010B-55EI and Spansion Fine Pitch Ball Grid Array, Part Number S29AL016D90BAI, which is to be integrated into the Tomahawk Block IV missile in order to sustain uninterupted, on-going unit production. This Life-of-Type procurement will avoid expensive component redesign and requalification, and considers attrition, usage, and projected rebaselining. NAVAIR intends to award this effort to Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS), P.O. Box 11337, Tucson, AZ 85734-1337. Since 1994, RMS has been the sole developer, designer, and manufacturer for the Tomahawk Weapons System (TWS). RMS, as prime development contractor for the Tomhawk Block IV, funded approximately $175M of shared missile development effort. With this cost share arrangement, RMS retained the technical data package for the Block IV missile and the unique skills required to integrate the Life-of-Type buy components into the missile. Raytheon is the sole designer, developer and producer of the Tomahawk Block IV, and the only known source that possesses the engineering data, technical skills, and requisite knowledge of the design, fabrication, interfaces, performance, operation, maintenance and support characteristics of the Tomahawk Block IV missile. Because a detailed knowledge and expertise of the Tomahawk Block IV missile is required to conduct tasking under this contract, RMS is the only source capable of accomplishing this requirement in the required timeframe and without duplication of costs.

[Quelle: https://www.fbo.gov/...ab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck= ]  

Samsung faces import ban over Sharp patents

By Song Jung-a in Seoul and Robin Harding in Tokyo

Published: November 10 2009 03:59 | Last updated: November 10 2009 07:48

A US trade agency has recommended that Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest flat-panel display maker, be banned from selling some liquid crystal display television sets and computer monitors in the US as they infringe Sharp’s patents.

The US International Trade Commission ruled that the South Korean company infringed four patents owned by its Japanese rival and should no longer sell infringing LCD devices in the US. Samsung said it would take legal action against the ruling to prevent any disruption to its US sales.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
South Korea considers use of ‘poison pills’ - Nov-09

Samsung trebles third-quarter profits - Oct-30

In depth: Technology - Nov-10

Tech blog - Nov-10



The dispute illustrates how Japanese corporations are increasingly taking more aggressive action to protect their intellectual property against Taiwanese and Korean rivals. Last year a Texas jury ordered Samsung to pay Japan’s Pioneer $59m in damages in a dispute over plasma TV patents.

“We have already developed various ways round [the Sharp patents] so there will be no problems in our business,” said Samsung.

The Japanese group said that the ruling “makes clear that the ITC has consistently supported Sharp’s case”.

The ban is unlikely to take effect before Christmas. US President Barack Obama has 60 days in which to overturn the ban if he finds it is against the public interest, although Samsung must post a bond worth 100 per cent of its sales of affected products during that time.

The case is one of a series of disputes between the two companies – Sharp lost a similar ITC case to Samsung in June – as they seek to strengthen their position in the huge but highly competitive market for LCD televisions.

Samsung is the world’s largest LCD TV maker with a 19.9 per cent share of the US market. Vizio is the biggest vendor in the US with 20.5 per cent and Sharp is seventh with only 5 per cent.

The ITC upheld its administrative law judge’s previous finding that Samsung infringed the Sharp patents. The four patents involve technology used to improve picture quality, response speed and viewing angle. They are of greatest importance in large LCD panels.

The commission said the public interest factors “do not preclude issuance” of an order banning Samsung’s sales of the disputed products. One reason is the wide availability of products from other companies that do not infringe the Sharp patents.

Sharp filed the complaint against Samsung with the ITC in 2008. Sharp had initially sued Samsung over LCD patent violations in 2007 in a Texas court, which prompted Samsung to countersue immediately in both Texas and in Delaware.

Lengthy tit-for-tat patent disputes are common in the technology sector as companies with strong intellectual property portfolios jostle for position, but they are often resolved by agreements to license each other’s patents. Sharp already licenses the disputed patents to other LCD companies.


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.  

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1beb071e-cdad-...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-2009  

Urteil über den Samsung-Spansion Streit oder?

Deine Links sind irgendwie kaputt ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-2009:
Page Unavailable

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.

You may use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the previous page, click Home to return to the WSJ.com home page, or access the Site Map.

To report this problem, contact Customer Service at mailto:onlinejournal@wsj.com.  

Samsung Loses US Suit Filed By Sharp Over LCD Patents
   10-Nov-09 01:37 am    Samsung just lost to Sharp over patent infringements.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1beb071e-cdad-...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-2009...

By Jung-Ah Lee

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

SEOUL (Dow Jones)--Samsung Electronics Co. (005930.SE), the world's biggest supplier of liquid crystal display panels by sales, has lost a patent infringement case involving liquid crystal displays that was brought by Sharp Corp. (6753.TO) in the U.S.

The U.S. International Trade Commission Monday ruled that Samsung had infringed on four patents of Sharp Corp. relating to LCDs and said the South Korean company should stop selling devices in the U.S. that trespassed on the patents.

The commission's ruling will be delivered to U.S. President Barack Obama and to the United States Trade Representative for review and Samsung is required to deposit a bond equivalent to the value of the infringing products should it continue to import them during the presidential review.

Sharp welcomed the ruling.

"We believe that the ITC's ruling has made it clear that ITC has consistently supported Sharp's claim that LCD products of Samsung violated Sharp's patents," a Sharp spokeswoman said.

In 2008, Sharp filed the suit against Samsung with the ITC, alleging Samsung infringed four of its patents related to a technology to improve the picture quality of LCDs.

Patent infringement lawsuits are common in the highly competitive flat-panel display industry, and over the past few years several LCD makers have been fighting to protect their patents in the courtroom.

The South Korean electronics giant said it expects no major impact on its business from the U.S. trade commission's ruling.

There will be "no impact on our business and our ability to meet market demand," said Samsung in a statement.

"We are fully committed to honoring our responsibility to our business partners and are taking appropriate actions to meet the market demand for Samsung LCD panels and products without any interruption," it added.

Samsung also said it has no plans so far to negotiate with Sharp on the issue, including cross-license pacts.

Analysts also expect the news to have little impact on Samsung.

"Samsung has been selling other products that avoid Sharp's patents from September, so even if it is banned from exporting (the LCDs that allegedly used Sharp patents to the U.S.), no impact either on Samsung's business or its earnings is expected at all," said Y.J Park, an analyst at Woori Investment & Securities.

At 0334 GMT, Samsung shares were up 0.8% at KRW730,000, while the broader market was up 0.7%.

-By Jung-Ah Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; 822-2198-2233; jung-ah.lee@dowjones.com

(Yuzo Yamaguchi in Tokyo also contributed to the story)  

ganz zum Erliegen zu kommen.

Wann sind denn nun die nächsten wichtigen Termine für die ungewünschten Aktionäre. Gibt es eigentlich auch so was wie Quartalszahlen oder brauchen wir die nicht zu wissen?  Sind jetzt aus dem Patentstreit noch Zahlungen zu erwarten? Mann, das macht einen schon ein bißchen "mürbe".  

...siehe Pkt. 1080
bis dahin , weiterfahren und beobachten :)

Patentstreit (Rückzahlung von Samsung) ist meines Erachtens noch offen !
1. Zahlung wurde ja wieder zurückgewiesen (vor ca. 1- 2 Monaten) da zu "wenig"....  

am 25.11. Die Entscheidung über den Samsung-Streit ist noch nicht gefällt worden, falls Spansion gewinnt, dürfte das wohl den Kurs nach oben treiben.
Laut US- Boards ist auch die Frage, ob das Equity Commitee erlaubt wird, von entscheidender Bedeutung. Ich bin aber immer noch nicht dahintergekommen, das das bedeutet. Kann da jmd aufklären?

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...f=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

To a certain extent your chronology is right, and with either the Samsung settlement or the equity committee, it will blow past $2.
My guess is spsn would get about .5 to 1B on the Samsung settlement.
Lets all keep our fingers crossed.

Spansion cash on hand increases to $261 mil
   13-Nov-09 10:09 am    Scansions cash position has increased to $260M by end of sept, and a net loss of $12M, which includes $8.7M in restructuring fees.
If you look at the filing, for the last six months excluding the professional fees for restructuring, they have made about $66 M in profit which is $33M per Q.

Also they have took a depreciation of $9 M after that ridiculous $1.6B write off they did in dec08. what a bunch of scumbags.
at this pace they should have at least $500M in cash by next March, and Kispert and his gang will get a nice fat bonus for screwing the shareholders.  

daß das mit Samsung positiv ausgeht. Hoffentlich macht uns der Richter kein Strich durch die Rechnung.

über die Finanzstruktur. Wenn mich nicht alles täuscht hatte ich beim googlen irgendwo gelesen (müßte den Artikel nochmals raussuchen), dass Vermögenswerten von 3,8 Milliarden Schulden von 2,4 Milliarden gegenüber stehen würden, das kann doch eigentlich nicht passen - das wäre doch kein Grund für eine Insolvenz?  

ist ein Kommentar eines Users aus dem US-Board:

Scansions cash position has increased to $260M by end of sept, and a net loss of $12M, which includes $8.7M in restructuring fees.
If you look at the filing, for the last six months excluding the professional fees for restructuring, they have made about $66 M in profit which is $33M per Q.

Also they have took a depreciation of $9 M after that ridiculous $1.6B write off they did in dec08. what a bunch of scumbags.
at this pace they should have at least $500M in cash by next March, and Kispert and his gang will get a nice fat bonus for screwing the shareholders.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...mp;mid=11313&tof=1&frt=2

Hallo,

kann bitte einer mal die Folgen der jeweiligen Entscheidung des Richters am Termin am 25.11.09 erörtern?

Also es wird entschieden ob Spansion sich so reorganisiert hat, um Chapter 11 zu verlassen? (Folge: Wir bleiben Aktionäre und dürfen auf eine Kurserholung von einigen 100% hoffen?)

 

Oder Spansion wird als insolvent durchgewunken und unsere Aktion sind wertlos?

 

Wäre nett wenn einer mal ein paar Sätze dazu schreiben könnte. Danke

 

 

 

Verhandlung ist, weiß ich nicht, aber an dem Tag soll wohl entschieden werden, ob die Aktionäre (so wie die Firma es sich wünscht), aus dem Weg geräumt werden oder nicht. Der Richter ist anscheinend eine härtere Nuss als Spansion gedacht hat, denn er hätte schon früher dem zustimmen können, stattdessen prüft er (so sieht es jedenfalls aus) alles genau. Hoffen wir mal, daß der Schein nicht trügt.

http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/docket/...

#1672

The Court conducted a hearing on the Appointment Motion on October 2,
2009. Following discussion, the Court adjoined the hearing on the Appointment Motion to
November 25, 2009, and subsequently re-set the hearing for November 30, 2009.

The Court convened the 105(d) conference via telephone on Wednesday,
November 4, 2009 at 10 a.m. After providing guidance to the parties, the Court adjourned the
status conference to 2 p.m. on Friday, November 6, 2009. Prior to that time, the Ad Hoc
Committee reached out to the Debtors, the FRN Consortium and the Creditors’ Committee in an
attempt to resolve issues and to narrow those that could not be resolved. As a result of these
efforts, at the continued status conference, the parties presented a single substantive issue to the
Court for resolution, specifically, whether the Debtors, the FRN Consortium and the Creditors’
Committee would be entitled to withhold from production correspondence concerning (i) the
“negotiated value” set forth in the plan of reorganization and (ii) the negotiations concerning the
lucrative management incentive plan proposed therein. At the status conference, the Court
deferred ruling on whether these materials could be cloaked in a common interest, joint defense
or Rule 408 privilege, and stated that the Court believed the Ad Hoc Equity Committee appeared
to have been provided with sufficient materials to prosecute the Appointment Motion. The Court
also noted, however, that the efforts by the Debtors to withhold this information from
shareholders could be construed as evidence that the Debtors were not adequately representing
the interests of shareholders in these chapter 11 proceedings.  

kannste uns das mal vom inhalt her wiedergeben ? um was gehts hier ?

... da ich des Englischen auch nicht  mächtig bin greife ich leider auf die ultraschlechten Übersetzungsprogramme zurück - Ergebnis nachfolgen zu sehen - sorry.  (zum Teil ist erkennbar um was es geht).



Das Gericht leitete eine Hörfähigkeit auf der Verabredungs-Bewegung am 2. Oktober 2009. Nach Diskussion grenzte das Gericht die Hörfähigkeit auf der Verabredungs-Bewegung zu 25. November 2009 an und stellte nachher die Hörfähigkeit für 30. November 2009 zurück. Das Gericht kam die 105 zusammen (d) Konferenz über Telefon am Mittwoch, dem 4. November 2009 bei 10 a.m. Nach der Lieferung von Anleitung zu den Parteien, verschob das Gericht die Statuskonferenz bis 2 P.M. am Freitag, dem 6. November 2009. Vor dieser Zeit erreichte der Ad-hoc-Ausschuss heraus zu den Schuldnern, zum FRN Konsortium und zu den Gläubigern  

The Court
also noted, however, that the efforts by the Debtors to withhold this information from
shareholders could be construed as evidence that the Debtors were not adequately representing
the interests of shareholders in these chapter 11 proceedings.

Der Richter läßt sich also nicht so einfach auf die Pläne des Managements ein. Hoffentlich wird er dem Plan der Firma, die Aktionäre zu einteignen, nicht zustimmen.

Es geht nicht mehr darum, ob Spansion Chapter 11 verlassen -- das wird höchstwahrscheinlich passieren und Spansion hat als Zeitraum Ende diesen Jahres oder Anfang nächsten Jahres angekündigt.  Heißt, die Liquiditierung steht nicht mehr zur Debatte.  Spansion hat sich restrukturiert, unprofitable oder niedrigprofitable Geschäftsbereiche abgestoßen und versucht mit dem Rest Geld zu verdienen, was wohl auch so schlecht nicht funktioniert.  Siehe Beitrag #1093.

Was vor Gericht geklärt werden muß ist, mit welchen Aktien Spansion Chapter 11 verlassen -- mit den alten Aktien und Aktionären oder ob die alten Aktien wertlos verfallen und neue Aktien ausgegeben werden, die vor allem zur Kompensation der Verluste der Schuldner gedacht sind.  Siehe zum Beispiel das Insolvenzverfahren von United Airlines:

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...g_des_Gl.C3.A4ubigerschutzes:_ab_2006

Spansion (Kisperts) und die Hauptgläubiger hätten gern, dass die alten Aktien wertlos verfallen und neue Aktien ausgegeben werden.  So wie es aber ausschaut, sind Spansion an einen vernünftigen Insolvenzrichter geraten -- das zeigt zum einen sein Verhalten im Spansion/Samsung Patent-Litigation, als ihm das von Samsung angebotene Geld zu niedrig erschien und er anordnete, es müsse neu verhandelt werden.  Aber auch seine Skepsis zum vorgelegten Restrukturierungsplan inkl. der Enteignung der alten Aktionäre.