CALPINE CORP (902918) - eine zweite Delphi ?? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite (Seite 10)

[Charly_2]

...betrunkener Driver....und was heisst DUI
http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/2007/12/former-c…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.639.439 von Charly_2 am 02.12.07 10:15:05

Wichtiger Auszug:

"The Debters' waterfall plan eviscerates Congress' paradigm of stakeholder democracy and replaces it with a paradigm where all decisions are make by the Court rendering the votes of all stakeholders meaningless."and "votes were cast before stakeholders could be given any idea of what the Plan will look like and what their distributions will be."

and further" because the Debtors' Plan seeks to rewrite chapter 11 in a way never contemplated by Congress and in a manner not proscribed by the bankruptcy code the Plan cannot be confirmed."

Jetzt wird schon connot verwendet, anstelle früherer Formulierung should not....very interesting

[Charly_2]

Hearing dauert länger

The valuation hearing is set for Dec 17 and is expected to continue on Dec 18, 19, 20 and 21st and possibly the 27th.

[Charly_2]

..es geht losss

Calpine Equity Panel Rejects Ch 11 Plan
Monday December 3, 3:08 pm ET
Calpine Equity Panel Says Bankruptcy Plan 'Unconfirmable,' Urges Court to Throw Out Valuations

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Calpine Corp. shareholders want a court to throw out estimates of the power company's postbankruptcy value offered by the company and creditors, saying the valuations would wipe out "billions" in shareholder value.

Calpine last month slashed its estimated postbankruptcy value by more than $900 million, giving it a midpoint value of $19.35 billion. The committee representing Calpine's unsecured creditors, which is supporting the company's reorganization plan, thinks $16.25 billion is a more accurate valuation. The company's shareholders, however, have estimated a postbankruptcy value of about $24.4 billion.

In papers filed Friday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, the committee said Calpine's bankruptcy-exit plan, based on a "low-ball valuation," is unconfirmable. The committee asked the court to give Calpine's valuation estimate "little or no weight" when it determines the company's worth.

Calpine's "low-ball valuation can only be intended to provide creditors with a substantial windfall at the expense of shareholders and, worse, to provide management with under-priced stock options that will substantially increase in value immediately upon Calpine's emergence from Chapter 11," the shareholder committee said.

The outcome of the valuation fight, which will ultimately be decided by the bankruptcy court, will determine how much unsecured creditors and shareholders recover under Calpine's reorganization plan. The company plans to issue new stock to the unsecured creditors and, if the creditors are paid in full, to its existing shareholders. Calpine's postbankruptcy value determines how much those shares are worth, and thus, how much creditors and shareholders will recover on their claims.

The shareholder committee said Calpine hasn't explained the $900 million drop in its valuation estimate, which it says doesn't account for the company's strong competitive position due to its fleet of clean, natural-gas fired and geothermal plants.

The committee also believes shareholders would get more if Calpine's assets were sold off through a liquidation unless they see a recovery of at least $1.78 per share under the company's reorganization plan.

"The sum of the parts may actually be more valuable than the whole," the committee said.

Equity awards promised under the reorganization plan to Calpine's top executives, including its chief executive, have also drawn the shareholder committee's ire. The committee called the plan, which would pay Calpine employees an estimated $66.6 million in stock and options, a veiled attempt to pay retention bonuses banned by the Bankruptcy Code.

Court hearings on Calpine's bankruptcy-reorganization plan are slated to begin Dec. 17. The San Jose, Calif.-based company, which sought Chapter 11 protection two years ago, has said it needs to exit bankruptcy by Jan. 31 or it could lose an $8 billion financing package.

[Charly_2]

Warrants für Shareholders, so gut wie sicher!

Calpine Shareholders May Be Wiped Out by Creditors (Update2)

By Bill Rochelle and Christopher Scinta

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge may award nothing to shareholders of Calpine Corp., including the California Public Employees' Retirement System, in their struggle with Hess Corp. and other creditors who are owed at least $20.7 billion.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland in New York will decide on the winners when he determines the value of the company before it emerges from bankruptcy in January. Calpine will pay its debts with shares, based on the decision, ignoring whatever price the market puts on the equity later. If Lifland is wrong, there will be no way to take stock from one group and give it to the other.

``Whatever Judge Lifland says is going to be the economic reality,'' said Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard University specializing in bankruptcy. ``There is a very high likelihood that whatever Judge Lifland rules will be the final statement from any court in the U.S.''

Lifland's decision after a trial this month will make the difference between equity holders' being wiped out or receiving as much as $11.46 apiece for their 482.2 million existing shares.

Shareholders are willing to avoid the valuation fight by agreeing to take warrants -- rights to buy stock at a set price over a specified period of time -- said Brad Scheler, a lawyer for the stockholders' committee in the bankruptcy case.

The investors would ``consider warrants for a percentage of the company based on the value advocated'' by their expert, Scheler said. The exercise price would be determined by taking into consideration what's required to pay creditors in full with interest plus anything else authorized by the judge, he said.

Warrants' Value

Scheler's formula means the warrants would have value only if the new Calpine stock traded at a price high enough to cover payment of creditors' claims in full.

The lawyer said he had ``no doubt'' stockholders would also be willing to buy all the new equity at the low end of the value proposed by the creditors' expert.

Calpine is committed to its plan as proposed and will move forward with it, company spokeswoman Norma Dunn said when asked issuing warrants.

Michael Stamer, attorney for the creditors' committee co- chaired by SPO Partners & Co. and Hess, the fifth-largest U.S. oil company, declined to comment.

The California pension system, called Calpers, owned 2.76 million Calpine shares as of Sept. 30, according to a regulatory filing. Steelhead Partners LLC owned 10 million shares on the same date, a filing said.

Creditors' Claims

On the creditor side, Harbinger Capital Partners, of New York, owns $1.6 billion in claims against Calpine and expects to own at least 18 percent of the new shares, according to court papers.

Calpine dropped money-losing projects after its December 2005 Chapter 11 filing. The company's financial adviser, Miller Buckfire & Co., estimates it will distribute $19.35 billion in stock and $1.5 billion in cash to creditors.

Under Calpine's highest estimates of claims against it, the distribution would equal 97 cents on the dollar for unsecured creditors, including post-filing interest, Calpine attorney Richard Cieri of Kirkland & Ellis said Nov. 27. In that case, stockholders would get nothing.

Unsecured creditors, who by law must be paid in full before stockholders get any return, say Calpine's figure is about $3.1 billion too high, according to their value expert, Barry Ridings of Lazard Ltd.

Shareholders and their adviser, Perella Weinberg Partners LP, argue Calpine's estimate is $4.9 billion too low and more shares than necessary will go to pay debts, leaving them with nothing.

Shareholder Payments

Calpine, which generates enough electricity for about 19.2 million homes, says if claims are at the low end of its estimates, 41 cents a share is the most its current stockholders will recover. This is down from an estimate of $3.01 in June. Existing shareholders say they should get about $10.42.

Reflecting pessimism over chances for a return, Calpine shares have fallen 77 percent to 72 cents since Aug. 8 in over- the-counter trading as of 1:15 p.m.

``If you're looking at the long term, the equity committee's value isn't bad,'' said Daniele Seitz, an analyst for Dahlman Rose & Co. She rates Calpine shares ``buy'' and owns none.

The stockholders' estimate accounts for the rising value of independent power producers broadly and Calpine's geothermal plants in particular, she said. Demand for geothermal power is rising as states mandate the use of more renewable energy.

The company says it must emerge from bankruptcy by Jan. 31 to preserve an $8 billion loan commitment from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Deciding True Value

The easiest way to prove Calpine's value would be to get a purchase offer, said Martin Bienenstock, a lawyer representing secured bondholders of Calpine Generating Co.

``If I were representing equity and I really believed my number, I would find someone to come in and make an offer at that number,'' said Bienenstock, co-head of restructuring at Weil Gotshal & Manges. ``That's the way to prove it.''

The case is In re Calpine Corp., 05-60200, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporters on this story: Bill Rochelle in New York at [e-mail] ; Christopher Scinta in New York at [e-mail] .

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.664.795 von Charly_2 am 04.12.07 21:00:40

Kaufinteresse wird dadurch zunehmen

[Charly_2]

Shareholder Hedge Fund Harbinger Votes Against POR
Calpine suitor Harbinger to vote against reorganization plan

Washington (Platts)--4Dec2007

Capline's largest creditor, Harbinger Capital Partners, has told the
bankruptcy court overseeing Calpine's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding that it
intends to vote against Calpine's reorganization plan due to several flaws
that it wants corrected.
Private equity fund Harbinger could become Calpine's largest single
stockholder if and when the company exits bankruptcy.
Two affiliated funds of New York-based Harbinger said in a November 30
filing with the bankruptcy court that they are Calpine's single largest
creditors, with $1.6 billion in an assortment of claims spread throughout
Calpine's capital structure. They claim they currently own "approximately
4.9%" of Calpine's common stock, but that they expect to receive "at least"
18% of the stock of a reorganized Calpine when its reorganization plan is
approved and the company exits bankruptcy.
However, the two funds, Harbinger Master Fund I, Ltd and Harbinger
Capital Partners Special Situations Fund said in the filing that the plan, as
currently written, could "result in unfair disparate treatment for Harbinger's
claims and reasonably depress the value of the shares it will receive,
requiring it to vote no and oppose confirmation."
Harbinger, which disclosed in a filing with federal regulators last month
its hope of taking up to 45% of Calpine's stock along with two well-known
hedge funds from San Francisco, is not the only creditor to vote against the
merchant generator's reorganization plan. All creditors had until November 30
to register their position on the plan, and there were at least 44 objections
to the plan filed with the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York late last week.
The other objections came from an assortment of creditors, including
Wisconsin Power & Light, the California Economic Council, and Yellow Brick
Road LLC. Most objections focused on claim repayment concerns.
The bankruptcy court has scheduled a hearing December 17 for Calpine and
creditors to argue whether the judge in the case, US. District Judge Burton
Lifland, should confirm the reorganization plan, thus allowing Calpine to exit
bankruptcy and begin making payments to creditors.
Calpine is in a hurry to get its plan confirmed before January 31, 2008,
as that is the deadline for executing an $8-billion loan package whose
conditions were negotiated last March, in what was a more favorable financing
climate compared with the current market.

[Don_Camillo]

Wie siehts aus - Kursziel: Totalverlust?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.672.872 von Don_Camillo am 05.12.07 15:37:27

...das wird zumindest suggeriert, doch es kommt anderst als man am Kursgang ablesen kann - Mofos, Hedger am Werk, selbst Harbinger als grösstes Hedgerpack hält 4,9% der Aktien und 1,6 Mrd. claims und lehnt den POR ab - die wollen sich wohl die Bude definitiv unter den Nagel reissen, das Paket ist ex-Bk mehr als 5 Mrd. wert ...

...und wieso sollen sie 4,9% der Aktien halten wenn die Aktien einen Totalverlust bringen, hey streng dein Hirn an

[Charly_2]

[Don_Camillo]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.675.823 von Charly_2 am 05.12.07 19:05:54

hey streng dein Hirn an

=> gebe mir größte Mühe!!!

[Charly_2]

Wer über die Geysers mehr wissen will, ist hier richtig
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2179364590841125831&…

Die Geysers sind well gemanagt, den aktuellen CPN CEO sollte man in
die Wüste schicken und durch den Manager der Geysers ersetzen

[Charly_2]

Calpine - NYSE

Calpine sees Ch 11 emergence before Jan 31, 2008
Wed Dec 5, 2007 5:40pm EST
NEW YORK, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Power company Calpine Corp (CPNLQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday it has filed to list the common stock of the reorganized company on the New York Stock Exchange after it emerges from bankruptcy.

It expects to emerge from Chapter 11 prior to Jan 31, 2008, the company said.

Subject to approval of its listing application and the effectiveness of its plan of reorganization, Calpine anticipates that the newly issued stock will begin trading on the NYSE in January under the ticker symbol CPN. (Reporting by Steve James; Editing by Andre Grenon)

[Dostojewski]

Mädels, was hätte ich für Mengen an Calpineshares gekauft, wenn ich einer der drei glücklichen Lottogewinner gewesen wäre.
Kaum auszudenken was ich getan hätte, wenn ich den gesammten Jackpott mit 43 Mio. Euro geknackt hätte. Egal...,

der Donnerstag ist geschafft und Morgen ist Freitag

Weihnachten steht vor Tür! Vielleicht haben wir Glück und der Richter Lifland macht uns ein Geschenk und fällt die richtige Entscheidung.

Oder halt nicht...

Auf jeden Fall wünsche ich euch einen wunderschönen Donnerstagabend - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.689.245 von Dostojewski am 06.12.07 20:47:31

Nachtrag:

Ich wünsche euch natürlich, dass ihr auch Besuch vom Nikolaus hattet

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.689.605 von Dostojewski am 06.12.07 21:08:45

jetzt wird gekauft bis der Arzt kommt

STRONG BUY-STRONG BUY-STRONG BUY-STRONG BUY

International Stock Targets: Upgrades Calpine Corp to a Platinum Small-Cap Equity
Thursday December 06, 2007 11:14:52 EST
Dec 06, 2007 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX News Network) --

International Stock Targets has announced a "Strong Buy" recommendation along with a one-month and six-month price target for our newest "Stock Target". Please note that the following is an investment opinion issued by International Stock Targets. For full details on this equity visit the attached link and we highly recommend that all interested investors contact one of our representatives toll free 1 866 657 3334 to get access to our stock pick of the year. International Stock Targets has upgraded Calpine Corp (OTCPK: CPNLQ) to a Platinum Small-Cap Equity, their recent market activity has made them a possible candidate for a full analytical research report, to see a sample of our newest report view this link.

http://new.quote.com/news/story.action?id=MTO340u7067

http://www.internationalstocktargets.com/December_2007_Targe…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.690.186 von Charly_2 am 06.12.07 21:46:34

..erstes Upgrade für Calpine seit 4 Jahren

[macsoja]

Calpine Intends to Re-List on New York Stock Exchange Upon Emergence From Bankruptcy

SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Dec. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Calpine (Nachrichten) Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: CPNLQ) announced today that it has filed an application to list the common stock of the reorganized Calpine on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") after the company's emergence from bankruptcy. Subject to the approval of its listing application and the effectiveness of its Plan of Reorganization, Calpine anticipates that the shares of the newly issued stock will begin trading on the NYSE in January 2008 under the ticker symbol CPN.

"Having the NYSE's support and confidence in the reorganized Calpine is another positive step forward in our restructuring process," said Robert P. May, Calpine's Chief Executive Officer. "We look forward to continuing to work with our constituents throughout the restructuring process to emerge as a financially stable, stand-alone company with an improved competitive position in the energy industry."

"We are pleased to welcome Calpine back to our family of listed companies," said Catherine R. Kinney, President, Co-Chief Operating Officer, NYSE Euronext. "We look forward to an outstanding partnership with the company and to providing Calpine with the superior market quality, information services and unsurpassed brand offered to issuers on the NYSE Euronext."

---> fragt sich bloß, welche Aktien das sein werden und wer sie hat

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.692.780 von macsoja am 07.12.07 08:56:28

Ab 01.01.08 also bereits das neue Listing.

Dann wird ja spästens am letzten Gerichtstermin am 27.12. eine Entscheidung fallen...

The valuation hearing is set for Dec 17 and is expected to continue on Dec 18, 19, 20 and 21st and possibly the 27th.

[topperle]

Hab gestern auch noch einmal zu 0,45€ nachgelegt (nur eine kleine Posi).
Mal schauen was dabei rauskommt

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.695.086 von topperle am 07.12.07 12:00:41

Ab 01.01.08 also bereits das neue Listing.

Wäre ich nicht sicher -> es steht, daß es im Januar beginnen soll und nicht zu Beginn des Januar erfolgen soll.

Das sind kleine Unterschiede.

Allerdings muß ja das Chapter 11 verlassen werden, bevor dies passiert -> Ist das zwingend so?

Oder kann es sein, daß erstmal die Pink-Sheets gehandelt werden, die später dann umgewandelt werden?

Fazit:
Genaueres wage ich derzeit nicht rauszunehmen.

Es ist für mich eigentlich nur ne PR/IR-Aktion, wo der verlorene Sohn wieder aufgenommen wird.

[auch-da]

Friday December 7, 2007 20 Min Delay


Short QuoteTM

Stock Symbol:
CPNLQ $
Calpine Corp.
Shares Short 15,381,300
Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 9.3
Short % of Float 3.19 %
Shares Short - Prior 19,067,100
Short % Increase / Decrease -19.33 %
Squeeze RankingTM -10
% from 52-Wk HIGH ( 4.15 ) %
% from 52-Wk LOW ( 0.41 ) %
% from 200-Day MA ( 2.81 ) %
% from 50-Day MA ( 2.28 )
%
Price % Change (52-Wk) -33.80 %
Trading Volume - Today 4,083,419
Trading Volume - Average 1,655,800
Trading Volume Vs. Avg. 246.61 %
Total Shares - Float 481,940,000
Total Shares - Outstanding
% Held by Insiders 0.57 %
% Held by Institutions 7.30 %
Market Cap
EPS
PE Ratio
Sector:
Industry:
SI Record Date 2007-NovB


Information Provided Without Warranty


http://shortsqueeze.com/index.php?symbol=cpnlq&submit=+GO+

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.698.503 von auch-da am 07.12.07 16:49:32

Können die Shortpositionen eigentlich "übernommen" werden oder müssen die vor dem Exit noch glatt gestellt werden? Weiß das jemand?

[auch-da]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.699.216 von topperle am 07.12.07 17:55:31

The valuation hearing is set for Dec 17; Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 9.3 ; 7.12 + 9 d = 16.12 denke die müssen noch bis 17 ausgeglichen werden, soweit ich weis hat das auch Charly schon irgendwo in den weiten dieses Threads gepostet. Ohne Gewähr nur meine Meinung

[Dostojewski]

Alles nur Kursdrückerei.

Am Ende sind dieses Mal wir dran

Es ist Freitag

Euch allen eine wunderschöne Freitag Nacht - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.699.216 von topperle am 07.12.07 17:55:31

nene...da darf nix übernommen werden...aber bei den Mofos die hier den Kurs machen ist das ja wohl keine Kunst den Kurs weiter runter zu prügeln....da kann auch noch $0.41 oder $0.21 kommen....nur hat das nix mit dem Ausgang des Falls zu tun......

...denn hier entscheidet der Richter Lifland und nicht der CEO und auch nicht die Mofos

Ab sofort ist Richter Lifland der CEO

hehe, und bei Bk-Fall DANA hat der Richter den horrenden Incentiveplan soeben abgelehnt, es gibt keinen Grund wieso der genauso horrende IP bei CPN angenommen werden sollte

=> Sieg für die Shareholder - das SHC lehnt das POR-Papier ab

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.699.586 von auch-da am 07.12.07 18:29:48

Die Zeile hatte ich glatt übersehen - Danke für den Hinweis

Und 15 Mio. Shorts müssen erstmal in einer Woche glatt gestellt werden - bin gespannt

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.702.692 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 09:47:27

Am 17.12. ist der erste von 6 aufeinander folgenden Gerichtsterminen. In dieser Zeit rechne ich persönlich mit keinen News, sondern erst mit einem abschließenden Endergebnis - außer es sickert was durch.

Da in dieser Woche noch glatt gestellt werden muss, vermute ich, dass die Mofos bereits das Maximum bzgl. Dumping rausgeholt haben und nicht erst "auf den letzten Drücker" ihre Shortposi bereinigen.
Die letzten Tage lief der Kurs aber relativ stabil bei 0.40 - 0.50€, daher hab ich auch gestern noch einmal (bescheiden) nachgelegt.

Kann natürlich das Mofos-Pack auch wieder voll unterschätzen und die dumpen das Ding jetzt hier in der Woche von Gut und Böse
Dann Kauf ich mir aber bald 'n T-Shirt "2007 Calpine Bankcrupty - ich war dabei :-)"

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.702.812 von topperle am 08.12.07 10:32:22

..da muss ich noch was anfügen

Die 15 Mio Aktien short ist kein gesicherter Wert, denn CPNLQ wird an der PinkSheet gehandelt da weiss niemand genau....es kann auch ein Mehrfaches davon sein....

...zudem wurde Ende 2005 insgesamt über 4 Mrd. Aktien gehandelt, das ist statistisch sogar belegbar...und da sind somit noch einige xxx Mio Aktien die im System herumirren die man nicht covern kann (Naket Shorts) da es ja nur 484 Mio Aktien gibt

Der Antrag an Lifland wäre der, dass diese S..bande die dafür verantwortlich ist (Broker, Dealers, Mofos) den Gegenwert in Cash an die Shareholder ausbezahlen müssen, denn diese Kohle wurde uns gestohlen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.702.895 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 10:55:47

...und dieser Trottel nennt naket shorts noch legal

"Yes old news may provide a catalyst for some MM to dump some shares??"

Could be a lot of things....Only guessing but there is say 20 million shares legal above the board shorts known. The unknown is how many naked shorts. Naked shorts are still legal for MM (Money Markers in the stock they trade). I believe they are many more naked shorts.

Time is running out for these shorts to cover (After today only 5 days left until hearings start) and how many longs are willing to give there shares to them? The MM tools include selling more naked shorts and taking out stop losses. Selling more naked shorts to scare the last weak hands.

If one is comfortable with there holdings this is the time to sit back and let this play out...Or buy more on the dips....Or sell if you take the pain (MM's love induce fear and play on fear). This is not the last of the MM games....Take it up after taking down...they can grab some from the new weaks (Thinking it will head down again).

The true stock value will be determined in the next couple of weeks. The stock value as it trades today is not real and only a HEAD-GAME played by MM's.

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.702.895 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 10:55:47

....es kann auch ein Mehrfaches davon sein....

Um so mehr um so besser.
Hauptsache ein schöner Schiefstand, der von den Mofos glatt gestellt werden muss

Vielleicht kommt ja dann deine schon oft prophezeite Kursexplosion

[Charly_2]

Kurz noch etwas Zahlen

Seit Bk - 12.2005 wurden 2 Mrd. an Assets verkauft - vom Cartwrong gebaut an unmöglichsten Lagen, unrentabel, Cash burning Ruinen

Nun habt CPN 24000 Megawatt

Seit Bk verlor CPN 7 Mrd. Assets, runter geschrieben vom May - diese Krücke hat bald fertig!

..der ganze Laden soll nur noch 20 Mrd. wert sein
=>Buckwheat Gefälligkeits-Analyse zHd. CEO May, hat keinen Bestand bei Richter Lifland

Seit 12.2005 hat sich Wesentliches geändert:

-Kohlekraftwerke werden in USA keine mehr gebaut - Treibhauseffekt; CO2 Ausstoss unvertretbar!
=> Bringt Calpine Prämie von +10% auf ihre Assets

-Politik setzt Abgaben für Kohleschleudern durch
=> Bringt Calpine Prämie +10% auf Assets

-Utility-Versorger fordern von Erzeugern mehr renewable energy
=> Bringt Calpine Prämie +10% auf Assets
=> Wert der Geysers +50% - mehr als 3 Mrd. wert

Load-Faktor (Auslastung der Anlagen) hat sich bei Calpine auf über 55% erhöht
=> Bringt Calpine bessere Auslastung - mehr Cash Flow

undundundund

Schaunwermalwasdakommt

Das Harbinger Hedgerpack, das seit 2004 CPN gedumpt hat will 45% von Calpine übernehmen, Meldung vom 22.11.07, that's America

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.703.074 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 11:44:43

<<..der ganze Laden soll nur noch 20 Mrd. wert sein augen verdrehen
=>Buckwheat lachen Gefälligkeits-Analyse zHd. CEO May, hat keinen Bestand bei Richter Lifland

Kolateralschaden, wegen der 8 Mrd. DIP von Goldman Sucks

[Dostojewski]

Kolateralschaden, wegen der 8 Mrd. DIP von Goldman Sucks

Wie meinst Du das - oder was haben wir dadurch zu erwarten?

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.703.972 von Dostojewski am 08.12.07 15:54:25

...dass alles ein dirty game ist, wenn alle Assets zu Kosten (für deren Bau) minus Abschreibungen in dieser Bk-Buchhaltung eingesetzt sind, zB, für die Geysers weniger als $300 Mio der reale Gegenwert aber durch mehrere Faktoren gegen $3 Mrd. repräsentiert, so ist doch klar dass Goldman Sucks und anderes Hedgerpack sich diese Firma unter den Nagel reissen will

...GS wird uns dann am Markt irgend ein konstruiertes Finanz-Produkt mit der Verkleidung "stragety renewable energy" als Anteilscheine unterjubeln wollen, mit einer Rendite von über xx% p.a....

...und wir als Shareholder sollen bereits jetzt dafür die Zeche bezahlen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.703.074 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 11:44:43

....Harbinger & Co. die beim FERC um 45% an Calpine ersucht haben (Resultat ist geheim, wurde nie veröffentlicht!) lehnt den POR ab...

...dies wohl deshalb, weil sie nicht sicher sind, ob sie diesen Anteil tatsächlich auch bekommen werden...

...DENN DER RICHTER LIFLAND WIRD ENTSCHEIDEN über den Ausgang des Bk-Falls, und keinesfalls FERC, oder CEO May, oder das Hedgerpack, oder die Mofos

PS: Eine Tochterges. von Calpine hat im Februar 07 bereits ihren CPN Fond für knapp 1 Mrd. an eine Harbinger-TG verkauft

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.704.323 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 17:58:31

Harbinger bietet $4.95 pro Aktie, dreckbillig

Schaunwermalwasdakommt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.704.375 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 18:10:46

SPEKULATION: Harbinger lehnt den CPN-POR ab und präsentiert seinen eigenen H-POR, mit $4.95 pro Aktie...

...aktuell kaufen einige Adressen die dreckbilligen Aktien um dann ihren Reibach zu machen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.704.375 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 18:10:46

Shit - $4.95 kostet ein CPN-Report der online gekauft werden kann

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.704.384 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 18:13:27

Jetzt hab ich's

CEO May befindet sich seit Wochen bereits im gleiche Bett mit Harbinger, Harbinger hält aktuell 4,9% der Aktien und dumpt täglich mit GS zusammen Aktien in den Markt um den Kurs runterzuschrauben...

...und kommt dann mit billigsten Angebot in den nächsten Wochen - so um die $0.50 für die ÜBERNAHME ALLER AKTIEN zum Spottpreis :O...dann sind wir definitiv geschraubt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.706.037 von Charly_2 am 08.12.07 20:26:13

...also Harbinger 25, Satellite 25 und Steelhead hält 10 Mio Aktien --- macht schlappe 60 Mio Aktien....die CPNLQ wird nicht wertlos gedumpt, sondern gebraucht um zu dealen

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend, alle zusammen.

Kann mir jemand von euch noch ein Mal auf die Spünge helfen?
Es muss ja einen oder mehrere Gründe geben, warum der Kurs so tief steht.
Sicher, hier wird nachhaltig manipuliert, aber wenn alles so einfach wäre und es nur gut ausgehen könnte, würde der Kurs woanders stehen.

Welche Unsicherheit wird hier gerade eingepreist?

Welche Entscheidung könnte der Richter im ungünstigsten Fall für uns Aktionäre treffen?

Und welche positive könnte er uns gegenüber aussprechen?

Kann er wirklich allein über den Wert Calpines und somit dessen Sharepreis entscheiden? (Ist diese Entscheidung entgültig und das nicht mehr anfechtbar?)

Sagen wir mal er trifft eine Entscheidung die für die Shareholder/ das SHC nicht nachvollziehbar ist, kann das SHC nichts mehr machen, muss sich dem beugen und wir sind im Ar... ?

Was ist genau passiert, wenn diese 8 Mrd. DIP von GS verfällt - wie sind hier die Auswirkungen bzw. Folgen einzuschätzen?

Müssen wir bei irgendeiner Entscheidung Geld noch mehr hinterher schießen?

Hoffentlich bleibt uns der Weihnachtsbraten nicht im Halse stecken.

Einen Gruß in den Abend des zweiten Advents hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.708.605 von Dostojewski am 09.12.07 17:47:39

A) Welche Unsicherheit wird hier gerade eingepreist?
=> Kurs bewegt sich dorthin wo Bookwheat die Valuation für die Shareholder sieht - 0.00 bis $0.41 für Shareholders
=> Das Pack =>GS dumpt, das ist bewiesen den Kurs - unterstützt von weiteren Mofos (MM) und versucht damit alle Retail-Aktionäre rauszukegeln, indem das "Aktien wertlos Gespenst" aufgefahren wird und der Aktienkurs gegen 0.00 gedumpt wird....Kleinanleger denken lieber den Restwert der Aktien retten anstatt alles zu verlieren und verkaufen - das Pack gewinnt so und kann sich alle Aktien unter den Nagel reissen um dann ihr Angebot zu platzieren...wenn alle Retailer bereits ausgestiegen sind
=> Harbinger hat bereits ihr Angebot platziert - seither herrscht diesbezüglich Funkstille - siehe #4534

B) Welche Entscheidung könnte der Richter im ungünstigsten Fall für uns Aktionäre treffen?
=> er zückt seine bei 2 Firmen in Auftrag gegebenen Wert-Analysen die beide im Bereich von Blackfire oder sogar darunter liegen, dann gibt's für Shareholder theoretisch gar nix...dann ist D möglich

C) Und welche positive könnte er uns gegenüber aussprechen?
...wenn die B-Schätzung wesentlich höher als Blackfire liegt gibts vielleicht $1.20 pro Aktie + Warrants oder wenn er der SHC-Valuation mehr Wert zumisst gibts >$3

D) Kann er wirklich allein über den Wert Calpines und somit dessen Sharepreis entscheiden? (Ist diese Entscheidung entgültig und das nicht mehr anfechtbar?)
=> Wenn das SHC den Entscheid ablehnt und eine Sammelklage androht wird sich das Pack inkl. Richter bewegen müssen - dies passiert vom 17.12.-27.12 bisher ist alles nur verbales Säbelrasseln.....danach ist entschieden - Sammelklage fällig und damit der Deal blockiert....darum ist Aktie halten bis zum 27.12. Highrisk

E) Sagen wir mal er trifft eine Entscheidung die für die Shareholder/ das SHC nicht nachvollziehbar ist, kann das SHC nichts mehr machen, muss sich dem beugen und wir sind im Ar... ?
=> gemäss D

F) Was ist genau passiert, wenn diese 8 Mrd. DIP von GS verfällt - wie sind hier die Auswirkungen bzw. Folgen einzuschätzen?
=> Calpine muss gegen $500-$700 Mio höhere Zinsen bezahlen für gleichen Kredit
=> Calpine kann man dann rauchen, dh. CPN++ werden einen Teufel tun die Forderungen eines Kompromisses mit dem SHC im voraus abzulehnen.
=> Aktuell könnte auch Goldman Sucks versuchen die Parteien gegeneinander auszuspielen...sodass die 8 Mrd. hinfällig werden...am 18.12. bringt GS ihre neuen Zahlen nach neuer Regelung (bezüglich Bewertung der Subprime-Kredite) und dann sehen wir wieviel Miese sie ausweisen, 5, 10 oder 15 Mrd. Verlust ...daraus die 1. Ableitung machen und man weiss wie es ausgeht

Müssen wir bei irgendeiner Entscheidung Geld noch mehr hinterher schießen?
=> Falls noch Warrants angeboten werden, muss man mehr Kohle in die Finger nehmen um mit diesem "Investment" break even zu erreichen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.708.803 von Charly_2 am 09.12.07 18:49:47

....8 Mrd. DIP von Goldman Sucks...wofür stehen diese
...für vorhandenen Verbindlichkeiten?

Ganz bestimmt nicht, sondern diese repräsentieren genau die Herunterschreibung von 8 Mrd. auf den Assets....und wo tauchen diese 8 Mrd. in der Bilanz auf

Genau, es sind die -8 Mrd. an Aktienkapital - mit verd..... Winkelzügen versucht das CPN-Mgmt die Shareholder zu schrauben umd danach mit den Bondholdern ihre eigenen Vorteile durchzusetzen - wie zB. den 66 Mio Incentiveplan der im POR steht.

Der Richter Lifland ist nicht dumm, er hat bereits Mr. Dunne, den Vertreter der Converts in den Senkel gestellt der versucht hat das Recht zur Konvertierung von Bonds in Aktien zu Gunsten der betr. Bondholders (zu Lasten der Aktionäre) durchzudrücken und er wird 100 %-ig auch den Versuch des CPN-Packs bezüglich Auszahlung von 66 Mio an Incentives (zu Lasten der Aktionäre) verbieten

Also, ich bin sicher dass der Richter Lifland es richten wird, dass die Shareholder halbwegs gut (fair wäre die falsche Bez.) davonkommen

[Charly_2]

SEHR interessant

This was an outstanding post by TR and am reposting it here because I believe it goes the the heart of the issue now facing this committee.

"Re: Everybody (RT)

I don't think flaw is the right word.

What you say is true if both parties had used the same valuation methods. They didn't. For example, the SHC used replacement cost but the Debtor did not. And even if a method is properly used, you need to given it a weight relative to the other methods. This, all by itself, can result in majorly different end results.

Also, there are many ways to construct a DCF model. Although both the SHC and the Debtor used a DCF approach, the assumptions and discount rates used can create widely different results.

That is where the experts come in. The Judge can't expect either party to do anything other than argue its best position for its best result. But an expert can spot overreaching when the judge might not on his own. And the experts might allow the judge to test the sensitivity of each end result to a tweak or major surgery, a sort of "what if" process that might allow him to reach his own result based on the evidence before him.

Let me add one thing. When I say lawyers pick facts and take positions most favorable to the client, there are limits to this process. Credibility is important, and most successful lawyers will avoid arguing something if it is too one-sided. I think the midnight submission of the last revised valuation may well be an instance of this error. I find it incredible that Calpine's operations could have improved so as to raise the DCF valuation but, because of some Comparative Company card shuffling, the value actually drops by $900 million. Of course, as I have stated, I don't think the Comparative Company analysis should be given the weight assigned to it by the Debtor. Imagibe what might happen if the judge decides that, rather than 50/50, the Debtor's two methods should be weighted 75/25 in favor of the DCF model. And that's where I see the greatest chance for the judge to move this valuation rather drmatically -- ruling on the proper methods to be used.

I may be all washed up on this, so take my comments as the opinion of a former lawyer. Lifland is, I believe, a well respected BK judge and he seems to have his hand in many significant case. He won't be awed by this case and certainly won't be intimidated by the lawyers. Federal judges, including BK judges, are very powerful people."

[Dostojewski]

Hi Charly,

vorab Danke für die schnelle und umfanreiche Beantwortung meiner in den Raum gestellten Fragen.

Als zweites: Sch... drauf, ich halte meine Aktien bis über den 27.12. hinaus!

1. Welchen Zusammenhang siehst Du zwischen den Zahlen von G&S die am 18.12. erscheinen und dem DIP für Calpine?
(Dieses Thema mit den Nullstellen u. f(x), 1. Ableitungen (Hoch- u. Tiefpunkten) u. 2 Ableitungen (Wendepunkte?) habe ich mir nie ganz erschließen können :rolleyes

2. Was wäre der Nachteil einer Sammelklage (abgesehen davon, dass das hieße der ganze Deal mit der 8 Mrd. DIP ist geplatzt und Calpine müsste mehr Kreditzinsen zahlen)?

3. Meine Vermutung:
Der Richter ist auch nur ein Mensch und hat (garantiert) keinen Bock darauf diesen ganzen Mist über die Weihnachtstage mit sich zu schleppen. Man darf die psychische und physische Belastung für seine Person bei einem solchen Präzedenzfall nicht unterschätzen! Wahrscheinlich möchte er auch lieber diese Geschichte am 24.12. beendet wissen und dann abends nach dem Braten, im Kreise seiner Familie und mit den Enkeln auf dem Schoß, im Sessel vor dem Weihnachtsbaum, genießen - und nicht die Weihnachtsstage im im Arbeitszimmer.
Gibt es in den USA überhaupt den 2. Weihnachtstag? Es gibt nur den ersten stimmts?

Der hat sicherlich den Parteien schon zu verstehen gegeben sich rechtzeitig zu einigen.

Heiligabend wird dieses Jahr anders!

Entweder so

oder so

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.709.015 von Dostojewski am 09.12.07 19:49:18

...also bei Integralrechnungen habe ich auch nie geglänzt

Zusammenhang gibt es wohl direkt keinen, aber indirekt natürlich schon, weil seit der Kreditkrise die Aufnahme von Krediten viel schwieriger wurde, dh. CPN hätte diese Kredit NIE erhalten wenn die Suprime-Krise früher zu Tage getreten wäre

Sammelklage ist eher unwahrscheinlich, denn da ist der Ausgang schwer vorhersehbar und es könnte echt teuer werden bei DEN Anwaltshonoraren von $400 aufwärts

Also eine Einigung kann schnell erfolgen, wenn der Richter $6 pro Aktie anbietet ...

...aber das Vorgehen IST SEHR wichtig, dass der Richter, der ja kein Value-Experte ist 2 Firmen einspannt um den ganzen CPN-Krempel zu schätzen ...wo die es doch über sage und schreibe 13 Quartale hinweg nicht geschafft haben auch nur einen müden Dollar zu verdienen...

Würde micht echt wundern, wenn dabei was Gescheites rauskäme...man hätte besser die beiden Schätzungen genommen

Bookheat 0-0.41
SHC 8-10.50

und daraus den Wert pro Aktie abgeleitet

PS: Das CPN-Mgmt verdiente diesen Namen nicht - es war sogar unfähig und grottenschlecht und hat die Marktteilnehmer die in CPN investiert haben regelrecht beschissen mit kreativer Buchführung (sie wurden vom SHC im 2002 dafür gerügt) - sogar Cartwrong hat kurz bevor Ende 2005 der Stecker gezogen wurde noch die sich selbst zugeschanzten Optionen in Aktien gewandelt und asap auf den Markt geschmissen => der gehört hinter schwedische Gardinen....und der Vorsitzende Kerr muss aufpassen dass er nicht selbst arrestiert wird!!!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.709.271 von Charly_2 am 09.12.07 20:55:06

Es kann natürlich noch eine Wendung eintreten

Harbinger gab schon bekannt dass sie den POR ablehnen, Harbinger hat 1,3 Mrd. an Bonds und hält 4,9% (erlaubt sind 5%) an Aktien, kann also beidseitig voten

Nehmen wir nun mal an, fast alle Parteien lehnen den POR ebenfalls ab

Wie ist dann das weitere Vorgehen?

Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen Dealen

Da alle Parteien Aktien wollen - lustig, lustig - NIEMAND will Cash, wird der Aktienkuchen unter den Parteien aufgeteilt....

Spekulieren welche Partei was bekommt darf nun jeder selber
=> Bitte hier posten

[Charly_2]

Buckfire hat in der 2. Valuation den Wert der Assets um 900 Mio heruntergeschraubt, mit der Aussage die vergleichbaren Konkurrenten (es gibt keine vergleichbaren!) hätten an Wert verloren.

Dieser Bericht beweist, dass dies NICHT STIMMT und dass der Wert von Calpine's Assets am oberen Ende der Skala sein müsste

TransAlta braces for clean coal costs

RICHARD BLACKWELL

December 6, 2007

Alberta-based power generator TransAlta Corp. has enjoyed a strong runup in its stock price over the past few years, but sentiment has turned against the company as it faces huge costs to clean up its coal-fired plants, and faces a possible decline in demand for electricity.

While the bulk of its operations are in Alberta, TransAlta has 50 power plants operating in three Canadian provinces, the United States, Mexico and Australia. The mix includes coal- and gas-fired plants, hydroelectric projects, and wind and geothermal operations.

The stock was on a consistent upward trend until the past few weeks, moving from the mid-teens 3½ years ago to peak at $34.50 at the beginning of November. It has now fallen to the $32 range.

TransAlta chief executive officer Steve Snyder tried to reverse that direction when he told analysts at an investor day last week that the company is confident it can deliver "double-digit earnings growth for the next several years."

In the coming years, TransAlta plans to spend billions on potential growth projects, mainly on gas-fired power plants and renewables such as wind power.

But Mr. Snyder also acknowledged that there are challenges ahead, mainly on the environmental front.

The company, which was once a regulated utility in Alberta but is now an independent power producer selling electricity at market rates, will have to make massive investments in its aging coal power plants to bring them up to new environmental requirements and extend their lives.

TransAlta could spend as much as $1.5-billion for environmental compliance between now and 2020.

That investment is key to the company's prospects, Mr. Snyder said, because TransAlta needs to be able to continue to exploit the "vast coal reserves" it has adjacent to its coal-fired plants.

But the technology is still not there to effectively deal with carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. "We're going to obviously have to find a solution ... to the CO{-2} question," he said.

Still, the company thinks its power purchase agreements with Alberta's energy agency will allow it to pass some of those development costs on to customers.

At the same time, TransAlta is dipping its foot into alternative energy generation, building three wind power plants in Alberta, with another one set to open next year in New Brunswick.

The key concern among analysts is that short-term growth for the company may be limited, while a drop in the demand for electricity could dent pricing and the company's prospects.

Bob Hastings, an analyst at Canaccord Adams in Toronto, said he was very bullish on the stock for the past three years as electricity prices rose in Alberta.

During that time the stock almost doubled from around $18.

But the outlook for power prices is not nearly so rosy now, Mr. Hastings said, and he has shifted his sentiment, rating the stock a "sell" with a 52-week projection of $27.

The company's earnings projections of around $2 a share by 2010 translates into a price/earnings ratio of about 16 at current levels, and "that's a lot," he said.

Daniel Shteyn of Desjardins Securities in Montreal said part of the reason for TransAlta's runup was that, for a time, the company was seen as a takeover target. When that prospect waned, investors were buoyed by the firm's strong cash flow, and speculation that TransAlta might boost its dividend or engage in share buybacks.

But some U.S. hedge funds that bought into the company during that period now appear to have been disappointed at TransAlta's reluctance to buy back stock.

A representative of New York private equity firm Luminus Management LLC, TransAlta's biggest shareholder, confronted management on that issue at the company's investor day. Mr. Snyder made it clear the company has more of a "long-term focus," although he said some minor buybacks may be in the works.

TransAlta's reluctance to make moves that will boost the stock price in the short term "cooled off the fervour of a lot of investors," Mr. Shteyn said.

Indeed, 10 out of the 11 analysts who follow the company have the equivalent of "hold" or "sell" recommendations on the stock.

One of those with an "underperform" rating is Karen Taylor, of BMO Nesbitt Burns.

She said in a report that the hedge fund investors who bought TransAlta when the stock was rising from around $26 to $33 a share may now decide to cash out. If that happens, there's not enough liquidity for the market to absorb the stock and "the share price could gap down," she said.

TRANSALTA (TA)

Close: $32.39, up 69¢

Quick facts

Power plants: 50, about half of them in Alberta

Total power generated: 8,500 megawatts

Biggest foreign plant: 1,400-megawatt Centralia coal plant in Washington state

Biggest wind farm: 75-MW McBride Lake project in Fort Macleod, Alta.

Mix of power: 58-per-cent coal; 29-per-cent gas, 9-per-cent hydro, and 4-per-cent renewables

Biggest shareholder: Luminus Management LLC of New York, with 7.8 per cent

By the numbers

2006 revenue$2.8-billion
2006 profit$45-million
2007 3Q revenue$711-million
2007 3Q profit$66-million
Annual dividend$1 a share

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071206.RE…

[Charly_2]

..demnext taucht der weisse Ritter auf und kauft diese Klitsche für $24 Mrd. - wait and see

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=con…

[Charly_2]

I liked this: "If you get a committee, and the committee gets a lawyer, you're going to get something."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292511/posts

Barring another extension — which would be the third — that reorganization plan is due Dec. 31. Shareholders say they now believe only another extension will prevent them from being wiped out. Are Mirant's stockholders dreaming? Not necessarily, according to bankruptcy experts. The fact that they have a committee, capable of gumming up the works with motions and claims, is likely to deliver them something, said Georgia State University law professor Jack Williams. "A valuable commodity is time," he said. "An aggressive shareholders committee can make the company jump through all kinds of hoops. It takes time — lots of time — and it takes expense." And that gives companies an incentive to "gin up some kind of settlement, in exchange for shareholders dropping potential claims," he said. Another expert, University of California law professor Lynn LoPucki, put it succinctly: "If you get a committee, and the committee gets a lawyer, you're going to get something." Some shareholders, meanwhile, aren't waiting, according to Wilson, the former committee member. He said a group of shareholders independent of the official committee intends to force a full investigation of the value of Mirant's assets, by independently soliciting bids for them. The effort, he said, will show the court that Mirant has alternatives that would allow it to satisfy creditors and leave shareholder equity intact.

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.709.773 von Charly_2 am 09.12.07 22:29:56

Guten Morgen.

Warum wird Calpine nicht von den gekauft.

Die haben doch genügend US-Knete.

Es ist Montag

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.711.821 von Dostojewski am 10.12.07 10:40:48

Ciao, keine Ahnung wieso nicht

Heute ist das Interesse aber riesig, über 400 Guests und knapp 100 Members....da geht was

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&clear=1&pt=m

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.719.899 von Charly_2 am 10.12.07 21:23:54

demnext geht die Post ab

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.719.908 von Charly_2 am 10.12.07 21:24:49

Richtig, die Post wird abgehen.

Die Frage ist nur - in welche Richtung

[Charly_2]

...das Pack gibt sich alle Mühe

[Wilhelmine04]

[Charly_2]

...Oktober, schon wieder 64 Mio Verlust in 1 Monat...es wäre wohl das Beste wenn man diese Firma schliessen würde, alle Anlagen verkaufen dem Meisstbietenden dann bekommen die Shareholder auch noch was

[Charly_2]

Kleiner Hoffnungsschimmer für Shareholders

Perella hat vorgemacht wie man ne Bewertung KORREKT macht !!

Perella has opened their valuation metrics to Judge Lifland's experts and spent himself 10 hours last week being deposed by Lifland's experts.

Derron spoke of the many things we have spoken about here and said there are many ways Calpine can be valued. The way the industry values power plants" he said , "was by replacement cost, and if Calpine itself is willing to pay $1200 kwh for new construction, that ought to be close to what the plants are worth".

The big news to me was that the experts reached out to Perella, and Perella responded positively.

Jede(r) kann selber rechnen was der Wert von Calpine ist

23200 x 1200 = Wert von Calpines Assets...
800 x 3000 = Wert von Calpines Geysers

[Charly_2]

Amsi senkten soeben den Zins um .25% auf 4.25%....da müsste der Kurs von Calpine eigentlich steigen

[Wilhelmine04]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.731.512 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 20:27:15

da wäre ich mir aber nicht sicher!
die machen doch sowieso, was sie wollen (mit uns...)

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.731.667 von Wilhelmine04 am 11.12.07 20:36:25

...ich rechne nun mit $2 pro Aktie, als MINIMUM

[Charly_2]

Also diese Calpine-ianer sind fertige Pfeiffen, melden die doch 24 Mrd.! Reorg-Kosten in 1 Monat

Verrückt was man alles tut wenn man Shareholder schrauben will

Da erinnere ich mich noch an Bob Kelly ex-CFO, der konnte nicht mal Ausgaben in der Bilanz korrekt einsetzen, die tauchten dann in einem Q-Report als Einnahmen auf

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKN115257712007…

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.731.855 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 20:48:31

Neeeeeeeeee.. mindestens 4 US-$. Die müssen schon drin sein!
Aber noch ist das ein langer Weg - und wenn man bedenkt wo wir dieses Jahr schon waren.

Der Dienstag ist geschafft

Es grüßt in die Nacht hinaus - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.732.224 von Dostojewski am 11.12.07 21:22:32

Nachtrag:

Und dann sollten doch dem Vernehmen nach noch XXX.XXX.XXX "naked-shorts" gecovert werden müssen... also da werden jawohl mindestens ein paar Dollar mehr hängen bleiben.

Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.732.286 von Dostojewski am 11.12.07 21:27:32

...wie wir wissen, wird daran gearbeitet dass das Pack gar nicht mehr covern muss und somit die ganze Kohle ungestraft einsacken kann

ABER DAS WIRD DIESMAL KAUM SO LEICHT ZU SCHAFFEN SEIN

Schaunwermalwasdakommt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.732.224 von Dostojewski am 11.12.07 21:22:32

Dosto....eins ist sicher, reich werden wir hier mit unserem Posten CPNLQ sicher nicht

Dies wird das Pack mit allen Mitteln zu verhindern wissen, am Schluss bleiben für die Shareholder nur Brosamen, wenn überhaupt

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.732.694 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 21:56:45

Ich habe einen durchschnittlichen Einkaufskurs von 89 Eurocent - den möchte ich zumindest wieder haben!

Allerdings möchte ich gar keinen Hehl daraus machen, dass ich auf das "Weihnachtswunder von der Wallstreet 2007" setze und ziemlich viel auf eine Karte und den Richter gesetzt habe.

Wenn das schiefgeht... ich möchte gar nicht daran denken.

Noch eine Frage:
Der Richter wird doch am Ende beiden Parteien mitteilen, wie viel Calpine nach seinem dafürhalten noch Wert ist. Dabei wird er sich beraten lassen und wahrscheinlich/hoffentlich eine Zahl an den Tag legen, die entweder der einen oder der anderen Seite mehr Freude bereitet.
Aber was passiert, wenn er für uns Shareholder einen Wert errechnet, der einen Aktienwert von vielleicht 5 - 10 Dollar zur Folge hat - was passiert dann?

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.733.336 von Dostojewski am 11.12.07 22:40:48

Der ganze Kuchen von Calpine macht höchstens 100%!

Vereinfacht kann man sagen, wenn die Bude $11 wert ist dann bekommen die Kreditgeber (Gläubiger) da sie zu 100% abgegolten werden müssen zB. $10, so bleibt für die Shareholder $1!

Ist die Bude $15 wert bekommen die Kreditgeber (Gläubiger) immer noch $10, so bleibt für die Shareholder $5!

Bekommen die Kreditgeber nicht 100%, so wird's bereits schwierig für die Shareholder...$0.2?

Ist die Bude $10 wert bekommen die Kreditgeber (Gläubiger) immer noch $10, so bleibt für die Shareholder $0!

Grundsätzlich ist es schon ein Valuation-Game, für die Shareholder aber auf Messers Schneide.

Akzeptiert der Richter Lifland die Valuation zu Kosten für Neubau der Anlagen nicht (Perella/ SHC-Valuation-Methode) - so sind die Shareholder getoastet!

...bei Valuation von $5-10 für Shareholder kannst Du davon ausgehen, dass deine Aktien in Neu-Aktien gewandelt werden, vielleicht zu 4:1 bis 2:1, wenn man von $20/ Aktie als Eröffnungskurs ausgeht ex-Bk - eher unwahrscheinlich

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.733.709 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 23:26:45

...die Methode "Cost to build" ist noch nie angewendet worden bei einem Bankrott-Fall in den USA, vielmehr die DCF-Methode (zB. bei MIR)

http://de.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=DCF-Methode&ei…

wobei hier die Parametersetzung sehr heikel ist und nach meiner Ansicht von Miller Buckfire zu Ungunsten der Shareholders manipuliert wurde um uns zu schrauben :O

[XIO]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.733.336 von Dostojewski am 11.12.07 22:40:48

Ohhh Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.733.709 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 23:26:45

...und nicht vergessen, es läuft noch eine SEC-Untersuchtung, wo es um Buchführungsprobleme/ -manipulationen vom 2001 bis 2003 geht...

...kommen da noch 100 Mio Strafzahlung gehen die bei den Shareholdern weg und nicht bei den Kreditgebern, das wären dann bereits $0.20/ Aktie

Wenn's schlecht kommt gilt generell:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphys_Gesetz

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.733.831 von Charly_2 am 11.12.07 23:42:36

Wie Du schon schreibst:
Wenn's schlecht kommt ...

Nene, das wird schon ... Surprise Surprise!

Gruß und frohes Schaffen an diesem Mittwoch - Dosto

[topperle]

Gab es irgendwie News oder ist die Zinssenkung "schuld"?
Oder werden gar die Shortpositionen glatt gestellt?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.742.770 von topperle am 12.12.07 18:28:39

nene, tax selling is over...Amis sind käufig

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.743.298 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 18:57:19

..wenn der Zinssatz bei den Amis dann bei 0.50% liegt steht Calpo bei 20 Bucks

[Charly_2]

...hier kann man als Gewinner hervorgehen, wenn man Aktien kauft, nicht wenn man sie verkauft

[topperle]

Ja so langsam könnt sich endlich mal General Electrics melden und verkünden, dass sie die Bude kaufen
Muss aber schon gestehen, dass ich nach langer Zeit mal wieder ziemlich nervös wegen den hoffentlich endgültigen Gerichtsterminen nächste Woche bin

Endlich mal wieder 'n bisschen Action

Mach mir nur Sorgen um unseren guten Dosto. Der war die letzten Tage selbst bei Kursrutschen abends noch immer so bombig gut gelaunt, dass der heute bei 20% plus wohl mit Baldrian ruhig gestellt werden muss - der arme

[Charly_2]

Shorts dumping
http://www1.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=14000&mn=665&p…

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.077 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:43:50

Ist nur für Member...

Kannst das mal bitte kopieren?


Ansonsten hoffen wir mal, dass noch ein paar Lemminge aufspringen und den Kurs antreiben

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.077 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:43:50

Ups - secret - kein Zugriff
Calpine Short Report..........
If you look at these reports below, note the difference in Outstanding shares bewteen the periods....the reduction in short position is identical to the reduction in outstanding shares......

CPNLQ

Calpine Corp.
Shares Short 12,999,600
Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 0.9
Short % of Float 2.70 %
Shares Short - Prior 15,381,300
Short % Increase / Decrease -15.48 %
Squeeze RankingTM -1
% from 52-Wk HIGH ( 4.15 ) %
% from 52-Wk LOW ( 0.41 ) %
% from 200-Day MA ( 2.81 ) %
% from 50-Day MA ( 2.22 )%
Price % Change (52-Wk) -39.30 %
Trading Volume - Today 3,766,629
Trading Volume - Average 14,578,800
Trading Volume Vs. Avg. 25.84 %
Total Shares - Float 481,940,000
Total Shares - Outstanding
% Held by Insiders 5.54 %
% Held by Institutions 7.30 %
Market Cap
EPS
PE Ratio
Sector:
Industry:
SI Record Date 2007-DecA

PRIOR PERIOD:
CPNLQ $
Calpine Corp.
Shares Short 19,732,000
Days to Cover (Short Ratio) 2.2
Short % of Float 4.08 %
Shares Short - Prior 29,476,400
Short % Increase / Decrease -33.06 %
Squeeze RankingTM 27
% from 52-Wk HIGH ( 4.15 ) %
% from 52-Wk LOW ( 0.26 ) %
% from 200-Day MA ( 2.79 ) %
% from 50-Day MA ( 2.27 ) %
Price % Change (52-Wk) 305.80 %
Trading Volume - Today 9,092,643
Trading Volume - Average 9,093,300
Trading Volume Vs. Avg. 99.99 %
Total Shares - Float 484,090,000
Total Shares - Outstanding
% Held by Insiders 0.57 %
% Held by Institutions 3.80 %
Market Cap
EPS
PE Ratio
Sector:
Industry:
SI Record Date 2007-Sept

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.164 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:49:04

Danke

Ist mir aber ehrlich gesagt ein Rätsel, wie die an 2 Handelstagen annähernd 19 Mio. Shortpositionen glatt stellen wollen...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.164 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:49:04

...die Calpine-Krücken leihen ihre eigenen Aktien aus oder shorten ihre eigenen Aktien - die gehören hinter schwedische Gardinen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.202 von topperle am 12.12.07 19:51:14

...und Naked Shorts gibts noch xx Mio um Wallstreet-Sumpf...

...wenn ein kleiner Schimmer von Erfolg (Aktien verfallen nicht wertlos) für die Shareholder durchsickert ab 17.12. - Court Hearing - sehen wir hier den Aktienkurs innert einer Sitzung auf über $2 esplodieren

Schaunwermalwasdakommt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.278 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:55:17

..im Wallstreet-Sumpf...explodieren

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.299 von Charly_2 am 12.12.07 19:56:34

Da wird doch wohl nicht etwa jemand nervös werden?


So, hab meine 5 Posts für heute verbraucht.
Bereite mich jetzt auf ein hoffentlich gutes Champions-League-Spiel und wünsch euch noch 'n schicken Abend

Oder um's mit den Worten von Dosto zu sagen:
Der Mittwoch ist geschafft

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.744.560 von topperle am 12.12.07 20:11:09

Wow, 5 Posts - Geizkragen

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend zusammen.

Mein Nervenköstum ist in Begleitung des Kursganges von Calpine auch etwas dünner geworden.

Ich sehe mich schon an der Stelle von Louis Winthorpe III, alias Dan Aykroyd in "Die Glücksritter".
Aber leider dort, wo er angetrunken in einem abgerissen aussehenden Weihnachtsmannköstum an einem Büffet in eine Lachshälfte reinbeißt und den Rest in seiner Rocktasche verschwinden lässt.
Oder an der Stelle wo ihm im Weihnachtsmannköstum zuerst ein Hund ans Bein pinkelt, es dann in Strömen anfängt zu regnen und dann auch noch die Pistole versagt mit der er sich in diesem Moment erschießen möchte. Murpheys Gesetz

Zurück zu Calpine. Wir sind bislang den Kurskapriolen von CJ3 und Machenschaften der Dukes hilflos ausgeliefert.
Aber könnt ihr euch auch an das Ende von "Die Glücksritter" erinnern???

Wie auch immer, der Mittwoch ist geschafft

Gruß in die selbige Nacht bis an die Grenzen Europas und wie immer darüber hinaus - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.746.702 von Dostojewski am 12.12.07 22:22:02

Richtig muss es antürlich heißen: Weihnachtsmannkostüm.

Alles wird gut - Dosto

[Charly_2]

91% der Creditors stimmten für den POR (war zu erwarten, wo kriegt man sonst was geschenkt ) - Shareholder lehnten den Plan 70:30 ab!

Lifland kann nun zurücklehnen und am 24.12. feiern

[Charly_2]

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=103361&p=irol-ne…

[Charly_2]

Contract:
http://www1.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=14000&mn=682&p…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.031 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 07:30:54

"Interests" and they voted 70% to Reject Plan..........all bongholder groups approved plan....Page 4

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712120000000…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712120000000…


Class E-1 – Interests (shareholders)

29.40% N/A 70.60% N/A

48,500,758 N/A 116,453,617 N/A

16. KCC also tabulated unconsolidated results on a Debtor-by-Debtor basis that are

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.105 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 07:33:09

So SHC, nun aber Marsch, Marsch!
http://www1.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=14000&mn=686&p…

[Charly_2]

PGE Contract Cancelling
http://www1.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=14000&mn=703&p…

[Charly_2]

Newsline...PGE Criticizes State for Power Contract Canceling
PG&E criticizes state for canceling power contract
By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 12/12/2007 04:10:24 PM PST

SACRAMENTO—California's largest utility company criticized the Department of Water Resources on Wednesday for canceling a $525 million-a-year electricity supply contract that the state signed at the height of the energy crisis to help financially strapped utilities.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said the cancellation could backfire on the department and force taxpayers to cover hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs.

"We are deeply troubled and puzzled as to why your agency would literally give away up to hundreds of millions of dollars of value in a power purchase contract that (the department) is required by law to preserve for the benefit of California consumers and taxpayers," the company's chief counsel, Christopher Warner, said in a letter to the department.

The department said the move amounted to amending the contract with Calpine Energy Services and would save $1 billion while reducing the state's role in buying power for California by about 20 percent.

"The department got into that business (of buying electricity) as a temporary, short-term measure," said Richard Grix, an assistant to one of the department's deputy directors.

The state was roundly criticized for the prices it paid under those agreements, Grix noted, and since then has been attempting to renegotiate the agreements to reduce costs.

Over the last seven years, the utilities have recovered financially and "there's no reason for the state of
Advertisement
California to be providing 25 percent of power that investor-owned utility customers need right now," he added.

The original Calpine contract, signed in February 2001, required the state to pay Calpine $525 million a year through 2011 for 1,000 megawatts of around-the-clock electricity. It was amended in 2002 to terminate in 2009.

A megawatt is enough power for about 750 homes.

The Calpine agreement was among dozens of contracts of varying lengths and terms that the state signed to keep electricity flowing in California after prices skyrocketed and the state's three major utility companies had trouble buying power on their own.

Power provided by the Calpine contract was used to help supply PG&E, which serves about 15 million people in northern and central California.

In place of the 1,000-megawatt contract, the department said it had negotiated an agreement under which it would pay Calpine $4.4 million a year for up to five years to provide 180 megawatts of "peaking capacity" for PG&E's use during periods of extremely high electricity demand.

A PG&E spokesman, Jon Tremayne, said the department's termination of the 1,000-megawatt contract would force the company to buy replacement power at much higher rates instead of continuing to reimburse the state for a portion of the contract cost.

He said those additional costs could amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars."

In his letter to Deputy Director Timothy Haines, Warner suggested that state law could require the department to cover any additional costs faced by the utility in replacing the Calpine contract.

Grix said he didn't know if that was the case, but he said he doubted that PG&E would have to replace all of the power provided through the Calpine contract. "There have been times when PG&E has sold off portions of the Calpine power," he said.

He said the department offered to let PG&E take over the contract but the company didn't want to assume the full cost.

Currently, PG&E reimburses the department for 42.2 percent of its power-buying costs. The rest is paid by the state's two other major investor-owned utilities—Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Grix said the department plans to ask the state Public Utilities Commission to reconsider the utilities' cost split and to start a process that would turn over the department's remaining power contracts to the utilities.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.060 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 07:31:49

News for Immediate Release

December 12, 2007

Contacts:

• Sue Sims, DWR Public Affairs Director, 916-653-0758

• Tim Haines, Deputy Director, California Energy Resources Scheduling Division, 916-574-2733

State Restructures Power Contract with Calpine Energy Services

Sacramento - The Department of Water Resources (DWR) today announced that a contract with Calpine Energy Services has been amended. The amendment is another step in the state’s transition out of the power supply business following the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

Since 2002, DWR has re-negotiated 35 separate contracts with 19 companies at a cost savings of $6.43 billion. The amended power agreement will cut DWR’s payments by an additional $1 billion and reduce its role in statewide electricity supply by about 20 percent.

The contract requires DWR to pay Calpine $525 million annually for 1,000 megawatt-hours of must-take energy delivered year-round through 2009. Under the amended contract, DWR will pay Calpine between $15 and $35 million below prevailing rates for 180 megawatts of peaking capacity from Calpine’s Los Esteros power plant in San Jose, Calif. The amended contract will take effect at the beginning of 2008.

The Calpine 2 contract was one of four contracts between DWR and Calpine that were negotiated in February 2001 during the state’s energy crisis, and later amended in 2002. The power from the Calpine 2 contract was allocated by the California Public Utilities Commission to meet the demand of PG&E customers.

At one time DWR had four contracts with Calpine. Previously, in 2002, DWR eliminated $800 million worth of power Calpine was to deliver in 2012 through 2021. In the same year, DWR also saved $1.03 billion and $1.16 billion from two other contracts with Calpine that would have delivered baseload energy in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

This power contract serves PG&E customers. DWR will petition the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that PGE’s customers share equitably in these savings with Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric customers.

The Department of Water Resources operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs.

[Charly_2]

Voting News Realease Deception

Unbelievable. They did not include class E-1 shareholders in the numbers of those who voted. So the 91% approval was just for the 2480 who voted in the other classes. The other thing they failed to mentioned was that 6 out of the 11 classes who voted rejected the damn Plan. The other information I was looking for is how many shareholders voted to accept or reject the damn Plan. If the majority of shareholders voting rejected the Plan it would be significant. It would show the Judge we had rejected both ways, shareholders voting and shares voting.

So the bait and switch during the voting was followed up by deceiving reporting of the results. I hope the SHC is all over this one........oleguy

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.031 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 07:30:54

>> Lifland kann nun zurücklehnen und am 24.12. feiern

Das verstehe ich nicht.
Wieso ist Lifland jetzt aus dem Spiel? Wer verhandelt denn nächste Woche und legt die Bewertung fest?


P.S. Darf hier bei Wnur 5 Beiträge pro Tag posten. Ansonsten muss ich mich irgendwie mit meinen Real-Daten ausweisen oder irgendwie so in der Richtung. Also hat nichts mit geiz zu tun

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.992 von topperle am 13.12.07 09:44:08

Kommt drauf an ob Lifland auf die ganze Valuation-Diskussion überhaupt detailiert eintritt wo doch fast alle dem POR zugestimmt haben...

...der kommt und sagt yeah, well ihr habt zugestimmt also können wir asap entscheiden

...es geht doch nur noch darum, dass Calpine aus dem Bk herauskommt vor Ende Jan. 2008

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.750.992 von topperle am 13.12.07 09:44:08

<<P.S. Darf hier bei w : o nur 5 Beiträge pro Tag posten. Ansonsten muss ich mich irgendwie mit meinen Real-Daten ausweisen oder irgendwie so in der Richtung.

...das tut aber nicht weh

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.751.123 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 09:55:37

>> der kommt und sagt yeah, well ihr habt zugestimmt also können wir asap entscheiden


Die Shareholder haben den doch 70:30 abgelehnt und damit wurde doch keine Einigung erzielt...

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.751.164 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 09:59:29

Ha, du weißt ja nicht was ich für'n blöden Namen habe

[Dostojewski]

Bislang wurde fast gar nichts gehandelt... . Warum wohl?

Ich glaube das wird noch eine heisse Nummer vor Gericht werden. Schließlich geht es um viel Geld und Calpine ist nicht irgendeine veraltete "Heizkohlenklitsche". Außerdem dürfte ein gewisses öffentliches Interesse bestehen, auch das ist zu berücksichtigen.

Und last but not least möchte Perella auch noch etwa verdienen.

Der Donnerstag ist geschafft

... und der D-Day rückt beständig näher. Ich warte!

Gruß in den Donnerstagabend hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS-NEWS

POR no. 5

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712130000000…

Seite 20: immer noch die selbe Leier

163. 141. New Calpine Total Enterprise Value: $20.3 billion, which is the midpoint range of the total enterprise value of the Reorganized Debtors’ set forth in the Disclosure Statement or such amount provided in the Confirmation Order as the total enterprise value of the Reorganized Debtors.
164. 142. New Calpine Trading Restrictions Term Sheet: That certain Term Sheet for Proposed Trading Restrictions on Reorganized Calpine Common Stock by and among the Debtors and the Creditors’ Committee.
165. 143. New Credit Facility: That certain $8.0 billion secured financing facility comprised of a $6.0 billion first lien secured term facility, a $1.0 billion first lien secured revolving facility, and a $1.0 billion second lien secured facility, by and among Reorganized Calpine, as borrower, and Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as well as other entities, as joint lead arrangers, book runners, and administrative agents, and a syndicate of banks, financial institutions, and other entities, as lenders, and all other documents entered into in connection therewith or contemplated thereby, substantially in the form of that facility referenced in the Order Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Enter Into Commitment Papers; (B) Pay Certain Fees and Expenses Relating Thereto; and (C) Enter Into an Amendment to the DIP Facility [Docket No.

[Charly_2]

..vielleicht gibts pro Shareholder dann noch ne Portion Aktien

Page 43
2. New Calpine Common Stock: On the Effective Date, Reorganized Calpine shall issue New Calpine Common Stock (based upon the New Calpine Total Enterprise Value) for distribution as follows:

(a) all New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan shall be distributed to the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Creditors (after setting aside sufficient New Calpine Common Stock to fund the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan);

(b) after all Allowed Claims (excluding Subordinated Debt Securities Claims and Subordinated Equity Securities Claims) are satisfied in full, any remaining New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan shall be distributed to the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Subordinated Debt Securities Claimants; and

c) after all Allowed Subordinated Debt Securities Claims are satisfied in full, any remaining New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan shall be distributed to the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Shareholders.

[Charly_2]

...scheint so dass sie schon ziemlich nervös sind, und die Shareholders werden wahrgenommen

"18. 17. Class E-1—Interests

a. Classification: Class E-1 consists of all Interests in Calpine.

b. Treatment: In full satisfaction, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for each and every Interest in Class E-1, to the extent all Holders of Allowed Claims (other than Subordinated Equity Securities Claims) have been paid in full, the Holders of Interests in Class E-1 shall receive a pro rata share of the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Shareholders.

=> Das sind WIR

[Charly_2]

Alan Ku hält 159'000 Aktien

[Charly_2]

oooooooooooooooooh - war das langweilig

[Charly_2]

Kompromiss in Sicht

If you parse Seligman's words below......

We are very hopeful of your [which means they do not know]

14 Honor's recent appointment of Bridge Associates pursuant to
15 Federal Rule of Evidence 706, it may be possible, and
16 forgive the pun, your Honor, to bridge the gap between the [they are working on a compromise]
17 two committees. In fact, your Honor, the debtors are
18 meeting with Bridge Associates and its counsel this
19 afternoon, Mr. Togut, to assist them in getting up to [they haven't yet met with Bridge and are late in doing so]

20 speed.
21 However, your Honor, we all recognize your
22 sentiments at the disclosure statement hearing, and quoting [They know the judge wants a deal]
23 Mr. Kaplan you stated, and I quote, "At the end of the day
24 under the debtors' plan, the value of the reorganized
25 equity will ultimately be based on a valuation as

16 determined by the court." [If you don't make a deal, the Judge will make one for you and you might not like that]

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.760.892 von Charly_2 am 14.12.07 01:32:38

$1-8 für Shareholders

[Charly_2]

Newsline......PG&E's Not Happy
California Energy Blog

News and Views on California's Continuing Energy Crisis
Thursday, December 13, 2007

PG&E has its knickers in a twist over the California Department of Water Resources' decision to renogiate its deal with Calpine.

Under the original deal, struck in 2001 during the market melee, Calpine would provide 1,000 MW, 24-7, to DWR. When Calpine tried to wiggle out of the contract after it went BK, DWR balked, claiming the move would cost consumers as much as $200 million.

Fast forward...

Calpine is about to exit BK and DWR has done a 180 and renogiated the deal which now stipulates that DWR will buy 82% less power from Calpine, saving the agency about $1 billion.

That means PG&E will have to fill in the gaps-- an expensive proposition that PG&E plans to pass on to ratepayers, which it claims would be a crime against humanity.

Just when I thought that we now live in a parallell universe where government agencies actually make prudent fiscal decisions and major utilities act as consumer advocates, DWR restored my faith in the bureaucracy by calling on the PUC to "restore the equity that was in place [in the original Calpine deal]" by offsetting some of PG&E's costs.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpine13dec13,1,33377…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.761.145 von Charly_2 am 14.12.07 07:22:07

SHC-Valuation hat eine Chance

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000711200000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.761.148 von Charly_2 am 14.12.07 07:24:16

Calpine deal with California

May himself said this was a "win win". I would assume a win for a power generator means increased $. So I suppose we can expect rev 6 of the POR to come out soon reflecting a valuation increase!

demnext POR 6 fällig, mit Höherbewertung der Assets

[topperle]

Wieder mal mein Dank an Charly für die kurze Newsübersicht.

Ich denke es wurde alles gesagt und wir müssen jetzt den Dingen in der nächsten Woche ihren Lauf lassen

Man liest sich...

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.761.198 von topperle am 14.12.07 07:41:24

Guten Tag.

Dem Dank an Charly schließe ich mich an.

Es ist Freitag!

Euch allen ein schönes Wochenende und einen schönen .

Ich denke Du hast Recht, topperle. Lassen wir die nächste Woche kommen und uns überraschen.

1 - 8 US-$.

1 US-Dollar = 0,69 Euro
2 US-Dollar = 1,37 Euro
3 US-Dollar = 2,06 Euro
4 US-Dollar = 2,75 Euro
5 US-Dollar = 3,43 Euro
6 US-Dollar = 4,12 Euro
7 US-Dollar = 4,81 Euro
8 US-Dollar = 5,50 Euro

Ausgerechnet jetzt haben wir eine Dollarschwäche.

Es grüßt - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Press announcement...Final ...
70% of Shareholders Reject Proposed Calpine Plan.........

Equity holders overwhelming rejected the plan of reorganization (POR) Calpine management presented to both creditors and shareholders in a referendum that concluded November 27, 2007 with tabulated results reported just days ago. In addition, 6 of the 11 groups of interest casting a ballot also rejected the plan.

Shareholders of recovering Calpine, now set to emerge from bankruptcy, are in an uproar over what they view, as an apparent theft of their equity by banking and hedge fund interests.

A group called the Calpine Ad Hoc Committee has been speaking out against what they view as a "rape on Main Street," where the average investor is gamed by large investment institutions whose access to markets and large amounts of capital put the average investor at a distinct disadvantage.

"Because of the facilities the internet provides," says a spokesman for the group, "we have been able to pool our resources and unite in an effort to make the public aware of the injustices served to investors by corporations whose only interests are their own."

"I find it especially galling that we get bludgeoned with our own money, where the company has the ability to hire unlimited attorneys, squander what resources we have, pay themselves very handsomely while they are 'shafting us with our own stick', says one shareholder."

As Calpine enters the final stages of it's recovery to solvency, shareholders are learning they can expect to receive less for their share in the company. Emotions run high within the ad hoc shareholder group as the company's management continues to marginalize the equity in favor of creditor recoveries.

"Makes you wonder who these guys are working for? ...the banks or the lenders?," says another shareholder.

It would seem, the truth is they are working for themselves. Calpine's management has been enriched by awarding themselves with huge incentive awards as they short change investors.

" I don't think investors want what isn't theirs," reminds another shareholder, " but we do expect a fair shake. Judge Lifland and the Official Shareholder Committee is our only chance of getting it. This company and the people behind this fraud are masters of deception".

"The press coverage has been appalling, says one shareholder, "seems they are giving very little chance for much recovery to shareholders, but we as a group believe Judge Lifland is a fair man and want to do the right thing when he determines the company's value. He has gone to great lengths to have the parties in interest come to an agreement, and if they don't he will create one for them."

Bankers like Goldman Sachs stand to reap rich rewards as does hedge fund, Harbinger LLC, who intends to gain a controlling interest in the emerging power company, so their FERC filing reports.

"We understand the company is bankrupt," says Elias Felluss, spokesperson for the group, "and has the interests of the estate as its first priority. But that doesn't eliminate the responsibility of management to make an effort to maximize Calpine's assets rather than to minimize them....which is apparently what they are doing and at the expense of all investors. Shareholders have a reasonable expectation to see their assets maximized so both creditors and shareholders receive a fair settlement.

"it is really unnerving to see Mr. May who is a proxy for Deutsche Bank leading our company through this morass. Deutsche Bank was the lead banker for the "death spiral financing scheme that brought Calpine to the bankruptcy court in the first place"

"In the Enron implosion, the theft of equity occurred prior to bankruptcy," says Investor Village Monicor 'Sagamore', in the instance of Calpine, the thievery is occurring through the bankruptcy process. In many ways the Calpine bankruptcy strategy of obscuring assets is similar to the KMART bankruptcy fiasco."

No fewer than five (5) separate valuations have been presented, two (2) of which were trotted out by the Debtor management after the balloting referendum had concluded.

That is like electing one person for "President" and in his first announcement says "I would like to introduce you to your new President, 'Oprah'."

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.761.198 von topperle am 14.12.07 07:41:24

..jetzt haben wir solange gewartet (2 JAHRE!), jetzt spielt eine Woche wohl definitiv keine ROLLE mehr

[Charly_2]

Dieser Text geht an die US-Presse vom SH Ad Hoc Committee

JETZT wird DRUCK gemacht - Support for our SHC !

Schaunwermalwasdannkommt

Press announcement...Final ...
70% of Shareholders Reject Proposed Calpine Plan.........

Equity holders overwhelming rejected the plan of reorganization (POR) Calpine management presented to both creditors and shareholders in a referendum that concluded November 27, 2007 with tabulated results reported just days ago. In addition, 6 of the 11 groups of interest casting a ballot also rejected the plan.

Shareholders of recovering Calpine, now set to emerge from bankruptcy, are in an uproar over what they view, as an apparent theft of their equity by banking and hedge fund interests. Stockholders remain confident that the court will take a fair approach, as was done in the Mirant bankruptcy case and grant the shareholders between $4 and $10 for their shares.

A group called the Calpine Ad Hoc Committee has been speaking out against what they view as a "rape on Main Street," where the average investor is gamed by large investment institutions whose access to markets and large amounts of capital put the average investor at a distinct disadvantage.

"Because of the facilities the internet provides," says a spokesman for the group, "we have been able to pool our resources and unite in an effort to make the public aware of the injustices served to investors by corporations whose only interests are their own."

"I find it especially galling that we get bludgeoned with our own money, where the company has the ability to hire unlimited attorneys, squander what resources we have, pay themselves very handsomely while they are 'shafting us with our own stick', says one shareholder."

As Calpine enters the final stages of it's recovery to solvency, shareholders are learning they can expect to receive less for their share in the company. Emotions run high within the ad hoc shareholder group as the company's management continues to marginalize the equity in favor of creditor recoveries.

"Makes you wonder who these guys are working for? ...the banks or the lenders?," says another shareholder.

It would seem, the truth is they are working for themselves. Calpine's management has been enriched by awarding themselves with huge incentive awards as they short change investors.

" I don't think investors want what isn't theirs," reminds another shareholder, " but we do expect a fair shake. Judge Lifland and the Official Shareholder Committee is our only chance of getting it. This company and the people behind this fraud are masters of deception".

"The press coverage has been appalling, says one shareholder, "seems they are giving very little chance for much recovery to shareholders, but we as a group believe Judge Lifland is a fair man and want to do the right thing when he determines the company's value. He has gone to great lengths to have the parties in interest come to an agreement, and if they don't he will create one for them."

Bankers like Goldman Sachs stand to reap rich rewards as does hedge fund, Harbinger LLC, who intends to gain a controlling interest in the emerging power company, so their FERC filing reports.

"We understand the company is bankrupt," says Elias Felluss, spokesperson for the group, "and has the interests of the estate as its first priority. But that doesn't eliminate the responsibility of management to make an effort to maximize Calpine's assets rather than to minimize them....which is apparently what they are doing and at the expense of all investors. Shareholders have a reasonable expectation to see their assets maximized so both creditors and shareholders receive a fair settlement.

"it is really unnerving to see Mr. May who is a proxy for Deutsche Bank leading our company through this morass. Deutsche Bank was the lead banker for the "death spiral financing scheme that brought Calpine to the bankruptcy court in the first place"

"In the Enron implosion, the theft of equity occurred prior to bankruptcy," says Investor Village Monicor 'Sagamore', in the instance of Calpine, the thievery is occurring through the bankruptcy process. In many ways the Calpine bankruptcy strategy of obscuring assets is similar to the KMART bankruptcy fiasco."

No fewer than five (5) separate valuations have been presented, two (2) of which were trotted out by the Debtor management after the balloting referendum had concluded.

That is like electing one person for "President" and in his first announcement says "I would like to introduce you to your new President, 'Oprah'."

[Charly_2]

...Lifland kann noch negativ in die Geschichte eingehen, wenn er die Shareholder schraubt

Yes, the judge's does want to get CPN back on its feet but by the same token, it would be major for him to ignore the EV of this company. Experts are testifying that this company has a value of up to $30B+. Do you really think he can come in and say everyone gets paid off in full and the Shareholders get nothing. I don't think so. He has told them indirectly that they had better get together and come up with the REAL value. He has even gotten two independent expert evaluations himself. If he were going to give nothing, he would not have done that IMO.

He can get this thing healthily get back on its feet and still give plenty to the current shareholders. If he did not give the present shareholders, the stock would take off like a rocket when reissued and he would look like the biggest crook in history...even worse than the Enron crooks.

[Charly_2]

Es wird an einer Einigung mit den Shareholdern gearbeitet, zumindest sind Anzeichen dafür da

Once again in reading the testimony of November 27th I find these two hints as very interesting

This is going to be a long weekend.

In my earlier posting I posted several statements from the Nov 27th hearing:

I will review them for your reference;

The debtors attorney:"We are very hopeful of your
14 Honor's recent appointment of Bridge Associates pursuant to
15 Federal Rule of Evidence 706, it may be possible, and
16 forgive the pun, your Honor, to bridge the gap between the
17 two committees. In fact, your Honor, the debtors are
18 meeting with Bridge Associates and its counsel this
19 afternoon, Mr. Togut, to assist them in getting up to
20 speed."

and The Equity Attorney Gary Kaplan:

"MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, Gary Kaplan from
18 Fried Frank on behalf of the equity committee.
19 Your Honor, we will save our critiques and
20 arguments with respect to valuation to confirmation,
21 assuming we get there and end up in the battle of experts
22 that all of us are expecting.
23 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.

"assuming we get there" "bridge the gap"

[Charly_2]

Medien wollen reale Namen eingesetzt haben ...habe mich spontan gemeldet

70% of Shareholders Reject Proposed Calpine Plan.........
Calpine Ad Hoc Committee

Press announcement...Telephone: 631.262.xxxx

Equity holders overwhelming rejected the plan of reorganization (POR) Calpine management presented to both creditors and shareholders in a referendum that concluded November 27, 2007
with tabulated results reported just days ago. In addition, 6 of the 11 groups of interest casting a ballot also rejected the plan.
Shareholders of recovering Calpine, now set to emerge from bankruptcy, are in an uproar over what they view, as an apparent theft of their equity by banking and hedge fund interests.
Stockholders remain confident that the court will take a fair approach, as was done in the Mirant banktruptcy case and grant the shareholders between $4 and $10 for their shares.

A group called the Calpine Ad Hoc Committee has been speaking out against what they view as a "rape on Main Street," where the average investor is gamed by large investment institutions whose access to markets and large amounts of capital put the average investor at a distinct disadvantage.

"Because of the facilities the internet provides," says ------, spokesman for the group, "we have been able to pool our resources and unite in an effort to make the public aware of the injustices served to investors by corporations whose only interests are their
own."

"I find it especially galling that we get bludgeoned with our own money, where the company has the ability to hire unlimited attorneys, squander what resources we have, pay themselves very handsomely while they are 'shafting us with our own stick', says one shareholder."

As Calpine enters the final stages of it's recovery to solvency, shareholders are learning they can expect to receive less for their share in the company. Emotions run high within the ad hoc shareholder group as the company's management continues to marginalize the equity in favor of creditor recoveries.

"Makes you wonder who these guys are working for? ...the banks or the lenders?," says --------, another shareholder.

It would seem, the truth is they are working for themselves. Calpine's management has been enriched by awarding themselves with huge incentive awards as they short change investors.

" I don't think investors want what isn't theirs," reminds------------merle ,another shareholder," but we do expect a fair shake. Judge Lifland and the Official Shareholder Committee is our only chance of getting it. This company and the people behind this fraud are masters of deception".

"The press coverage has been appalling, says one shareholder, "seems they are giving very little chance for much recovery to shareholders, but we as a group believe Judge Lifland is a
fair man and want to do the right thing when he determines the company's value. He has gone to great lengths to have the parties in interest come to an agreement, and if they don't he will create one for them."

Bankers like Goldman Sachs stand to reap rich rewards as does hedge fund, Harbinger LLC, who intends to gain a controlling interest in the emerging power company, so their FERC filing reports.

"We understand the company is bankrupt," says ------------, spokesperson for the group, "and has the interests of the estate as its first priority. But that doesn't eliminate the responsibility of management to make an effort to maximize Calpine's assets rather than to minimize them....which is apparently what they are doing and at the expense of all investors.

Shareholders have a reasonable expectation to see their assets maximized so both creditors and shareholders receive a fair settlement.

"it is really unnerving to see Mr. May who is a proxy for Deutsche Bank leading our company through this morass. Deutsche Bank was the lead banker for the "death spiral financing scheme that brought Calpine to the bankruptcy court in the first place"

"In the Enron implosion, the theft of equity occurred prior to bankruptcy," says Investor Village Monicor 'Sagamore', in the instance of Calpine, the thievery is occurring through the bankruptcy process. In many ways the Calpine bankruptcy strategy of obscuring assets is similar to the KMART bankruptcy fiasco."

No fewer than five (5) separate valuations have been presented, two (2) of which were trotted out by the Debtor management after the balloting referendum had concluded.

[Charly_2]

Next week - New York, ich flieg hin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY7X84O4lUM

[Charly_2]

Nochmals, vom SHC

B. The Equity Committee’s Valuation
The Equity Committee believes that the actual New Calpine Total Enterprise Value is significantly higher than the Debtors’ estimated New Calpine Total Enterprise Value. Based upon an analysis prepared by Perella Weinberg Partners, L.P., the Equity Committee believes the total distributable value is between $24.8 billion and $26.9 billion with a midpoint value of $25.8 billion. Accordingly, based upon the Debtors’ estimates of high claims and low claims, the Equity Committee believes that Equity Holders should receive New Common Stock with a value between $7.92 and $11.46 per share, with a midpoint value of $10.42. At this mid-point value, Equity Holders would receive 37% of the shares of New Common Stock. A summary of the Perella Weinberg valuation report was filed on November 20, 2007 and can be found at Docket
No. 6647.

C. The Equity Committee Does NOT Support the Plan and will be Objecting to Confirmation of the Plan The Equity Committee believes that the Plan should provide equity holders with a fixed recovery in New Common Stock. Because the Debtors’ Plan fails to provides a fair recovery to Equity Holders, the Equity Committee urges all Equity Holders to vote to reject the Plan. In addition, the Plan provides for releases of certain claims and causes of actions against a number of third parties relating to the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases. The Equity Committee urges all Equity Holders to opt out of the third party releases contained in the Plan.

The Equity Committee believes the Plan violates provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should not be confirmed. As a result, the Equity Committee intends to vigorously object to confirmation of the Plan. In addition, the Equity Committee intends to present evidence, including expert testimony, regarding valuation at the confirmation hearing. Further information and details with respect to the Equity Committee’s objections to the Plan can be found in the various pleadings the Equity Committee has filed in connection with the approval of the Disclosure Statement.

Dated: New York, New York
November 21, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER &
JACOBSON LLP
/s/ Gary L. Kaplan
Brad Eric Scheler (BS-8019)
Gary Kaplan (GK-4542)
Michael de Leeuw (MD-8479)
Susanna J. Gray (SG-7464)
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders

http://www.kccllc.com/kcc/documents/0560200/0560200071121000…

[Charly_2]

So geht's weiter

3. Confirmation Hearing. A hearing to confirm the Plan (the “Confirmation Hearing”) will
commence on December 18, 2007 before the Honorable Burton R. Lifland, United States Bankruptcy Judge, located
at One Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004. The Confirmation Hearing may be continued from time to
time by announcing such continuance in open court or otherwise, without further notice to parties in interest. The
Bankruptcy Court, in its discretion and prior to the Confirmation Hearing, may put in place additional procedures
governing the Confirmation Hearing. The Plan may be modified, if necessary, prior to, during, or as a result of the
Confirmation Hearing, without further notice to interested parties.

4. Record Date. The Record Date for purposes of determining which Holders of Claims and
Interests are entitled to vote on the Plan is September 27, 2007.

http://www.kccllc.net/impDateDocs.asp?D=1967

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.772.527 von Charly_2 am 15.12.07 01:34:31

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) a hearing will be held before the Honorable Burton R. Lifland, United States Bankruptcy Judge, in Room 623 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), One Bowling Green, New York, New York, to consider confirmation of the Debtors' Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Confirmation Hearing”).

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Confirmation Hearing will
continue to December 18, 2007, December 19, 2007 and December 20, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. (ET), if necessary.

http://www.kccllc.net/impDateDocs.asp?D=2044

[Charly_2]

Viel Holz

158. New Calpine Common Stock: 1,500,000,000 shares of common stock in Reorganized Calpine, par value $0.001 per share, to be authorized pursuant to the Reorganized Calpine Charter, of which up to 500,000,000 shares shall be initially issued and outstanding
pursuant to the Plan as of the Effective Date.

159. New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Creditors: All New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan, net of any shares reserved for issuance under the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan.

160. New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Shareholders: All New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan remaining in the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Subordinated Debt Securities Claimants after all Holders of Allowed Claims (other than
Subordinated Equity Securities Claims) have been paid in full.

161. New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Subordinated Debt Securities Claimants: All New Calpine Common Stock to be issued under the Plan remaining in the New Calpine Common Stock Pool For Creditors after all Holders of Allowed Claims (other than Subordinated Debt Securities Claims and Subordinated Equity Securities Claims) have been paid in full.

162. New Calpine Stock Reserve: The New Calpine Common Stock held in reserve pursuant to ARTICLE VII.C.3.

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712130000000…

[Charly_2]

Dynegy, Calpine Konkurrent - Ausblick 2008

Dynegy Inc. (DYN)

2008 Earnings & Cash Flow Estimates Call

December 12, 2007 8:00am ET

Executives

Norelle Lundy – Vice President Investor & Public Relations

Bruce Williamson – Chairman & CEO

Holli Nichols – Chief Financial Officer

Presentation

Operator

Hello and welcome the Dynegy Incorporated 2008 guidance estimates and future earnings conference call. [Operator Instructions] I’d now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Norelle Lundy, Vice President of Investor and Public Relations. Ma’am, you may begin.

Norelle Lundy

Good morning everyone and welcome to Dynegy’s investor conference call and webcast covering the company’s 2008 financial estimates and future outlook. It is our customary practice before we begin this morning, I would like to remind you that our call will include statements reflecting assumptions, expectations, projections and intentions of release about future events particularly with respect to the financial estimates and future outlook provided today. These and other statements not relating strictly to historical or current facts interpreted as forward looking statements. Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied in any forward looking statements.

For descriptions of factors that may cause such a variance I would direct you to the forward looking statements legend contained in today’s news release and our SEC filings which are available free of charge through our website atwww.Dynegy.com. With that I will now turn it over to our Chairman and CEO Bruce Williamson.

Bruce Williamson

Thank you for joining our call regarding our 2008 estimates and view of the future. We’re in New York this week for meetings with our investors, analysts and rating agencies, joining me on the call is Holli Nichols our Chief Financial Officer, along with several other members of our management team for questions and answers.

Let’s now turn to the agenda for our call which is highlighted on slide three for those of you following along online via the webcast. This morning we will cover the company’s anticipated financial results for 2008 and what we believe is a very compelling value proposition for our investors both now and into the future. I will begin by providing a strategic overview that discusses our value proposition in more detail, this includes the solid foundation that we’ve built, the optionally in the business model and our focus on operating, building and transacting to capture current value and create future value for our investors.

Holli will then provide 2008 estimates with an in depth look at value drivers and major assumptions by region. She will cover the sensitivities for our earnings in natural gas and heat rates, then an outlook to our future earnings potential, assuming supply and demand come more into balance in our operating regions.

Finally, I will conclude with a discussion of how we plan to create and capitalize on our options for the benefit of our investors. Following our prepared remarks we’ll be glad to take your questions.

Please turn to slide four. Let me begin by providing a snapshot of Dynegy and walk you through this somewhat busy slide in a counterclockwise manner, starting at the upper left. We’re an S&P 500 company with an equity market cap of about $6.7 billion. Our single line of business is power generation with nearly 20,000 MW of well run generating capacity. We have scale and scope in our key regions of the Midwest, West and Northeast US, as I will discuss later we expect the value of our operating assets to continue to rise as barriers to entry limit the supply and US energy demand continues to grow.

Further, we have aligned our commercial strategy with our financial strategy, specifically our capital structure and debt maturity profile to significantly mitigate financial risk and enable us to pursue a commercial strategy and seek to capture more of the up side benefits through the industry cycle.

We have an operate-build-transact strategy that is capable of generating meaningful cash flow today and sustaining and growing this discretionary cash position into the future. Going forward we expect to generate between approximately $200 and $600 million in cash annually before discretionary uses. This can ad up to more than 40% of our current equity market capitalization over the next five years. Expect this cash to then be available for whatever is the highest and best use for our stockholders. This could include growth opportunities, either organic or acquisitions, or it may become part of an option to return capital to our stockholders. The driver for this will be the rate of return we can achieve.

At the same time, we would anticipate uplift in our EBITDA. While I’m sure, as with any energy and commodity cyclical company it will not be linear, we do expect to average approximately 15% growth over roughly the next five years. Based on the cash generating capabilities of our incumbent assets, we believe there is significant unrealized value that is not reflected in our stock price as earnings have not necessarily caught up with fundamentally rising values.

Now looking at the blue bars on the bottom left of the slide you can see that based on a conservative valuation of 60% of replacement costs for our existing fleet and after considering debt the inherent value of our stock on a per share basis could range between $8.10 and $12.14. We are currently trading at or below the bottom of this conservative range leading what we believe is significant upside for our investors. When you consider the difficulty in developing new power plants an 80% replacement value might even ultimately be a more reasonable valuation, this would value our stock in a range of between $12.62 and $18.10 per share.

Please turn to slide five. This is another way to look at the same sort of valuation. This slide shows a range of gas and coal asset valuations as demonstrated by the blue and orange numbers respectively. These valuations relate to operating assets only, so we are not considering the value of any development assets in this table, not even Plum Point or Sandy Creek which are under construction and have substantial commercial contracts already in place. The grey screened portion of the table then represents an associated stock price valuation that would result. You start by understanding that the current replacement costs for coal asset is probably $2,500 plus per KW and a blend of simple and combined cycle gas assets at $600 plus per KW then go to where our stock has been trading lately you get a value implied in our current stock price is closer to $17.50 per KW for the coal assets and maybe only $300 per KW for the gas assets. This demonstrates that even with conservative assumptions regarding our assets we appear to be significantly under value today.

While new assets will have some marginal costs advantages and other positive attributes it will also take many years to site license, permit and actually build. Our plants our up and running and generating cash today. Therefore you could argue that higher and higher valuation should be placed on incumbent assets as barriers to entry continue to rise.

In parts of the US, including some regions where we have a presence, bringing new capacity online is already extremely difficult and will only become more so. This is compounded by rising construction costs associated with labor and material making the replacement costs I just referenced a generally upward moving target.

We basically see on the upside in our asset valuations as the US energy economy gets tighter and tighter and the United States competes for energy on a global scale. We believe as prices rise the value of the incumbent assets will increase and the stock price should follow.

Please turn to slide six. Over the years we have created a solid business and financial foundation that we believe is the right way to position our commodity cyclical business. Our foundation is grounded in strong business fundamentals and a solid balance sheet, ample liquidity, termed out unsecured bonds and the generation of free cash flow from our core operating business. We have what we believe is the most flexible capital structure in the energy merchant sector and we are well positioned in key power markets in the US given our strong performing assets.

In addition we have a management team that is experienced in managing this balance sheet and the energy business and knows how to execute in terms of capturing value for our investors. These metrics lead to our 2008 EBITDA projection of approximately $1.1 to $1.2 billion and our estimated core free cash flow range of $200 to $300 million. While these numbers demonstrate significant growth over the prior year they still do not represent the kind of results that are diversably capable of achieving during a full market recovery scenario that we anticipate occurring in the next few years.

Holli is going to take you through the aspects of our 2008 estimates in more detail but the key take away here is that we’ve built a strong foundation and capital structure to allow us to execute our commercial strategy and capture the coming upside for our stockholders.

This takes me to slide seven. We recognize that power generation is a commodity cyclical business and as such maintaining a solid foundation for creating and attracting value for investors through various options is a key focus. As demonstrated by the top section of this slide our first priority is to never lose site of our core business which is to generate and sell electricity in a safe, reliable and economic manner. Moving to the right we must recognize that the business cycle that we are operating in and adjust for variables such as seasonality, regional market and regulatory issues and global affects on commodity prices.

We must maintain discipline throughout the business cycle and keep our options open as cycles change. This includes linking our commercial strategy and capital structure to capture benefits and mitigate risk through the various cycles. To do that we will manage a diversified operating portfolio and maintain flexibility in the capital structure. One way we do this is by having minimal debt maturities through the anticipated market recovery period as demonstrated by the box on the right center of the slide. This, as I’ve said, allows us to be more opportunistic in taking on some commodity risks which creates additional opportunities for our investors. It also means that free cash flow above maintenance and environmental capital is not available to serve our stockholders in whatever is the highest and best use rather than going for debt service.

I would now like to direct your attention to the bottom portion of the slide which considers our 2008 generation gross margin by contract term length. Since we operate in three regions with different fuel, dispatch and merit order characteristics our forward sales decisions in each region are somewhat different. This is based on market fundamentals relative to our regional fleet profile. For example, our longer term contracts range to five years and longer. These contracts are intended to run to term and include tolls or long term power sales agreements related to the development projects. They provide predictable cash flow streams while passing though to customer’s environmental fuel and other key risk elements.

Medium term contracts ranging from two to five years are structured deals and financial products. They are intended to capture value from the midterm price trends.

Our short term sales, spot sales and contract sales with a duration of less than two years are more fluid or dynamic and we may move in and out of these positions regularly. This gives us the opportunity to optimize earnings from our fleet when we see advantageous market conditions. We believe in effective commercial strategy cannot be managed in isolation or on an asset based process; therefore, we look to the overall portfolio for diversification into our capital structure for ways to optimize our tactics.

Beyond commodity price decisions we also take into consideration collateral and mark to market impact. Therefore, we’ll continuously respond to the changing market conditions in order to be opportunistic in the commercial approach with a goal of being to strike a balance between core free cash flow predictability and upside participation for our stockholders.

Given commodity price trends we generally plan on entering 2008 somewhere between 50% and 65% of our expected gross margin already commercialized through contractual arrangements. You may recall this is somewhat up from a year ago when we planned on entering 2007 at about 50%. We have seen opportunities above the price points in 2006 so we have taken advantage of some of these as we’ve gone through 2007. We believe we still maintain good upside participation for our investors in 2008 and beyond.

Based on specific market conditions at any point in time we may be above or below this range since we actively manage our near term market positions of less than two years. Let me just say again, a key component of our ability to utilize this strategy is our capital structure which gives us the solid foundation to execute from and our well timed unsecured bond financing earlier this year that restored our structure to a corporate system from the project based that came with the gas fired assets that we bought from LS Power.

Please turn to slide eight. This slide takes a closer look at our three part value creation proposition. First we are focusing on our core business of operating and commercializing our power plants in an environment where our existing assets are increasing in value in earnings power.

Second, we are focused on building and expanding power plans by leveraging off of a pipeline of development opportunities. This includes investing portfolio greenfield and brownfield development opportunities to enable us to create value at various stages over time.

Third, we will look for opportunities to transact and grow our diversified portfolio. Here we will continue to evaluate growth options through industry opportunities. Underscoring all of this is fiscal discipline and respect for all of our investors whether they are fixed income or equity. While we are always looking for the right opportunities to grow our portfolio if those opportunities do not materialize we will continue to be relentless in our operating and commercializing our existing portfolio to maximize value for our investors.

We also will look at monetizing assets if that’s the best way to capture net present value. Examples of this occurred in 2007 when we sold a 22 year old gas fired plant well above replacement costs and when we sold a piece at Plum Point at a very low discount rate. All told, we sold about $600 million of assets this past year at very attractive prices because we saw more value in selling the assets than retaining them in our portfolio.

Please turn to slide nine. Here I want to cover in more depth the operational and commercial component of our value creation strategy. We have a track record of operating our assets safely, efficiently and reliably. With strong performance metrics related to in market availability I was particularly proud of the third quarter when we reached 94% in market availability for the coal fleet. The portfolio is generating meaningful cash flow as demonstrated by the year to date financial results and is well positioned to further benefit from market improvements resulting from defining reserve margins. We believe this will increase as I’ve said before the value and earning spower of these assets.

In the future we see upside from our core fleet as declining reserve margins prompt improvements in capacity markets. We believe evolution of capacity markets is an important step in meeting regional power needs and creating additional value capture opportunities.

Please turn to slide 10. Let’s take a quick look as a reminder of how diversified and balanced the portfolio is. Today we have nearly 20,000 MW of our key geographic regions Midwest, West and Northeast. This includes our Plum Point and Sandy Creek projects which are under construction in Arkansas and Texas. Overall our portfolio is well diversified in terms of geography fuel and dispatch with enhanced diversity providing greater financial stability. This diversified portfolio positions us to capitalize on weather driven demand as well as regional power market opportunities such as transmission constraints or plant outages.

Please turn to slide 11. Our market recovery is a key factor in determining the results and value of existing portfolio. As supply tightens, existing assets should become more valuable. Here we see how the different components of our fleet are positioned in a scenario where supply and demand are more in balance. The recovery time table for our Midwest assets which are slit between MISO and PJM extends to approximately 2010, while our California and Northeast assets are currently operating in a recovery environment marketed by relatively tight supply and demand.

We believe that slim reserve margins will prompt stronger energy and capacity pricing and will encourage the new development of power plants. While this is something the country ultimately needs, the reality is that building new base load plants is becoming more and more challenging. If permits are not already in place it will be difficult to bring into operation any new base load generation in the next five years.

Holli will show some of this again shortly along with how the tightening is impacting market clear and heat rates. The key take away here is that reinforces my earlier point that incumbent assets will continue to rise in value and approaching replacement costs.

Please turn to slide 12. Our second means of creating value for investors relates to building and expanding our portfolio, leveraging off of ongoing development opportunities. We are actively reinvesting in the business with a focus on high return greenfield and brownfield development projects which currently exist through a mature development platform of natural gas, coal and renewable options. As we just discussed building brings challenges however, one advantage we have over other IPPs is the advanced pipeline projects in various stages of the development process.

The execution of our development strategy can create meaningful new sources of cash flow as we anticipate value through the future operations and commercialization of these assets such as Plum Point and Sandy Creek. We can also modify portions as we did with both of these developments in 2007.

Please turn to slide 13. This slide demonstrates the multiple options we have for capturing value at various stages in the development cycle. We have already taken advantage of this in our two most advanced development projects which entered the development process in 2001 and 2003 respectively. In regard to these projects significant progress has been made in terms of harvesting value. The growth projects there are long term contracts to support financing. We have started construction with anticipated commercial start dates of 2010 for Plum Point and 2012 for Sandy Creek.

At Plum Point there have been locked in cash flows to reduce risk with additional PPAs which we will be working to do at Sandy Creek. On points project debt has been refinance on more attractive terms and we would have plans to try to do the same thing with Sandy Creek in the future. We monetized interest to harvest value from both those projects.

At Plum Point we recently sold a non-controlling interest in the facility for $82 million in cash plus assumption of project level debt. This transaction could be viewed as an interesting benchmark for the value of incumbent assets. Essentially a buyer was willing to pay approximately $2,800 per KW for an asset that is not expected to enter commercial operation until 2010. This transaction is expected to close this quarter. Drawing the comparison with incumbent assets that are producing cash today we believe that our operating full fired assets could be worth significantly more than the implied market values through our stock price.

Related to the Sandy Creek project we recently sold a 25% ownership interest plus the assumption of pro-rata construction costs to [Inaudible] Electric which is working to secure supply of reliable and economic energy for its central Texas customers. We were looking at entering into additional contracts at Sandy creek output prior to going to the capital markets for permanent project financing as was done with Plum Point. As we have with our other project PPAs we would seek to execute long term contracts to pass through fuel, transportation and environmental risks to counter parties.

Other development options, as I’ve said include several thousand MW brownfield and Greenfield opportunities. With these opportunities the money we are spending today is modest and the development portfolio is expected to be self funding through our plan of tactical monetization. Which should not be a big drain on our discretionary cash position going forward. Brownfield options have the advantage of being located at or near existing operating facilities and with the potential of some quicker development and commercialization and potentially some lower costs.

Let’s turn to slide 14. We’ve used this slide for a while now so let me go through it quickly with just a couple points. First, the chart at the bottom provides a set of estimates relating to the range of lead times and dollars per KW that it might be required to build power generation facilities of various types. Keep in mind that any type of project could vary significantly from these estimates in terms of the time and cost based on numerous variables such as material costs, resources due to demand and in addition longer dated projects may be subject to cost increases.

All of these projects are subject to rising construction costs as well, along with the combined barriers to entry. This slide leads to our competitive advantage in the development area. Because of our more advanced development options have been in the works for years through LS we believe we have much greater potential to actually build new capacity and create value for investors. The second key point is that if barriers to entry continue to block even our development JVs projects then we will see even more upside to the increasing value of our existing operating assets.

Please turn to slide 15. Finally, our value creation strategy includes transacting to grow the scale and scope of our portfolio and create new options while harvesting the imbedded value of the existing portfolio on an opportunistic basis. This means that we will look at transacting on an asset by asset basis or larger scale through combinations or acquisitions which actually generate greater value related to the elimination of duplicate cost structures. We continue to believe that large scale combinations and acquisitions will occur in this industry and we stand ready when an opportunity arises that is accretive to value.

We have also established a track record of executing transactions and integrating operations and systems to apply these capabilities as we continue to evaluate industry opportunities. In the future we are focused on continuing being opportunistic through continuous evaluation of growth through industry opportunities.

While Dynegy is prepared should the right opportunity come along we will not grow only for the sake of growth, rather we will take a very disciplined approach in analyzing any investment opportunity. If a transaction increases stockholder value we will pursue it, otherwise will we work with our current fleet and development options to maximize financial results and cash flow returns for our investors. For Dynegy, growth through transactions is just one way of creating value but not the only way.

Please turn to slide 16. A year ago Dynegy’s to do list had three big tasks driven my experience in the oil and gas industry about how to deal with large scale acquisition, like we executed in late 2006 to maximize value for our investors. The main tasks were first; complete the merger with LS Power to fully integrate the assets. Second, streamline the right hand side of the balance sheet to simplify the debt structure, reduce the increased covenant flexibility, and maximize capital available for our stockholders. Third, optimize the left hand side of the balance sheet to release value from some assets that don’t support our strategy and scale in key regions.

In this respect we have captured value over what we believe could be achieved if the assets had been held in our portfolio. Over the past year we have executed each of these initiatives capturing value every step of the way. We closed and fully integrated the LS assets focusing on harvesting the consolidation synergies while combining the portfolios very quickly and thereby demonstrating the benefits of consolidation.

In addition, we delivered strong financial results as demonstrated by our positive earnings for three consecutive quarters this year which was achieved through our continued focus on our strong operational and commercial capabilities and strategies.

That takes us to task number two. We streamlined our capital structure by refinancing the debt associated with LS Power through the use of Dynegy holdings unsecured bonds which provide significant financial flexibility. We believe that Dynegy’s capital structure today is now the simplest and most flexible in the industry and a structure that conserve our investors over the long term.

Third, with regard to the left hand side of the balance sheet and our efforts to optimize the assets, after LS Power combination we quickly reassessed the portfolio with focus on the three key regions. As a result we sold the CoGen Lyondell facility for approximately $880 KW and announced the sale of Calcasieu facility which is expected to close in early 2008. More recently you saw us continue these fiscal disciplines optimize the portfolio. We agreed to sell portions of our interest in Plum Point and Sandy Creek that I mentioned earlier which also demonstrates our ability to harvest value from the development business.

The bottom line is Dynegy has extremely well over the past year and continues to be disciplined and opportunistic while building a solid foundation to create and capitalize options for our investors.

With that I will turn it over to Holli.

Holli Nichols

As noted on slide 18, I’ll start with a regional overview that includes market drivers and how we expect our regional results to be driven by commodity prices, power prices, spark spreads and capacity markets. In terms of our regional highlights I’ll discuss our bilateral, tolling, RMR and financial agreements as well as our fuel and transportation contracts. I’ll cover EBITDA forecasts including energy and capacity revenues, cost of sales and operating expenses. In addition, I’ll discuss capital expenditures for the next five years.

Regional overviews covered in the next several slides include a significant amount of detail to assist you in your modeling effort. Specifically we provided major assumptions such as volumes, heat rate, prices and capacity factors for each region. Also, I’d like to point out that our businesses commodity cyclical with today’s estimates based on October 30, 2007, commodity prices. Additionally, this presentation contains Non-GAAP measures that are reconciled in the appendix of the presentation.

Let’s begin by turning to slide 19 for a look at our Midwest segment. Our 2008 plan for the Midwest includes an estimated EBITDA midpoint of $855 million, which reflect energy sales of more than $1.3 billion. In addition, Midwest EBITDA reflects capacity sales of approximately $185 million or about 18% of projected gross margin. Midwest EBITDA estimates are based on 2008 forward prices averaging approximately $68 million for CIN Hub and $81 billion for PJM West. In addition, we anticipate 2008 sales volume of approximately 26.5 million MWh which is an increase over 2007.

Market drivers for this segments MISO component include the outright power price for un-contracted base load volume in the capacity prices in the spark spread for natural gas fired units. For PJM the primary market drivers are capacity sales and the spark spread for un-contracted natural gas fired combined cycle units.

In terms of regional highlights, Midwest commercial arrangements include bilateral and tolling agreements as well as financial forward sales. A note on capacity markets, we’re already seeing the benefits of stronger capacity pricing in PJM but we have approximately 4,000 MW is evidenced by the results of recent capacity auctions. PJMs next phase residual market auction for the 2010, 2011 settlement period is scheduled for February of 2008.

While we haven’t yet seen the same dynamics in MISO where our Illinois base load coal fleet is located, that is a factor to consider as recovery progresses. We believe that PJM capacity results are a good indication of a trend that should extend into MISO. Bottom line is that we anticipate stronger free cash flow and increasing returns and values related to our existing assets as capacity markets develop.

Included in our contractual arrangements are up to 1,400 MW of bundled services related to the Illinois auction including up to 1,200 MW that expire on May of 2008 and then to another 200 MW that expire in May of 2009. These are the round the clock price of $65 per MWh with a load factor of approximately 50%.

As you will recall, the bundled products sold in the auction process included energy and various other services. We expect the Illinois Power Authority to solicit bids for energy only and that’s what we’ve included in our 2008 expectation. We’ve also included some level of additional services but not to the extent delivered in 2007. However, we won’t need to have as many MW in reserve as we did in 07’ to service the load following Illinois auction contract.

In terms of fuel turn your attention to our long term PRB coal and rail contracts. Approximately 100% of our coal requirement are contracted through 2010, with price re-openers about every two years. In addition to our coal contracts 100% of our rail transportation costs is contracted at a fixed price through 2013. The delivered price at our Baldwin facility a benchmark for our Midwest fleet is expected to be approximately $1.39 MMBtu. In our long term fixed rail contracts and relatively stable coal costs this $1.39 per MMBtu costs provide us a cost advantage especially as you compare that to market base rate which would likely be at or above $2.00 per MMBtu.

Please turn to slide 20 to cover our West segment. Our 2008 plan for the West includes an estimated EBITDA midpoint of $190 million which reflects energy sales of approximately $655 million; in addition, West EBITDA reflects capacity in RMR sales of approximately $190 million, that’s about 58% of projected gross margin.

Let’s look at market drivers in the West. In this segment spark spreads are a more important driver of financial results that outright power prices. This forecast is based on average spark spread of approximately $21.50 per MWh. While California doesn’t have a formal auction process we do anticipate greater demand for capacity in 2009 giving utilities reduced ability to meet resource adequacy across requirements. For our West segment we anticipate 2008 sales volume of approximately 12 million MWh which is also up from 2007. Market drivers for the West segment include the spark spread for un-contracted natural gas-fired, combined cycle and peaking units as well as ancillary services.

In terms of regional highlights less commercial arrangements include RMR contracts, tolling agreements and financial forward sales contracts. Overall keep in mind that the West has longer term contracts given the regions intermediate in peak portfolio. Additionally fuel price risk is generally past through on hedges and tolling agreements or purchased on as needed basis at index related prices.

Please turn to slide 21. Our 2008 plans for the Northeast include an estimated EBITDA midpoint of $185 million which reflects energy sales of approximately $800 million. In addition, Northeast EBITDA reflects capacity sales of approximately $225 million or over 60% of projected gross margin. Similar to the West segment spark spreads are a key driver for our Northeast segment. This forecast is based on an average natural gas spark spread of approximately $23 million. The calculated average oil spark spread is negative for our Roseton facility. However, as we have seen in the past, the fuel oil spark spread will likely be positive at times allowing Roseton to provide a contribution to earnings. Depending on weather and local conditions this contribution can be significant but for 2008 plan purposes we have included a decreased contribution from Roseton as compared to what we experienced in 2007.

Our Northeast segment we anticipate 2008 sales volume of approximately 10 million MWh which is an increase over 2007. On the New York ISO market drivers include the spark spread for un-contracted combined cycle gas, and fuel oil units and the outright power price for un-contracted baseload coal volumes. In the New England ISO the key driver is the spark spread for un-contracted combined cycle gas units.

Additionally we anticipate a formal capacity market auction to occur in New England in early 2008 for 2011 and 2010 capacity. Prices are expected to be somewhat higher than recent prices and PJM because of the cost of construction in the New England market.

In terms of regional highlights, Northeast commercial arrangement include bilateral capacity agreements and financial forward sales. Additionally, 100% of our Danskammer Coal supply is contracted at a fixed price through 2008. Taking a moment to step back EBITDA is not necessarily a good proxy for cash flow for the Northeast segment as a result of the amortization of the ConEd capacity contract and the Central Hudson Lease obligation. EBITDA differs from cash flow due to the independent facility capacity contracts with ConEd, where we receive payments of approximately $100 million per year. Of this amount only $50 million is recognized in EBITDA due to the purchase accounting treatment that resulted from the acquisition of Independent in 2006.

Also, for modeling purposes if you consider the Central Hudson Leases debt you’ll want to add back the lease expense of $50 million. Before we move on I want to provide you with more insight on the Northeast segment and specifically how to treat the Central Hudson Lease obligation in your modeling assumption as we received several questions on this topic.

Please turn to slide 22. GAAP requires that we treat our Central Hudson obligation as an operating lease. As such we will continue to recognize the $50 million lease expense on a straight line basis in EBITDA over the course of the contracted term of the lease. Our operating cash flow is burdened by the entire annual lease payment. In 2008 we have forecasted $144 million cash outflow in operating cash flows. In addition, the Central Hudson obligation is not include in GAAP on our balance sheet.

Many do consider this lease as a debt like instrument which would require adjustments to our GAAP financial statements for modeling purposes. For those who do, let me walk you through the items you should consider relative to the Central Hudson Lease’s impact on our 2008 financial estimate.

On the income statement first you would add back the lease accrual expense of $50 million to EBITDA; next you would add $74 million of imputed interest to interest expense. To get to net income you would need to include $23 million of deprecation and amortization and tax effect the higher EBITDA and higher interest expense as well as depreciation and amortization.

On the cash flow statement add back imputed principle of $70 million to operating cash flows as this would be included in financing cash flows. Imputed interest of $74 million remain in operating cash flow. Finally, you would need to include the present value of future lease payments of $770 million in debt. Regardless of how you think about the Central Hudson obligation we hope that this will help you in your modeling efforts.

Please turn to the next slide. Let’s now discuss anticipated capital expenditures over the next several years. Our plan anticipates CapEx of $640 million in 2008 but I want to take a minute to walk you through. The components start with general maintenance of $80 million and major maintenance generally related to outages of $115 million.

In terms of major maintenance CapEx from 2008 to 2012 you will notice some volatility. Here I’d like to point out that maintenance CapEx associated with our base load coal fleet is relatively static while CapEx related to our combined cycle fleet ranges more from year to year. In terms of our combined cycle fleet we anticipate outages every 24,000 run hours. While this may vary depending on unit size, equipment, age and other operating factors. However, over a five to six year period and assuming a 50% capacity factor we anticipate total costs for our combined cycle fleet of approximately $250 million.

As it relates to the consent decree program we continue to make progress in terms of our environmental assessment in the Midwest and we expect $150 million in spending associated with this effort in 2008. In addition, we expect $30 million related to other environmental project apart from the consent decree. These include mercury reduction initiatives SOx/NOx control equipment and projects related to the protection of marine organisms.

Moving to development CapEx we anticipate $220 million related to the Plum Point project which is 100% debt financed. In this case cash outflows are all set by financing inflows. Finally I’d like to point out discretionary investment CapEx of $45 million. Here I’m referring to projects that increase available capacity or lower a facilities heat rate by replacing or updating technology which in turn improves market availability. An example might be an upgrade to a steam turban on an existing unit.

With any of our discretionary projects we target an internal rate of return of 15% or better, creating an opportunity for improved earnings, cash flow and fast paybacks as its incremental in CapEx.

Please turn to slide 24. Now I’d like to cover our consolidated 2008 cash flow and earnings estimates. As this slide demonstrates, based on October 30 pricing curves we estimate total GAAP operating cash flow of $585 to $685 million for 2008. This includes a contribution of $1.1 to $1.2 billion from our generating business segment and a use of $550 to $540 million from other which primarily includes GNA and interest payments offset by interest income.

In addition to the CapEx I covered earlier investing cash flows include $200 million in net proceeds from asset sales and $125 million change in restricted cash that primarily reflects the reduction of cash collateral related to the Sandy Creek project and the release of cash from Plum Point debts facility. This brings our estimated 2008 free cash flow which is GAAP operating cash flow plus GAAP investing cash flow to the range of $250 to $350 million.

Adding back adjustments related to Plum Point development CapEx of $220 million, Illinois rate release of $10 million plus changes in restricted cash of $125 million and proceeds from asset sales of $200 million; our free cash flow for our core business is expected to be $200 to $300 million.

I’d like to point out that we had the opportunity to exceed 2007 free cash flow from our core operating business even though the Central Hudson Lease payment increased by approximately $40 million and the consent decree spending increased by approximately $60 million. In addition we will incur a full year of CapEx on the combined cycle assets added and the LS Power combination.

Keep in mind that these ranges to not make an adjustment for Central Hudson. If we presented Central Hudson as a debt obligation our free cash flow from our core operating business would increase by $70 million. If we would add back the imputed principle payment included in operating cash flow.

Please turn to slide 25. Here we have our 2008 earnings estimate broken out by segment, again, based on October 30 quoted forward curves for commodity prices. The EBITDA estimate for the company’s generation business segment is a range of $1.2 to $1.3 billion, which includes a range of $830 to $880 million from the Midwest segment, $180 to $200 million from the West segment and $175 to $195 million for the Northeast segment.

In addition, we estimate net expenses in the range of $135 to $125 million from other in the CRM segment. Other includes GNA costs of approximately $175 million primarily offset by interest income. This brings you to total EBITDA of approximately $1.1 to $1.2 billion. The interest expense is approximately $440 million with a tax expense of $90 to $130 million which reflects and effective tax rate of 39%. We project net income in the range of $140 to $200 million and EPS of $.17 to $.24 which is based on 840 million shares outstanding.

Please turn to slide 26. To reconcile 07’ estimated results with 08’ projections let me walk you through a series of adjustments all of which are based on range mid points. Starting with our 2007 core business EBITDA of $1 billion as estimated on November 8th, we first adjust our out realized mark to market income of $40 million bringing us to $965 million. These include the adjustments for looking at a $45 million increase related to an extra quarter of contribution from the former LS Power asset now included in Dynegy’s portfolio, net of course finding operating expenses. Other adjustments include $15 million increase related to higher prices and volume; a $40 million increase related to capacity sales, a $35 million improvement to EBITDA as a result a decrease insurance expense and various other efficiencies at the plant level.

A $25 million increase due to higher income as a result of increased restricted cash posted in support of our synthetic letter of credit facility and Sandy Creek collateral in addition to overall higher cash balances generated from operations. A $15 million decrease related to fees associated with development JV which may be recovered in the future, as they were in 2007. Finally a $10 million decrease related to other miscellaneous. A key take away here is that in comparing 2008 EBITDA projections to 2007 estimated results from our core operating business, excluding any mark to market impact we are anticipating an approximate 15% increase year over year with a range of EBITDA of approximately $1.1 to $1.2 billion.

Please turn to slide 27. We customarily demonstrate the sensitivity of our generation business in our EBITDA estimate natural gas commodity pricing. These sensitivities are based on full year estimates and assume that the natural gas price change occurred for the entire year across the entire fleet. If we apply mark to market accounting treatment there will be differences between EBITDA and the timing of cash received. These sensitivities exclude potential changes in portfolio value especially with contract values beyond 2008. To be clear 2008 earnings we have not attempted to estimate the impact of changing prices and the mark to market impact for contracts it will settle in 2009 and beyond.

Looking at the two boxes in the center of the slide you can see that for 2008 as of October 30th a $2.00 increase in natural gas would result in a $100 million increase in generation EBITDA as it relates to the portion of the portfolio that is not contracted whereas a $2.00 decrease in natural gas would result in a $60 million decrease in generation EBITDA. On a long term basis if you assumed an un-contracted position you could expect a $2.00 increase in natural gas to result in a $320 million annual increase in generation EBITDA. Conversely a $2.00 decrease in natural gas would result in a $200 million annual decrease in generation EBITDA.

As you can see, the downside is not linear to the upside due to the fact that assets will simply not run at a loss if the spread becomes negative. A key take away here is that natural gas sensitivities primarily impact our base load coal-fired generation in the Roseton fuel facility.

Please turn to slide 28. Let’s now turn to sensitivities relating to market by heat rate which impact our entire operating fleet. These sensitivities are based on “on-peak” power changes and full year estimates. Sensitivities assume a constant natural gas price of $8.25 MMBtu and heat rate changes are for a full year. Further, increased run times would result in increased maintenance cost which we have not attempted to reflect here.

In the box on the left which considers our 2008 contracted portfolio as of October 30, 2007, you can see that a change in market implied heat rate of 1,000 Btu/KWh would result in $130 million increase in generation EBITDA as it relates to the un-contracted portion of the portfolio. In this environment we only see heat rates moving upward, however, to show the impact of falling heat rates in our contracted portfolio we demonstrate here that a decrease of 500 would correspond with a $50 million decrease in generation EBITDA.

Looking at the long term and assuming an un-hedged portfolio and increase of 1,000 Btu/KWh would increase annual generation EBITDA by $370 million, while a decrease of 500 would lower annual generation EBITDA by $145 million. Once again, I’ll point out that downside is not linear to upside as we wouldn’t run assets in an uneconomic environment.

Please turn to slide 29. As Bruce discussed earlier declining reserve margins translate to expanded market implied heat rate. I the graph on the left we see how the different components of our fleet our positioned in a recovery scenario. The recovery time table for our Midwest assets which are primarily located in MISO with some in PJM extend to approximately 2010 while our California and Northeast assets are currently operating in a recovery environment marked by relatively tight supply and demand.

The graph on the right shows the rising market implied heat rate from January 2005 to October 2007 time frame in the Northeast the West and most significantly in PJM and MISO where our Midwest lead is located. The purpose of this graph is to show on average how much the heat rate has moved historically. For example, in MISO you see an increase of 1,000 Btu/KWh from January 2006 to January 2007. While the expansion may not continue at this rapid pace over the long term we do expect heat rates to continue to trend upward as more inefficient units come online and a tighter supply and demand scenario especially as markets reach the 15% to 20% reserve margin levels.

Please turn to slide 30. This leads us to our longer term potential in a market recovery scenario. Here I’d like to draw a comparison between our estimated 2008 total portfolio gross margin as seen on the left with the gross margin potential for our business in a market recovery scenario. You can see a flat contribution from the gas driven portion of our portfolio as seen in blue which assumes gas prices remain flat and a modest increase from capacity sales as seen in yellow. We believe that the real driver will come from expanding heat rates shown here in the red portions of the bars. As reserve margins decline incremental growth should be captured by our base load intermediate and peaking units.

While likely to be volatile an average annual increase of approximately 15% in EBITDA over the next five years would bring us to $1.8 billion. If we revisit Bruce’s earlier comment, valuing today’s assets using 80% of replacement costs we come to an inherent range of $12.62 to $18.10 per share or a medium price of $15.36 per share. If we apply and assume the EBITDA multiple in the nine to ten times range this implies future EBITDA in the range of $1.7 to $2 billion. Therefore, in the future we would expect EBITDA to largely follow gross margin and cash flow increases. This further supports Bruce’s earlier point that our stock price is currently trading at the bottom of replacement cost ranges offering significant upside for our investors.

With that I’ll turn it over to Bruce.

Bruce Williamson

Please turn to slide 32. Dynegy’s 2008 projections help demonstrate the competitively advantaged nature of our business which includes a solid balance sheet with net debt to cap now below 50% and 15% growth in core EBITDA. We also will have continuing solid free cash flow. While the 2008 range is not a significant increase over 2007 it includes previously mentioned increases in consent decree spending and maintenance CapEx associated with the combined cycle facilities and the increase of $40 million as related to Central Hudson so in reality it is an overall increase in line with EBITDA growth as Holli covered in more detail.

In addition our business attributes include ample liquidity and a flexible capital structure that enables us to pursue growth options or returns to shareholders. We have no significant debt maturities until 2011. We also have well positioned and well operated assets and a credible focused management team. Together these attributes create and help maintain a solid foundation for 2008 that extends to the future.

Please turn to slide 33. We’ve talked about building a solid foundation and our success over the past year but there remain a number of uncertainties that could impact the future of all energy companies. As a management team we constantly evaluate industry issues and conditions and ask ourselves fundamental questions to analyze an issue.

These are the who, what, when, where and how at the top of the slide. They are often followed by an immediate or intermediate and secondary impact of a given issue. On an ongoing basis we are weighing the impact of issues related to the general and regional continued tightening of supply and demand. We talked a lot about that today, sector consolidation and what it may mean and the opportunities it may create with a pricing that it may involve.

Weather and the impact that it has on everything from near term prices to scheduling our maintenance to having our assets in the market when they are needed by consumers. Regulatory impacts of such items as carbon legislation and what impact that will have on the cost of electricity to all American consumers. Regional market redesigns and how they will impact our fleet and of course global and national economics such as the US continues to compete for energy sources around the world.

In this respect natural gas and truid electricity are more and more driven by global competition for energy. We believe that maintaining awareness and continually evaluating issues and cultivating options are the right tools for managing these uncertainties.

One of our strongest attributes is in the diversity of the portfolio and the financial profile that gives us the ability and flexibility to respond to changes with the right option. We believe that through this chain of uncertainty we are investors links to opportunities can also then be identified.

Please turn to slide 34. In wrapping up our prepared remarks this morning we have demonstrated how the company is positioned for the future through our operate, build and transact strategy. It provides us with a solid foundation. The foundation is a platform for managing uncertainties in a cyclical business by creating and capitalizing on options.

This leads us back to our value proposition. Dynegy has the potential to produce strong results in 2008 and even stronger results in the future as power markets tighten. We expect annual cash flow before discretionary uses to be between $200 and $600 million annually. This could add up to as much as $2.5 billion of cash over the next five years and bear in mind that this $2.5 billion assumption is based on an assumption of natural gas remaining where it is now and that all excess cash is invested simply at Libor rather than invested in the business at a higher rate of return or return to shareholders.

Additionally, we are forecasting an annual average EBITDA growth of approximately 15% during this period as we enter market recovery. As demand increases our operation excellence and reliability track record will also be a key strategy for the company to capturing value.

Finally, we have a management team with a proven ability to operate, execute and respond to change. Bottom line is that we told you what we were going to do in 2007 and I believe we’ve delivered on those initiatives and delivered on our promises. During 2008 our commitment is to maximize the potential of this business platform and deliver even more value to our stockholders.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/57106-dynegy-2008-guidance-c…

[Charly_2]

Treffpunkt am Montag hier

NOTICE OF SHAREHOLDER ASSEMBLY...
If any shareholders plan on attending the first day valuation hearings on Monday, December 17, the meeting place will be 9:00am at The Blarney Stone on Trinity Place which is located behind Trinity Church at the foot of Wall Street....hopefully they will be open
Trinity Place is a 2 minute walk to the court house.

Look for someone with a tan leather furlined bombadier hat.....there wont be any other signs.

[Charly_2]

...Wir als Retailer haben gegen grosse Wall Street Adressen deutliche Nachteile - doch nun schlagen wir zu

Re: Internet is Used as Weapon in this David & Goliath Story
Internet is Used as Weapon in this David & Goliath Story

messages.finance.yahoo.com — Small investors are using the Internet to take on bankrupt Calpine. The Calpine Ad Hoc Committee has been speaking out against what they view as a "rape of Main Street," where the average investor is gamed by large investment institutions whose access to markets and large amounts of capital puts the average investor at a distinct disadvantage.

SHC Victory coming soon

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=13224&pt=…

[Dostojewski]

Guten Tag.

Wir sollten das Fell des Bären nicht verkaufen bevor er erlegt ist!

Einen Gruß rund um den Globus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

....da riechen grössere Adressen den Braten, da ist was zu holen...

...Aktien aufstocken könnte lukrativ werden

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?mode=&kind=&symbol=im…

Institutional Ownership hat innert 2 Wochen von 4 auf 7.3% zugelegt

SCHAUNWERMALWASDAKOMMT

[Charly_2]

...und Short Interest ist abgesoffen von über 220 Mio auf nur noch 15 Mio Aktien....

....wenn kein Wert in der Aktie wäre müsste SI logischerweise aktuell mutschos höher liegen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.778.845 von Charly_2 am 15.12.07 23:51:02

..nun wurde in den 2. Gang geschaltet

Doc vom Calpine Ad Hoc Committee wurde versandt an

Washington Post
NY Times
LA Times

Miami Herald
Atlanta Constitution
Chicago Sun Times
San Francsico Chronicle
San Jose Mercury News

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.780.638 von Charly_2 am 16.12.07 11:38:16

Back Door Platzierung hier, mitten ins Herz denn in San Jose ist der Hauptsitz von Calpine

http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/2007/12/calpine-shar…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.780.681 von Charly_2 am 16.12.07 11:52:30

..dieser Poster bringt es auf den Punkt

How is your hold long stock different than the one that is currently in BK. The management you relied upon to tell you the truth actually did. You did not get tricked into BK by hedge funds using Death spiral financing. You were not investing in Merchant power companies which was wise and or lucky of you over the last 5 years of wildly fluctuating energy prices. You assumption that this is all about penny pumpers is a little galling at this point.
The company in question has really no business in Bankruptcy other than it got stuffed there and now as it is coming back out of the process the Wall street Bank Goldman Sacks, at least one hedge fund and management are not willing to give the existing shareholders a chance to make back their losses over the course of future growth of the restructured company. If you want to dis some propaganda in these situations turn your spleen towards those that manipulate the heck out of the bankruptcy process.

Bet then maybe you are one of the Attorneys that feed at this trough?

MacBean

[Dostojewski]

Der folende Text ist die Google-Übersetzung von dieser Quelle:
http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/2007/12/calpine-shar…

Quity Inhaber überwältigende Ablehnung der Plan der Reorganisation (POR) Calpine Management präsentiert sowohl die Gläubiger und Aktionäre in einem Referendum dem Schluss, dass der 27. November 2007 mit tabelliert Ergebnisse berichtet, die nur wenige Tage alt. Darüber hinaus, 6 der 11 Gruppen von Interesse Casting eine Stichwahl auch der Plan abgelehnt.

Aktionäre der Calpine erholt, nun so eingerichtet, dass sich vor dem Bankrott, in einem Aufruhr über das, was sie gesehen, wie eine scheinbare Diebstahl ihrer Eigenkapital von Banken und Hedge-Fonds-Interessen.
Aktionäre weiterhin zuversichtlich, dass das Gericht einen fairen Ansatz, wie dies in der Mirant Konkursfall und gewähren den Aktionären zwischen $ 4 und $ 10 für die Aktie.

Eine Gruppe mit dem Namen der Calpine Ad-hoc-Ausschuss wurde gesprochen, gegen das, was sie als Travestie (Hrsg. Option: "Vergewaltigung") "On Main Street", wo der Investor ist gamed durch große Investitionen Institutionen, deren Zugang zu den Märkten und massiven Kapital Stellt den durchschnittlichen Anleger auf einen deutlichen Nachteil.

"Aufgrund der Ausstattung das Internet bietet", sagt Elias Felluss, ein Sprecher der Gruppe, "haben wir in der Lage, unsere Ressourcen bündeln und vereinen sich in dem Bemühen um die Öffentlichkeit auf die Ungerechtigkeiten serviert den Investoren nur durch Unternehmen, deren Interessen Sind ihre eigenen. "

"Ich finde es besonders ärgerlich, dass wir mit unseren eigenen zwang Geld", sagt Mike Jasper, "in denen das Unternehmen über die Fähigkeit zu mieten unbegrenzte Anwälte, vergeude, was Ressourcen, die wir haben, zahlen sich sehr hübsch sind, während sie" Wellenleitung uns mit unseren Eigenen Stick "

Wie Calpine in der Endphase seiner Genesung zur Zahlungsfähigkeit, die Aktionäre lernen können davon ausgehen, dass sie weniger für ihre Aktien an der Gesellschaft.
Emotionen hoch laufen im Rahmen des Ad-hoc-Gruppe als Aktionär des Unternehmens-Management-Marge weiterhin auf den Aktienmärkten zu Gunsten der Gläubiger Wiedereinziehungen.
An einer Zeit Calpine Management berichtet eine mögliche Erholung der Aktie über $ 3,00. Nach dem Stimmzettel wurden gegossen, Calpine revidierten ihre letzte Schätzung .41 cents. Nicht weniger als fünf (5) separate Bewertungen wurden präsentiert, zwei (2), davon waren trabte durch die Debitoren-Management nach dem Referendum hatte die Abstimmung abgeschlossen.
"Wie es wagen das Unternehmen neu bewertet werden 3 mal NACH dem Proxy's gesendet wurden, und zweimal nach der Stimmen wurden gezählt!" Fügt Cheri Stinson, Bay Area, Kalifornien, USA.

"Macht Sie fragen, wer diese Jungs arbeiten? ... Die Banken oder der Kreditgeber?" Calpine Aktionär sagt Erick Frick Zürich, Schweiz.

Es würde scheinen, die Wahrheit ist, sie arbeiten für sich. Vergabe von Insidern großen Anreiz Auszeichnungen, wie sie kurz ändern Anleger bereichert hat Calpine's Management.

"Ich glaube nicht, dass Investoren nicht wollen, was ihnen", erinnert Aktionär Merle Root of Colorado, "aber wir erwarten eine faire schütteln. Lifland Burton Richter und Offizielle Shareholder Committee sind unsere einzige Chance zu bekommen.

Felluss fügte hinzu: "Diese Firma und die Menschen hinter diesem Betrug sind die Meister der Täuschung".

"Die Presse Abdeckung wurde entsetzlich, sagt Kurt Giehler, Prospect Heights, IL," scheint sie kaum eine Chance geben viel Erholung für die Aktionäre, aber wir als Fraktion der Meinung, Richter Lifland ist ein fairer Mensch und möchte das Richtige zu tun Wenn er feststellt, den Wert des Unternehmens zu. "

Giehler fort, "Er hat zu große Längen haben die Parteien im Interesse einer Einigung zu kommen, und wenn sie es nicht schaffen, wird er für sie ein."

Bankers wie Goldman Sachs Stand zu ernten reich belohnt wie Hedge-Fonds, Harbinger GmbH, die beabsichtigt, sich ein Interesse an der Kontrolle der Macht aufstrebenden Unternehmen, die ihre Berichte FERC Anmeldung.

"Wir verstehen, die Firma ist pleite", sagt Tom Christiansen of Tennessee, "und hat die Interessen der Erbschaft als seine erste Priorität. Aber das beseitigt nicht in der Verantwortung des Managements zu machen, um zu maximieren Calpine das Vermögen, anstatt zu minimieren Sie .... Welches ist offensichtlich, was sie tun, und zu Lasten aller Anleger. Aktionäre haben eine vernünftige Erwartung zu sehen, ihr Vermögen maximiert so die Gläubiger und Aktionäre erhalten eine faire Lösung. "

"Es ist wirklich Eindruck machen, um zu sehen, Herr Mai, ist ein Proxy für die Deutsche Bank führende unseres Unternehmens durch diesen Morast." Felluss fort, "war die Deutsche Bank führen Bankier für die" Spirale Tod brachte, das die Finanzierung von Calpine auf die Konkurs-Gericht in erster Linie "

"In dem Enron-Implosion, den Diebstahl von Eigenkapital erfolgte vor dem Konkurs", sagt John Clements, Poway, Kalifornien, in dem fall von Calpine, der Diebstahl ist durch die auftretenden Konkurs. In vielerlei Hinsicht der Calpine Konkurs Strategie der Verschleierung der Vermögenswerte ist ähnlich dem Konkurs KMART Fiasko. "

Grundsätzlich, für die letzten zwei Jahre, wurde gesagt, die Aktionäre von der aktuellen Debitorenmanagement zu sitzen in der Ecke, das tun, was Sie gesagt, und schalten Sie sich ein! Wenn Sie nett sind, können Sie sich etwas zu knabbern an Abendessen.

Tja, viele sagen, dass die Koje zu!

Der Inhalt dürfte sich trotz der mäßigen Übersetzungsleistung trotz alle dem jedem erschließen.

Wie Charly schon schreibt, regt sich massiver Widerstand seitens der Aktionäre.

Hoffentlich ist Richter Lifland wirklich der "weisse Ritter" und tritt G&S, Harbinger, Deutsche Bank und Konsorten in den Allerwertesten!

Das Spiel ist nun wirklich zu offensichtlich und ziemlich unverschämt (unser Vermögen wird nachweislich seitens des Managements verbrannt und zusätzlich unterbewertet, um es am Ende im Austausch gegen eine dicke Bonuszahlung den "Heuschrecken" auf einem Tablett zu servieren). Das ist modernes Raubrittertum - das ist Diebstahl und Betrug!

Gut das die Öffentlcihkeit im Fall Calpine so sensibilisiert ist/wurde. Das dürfte die Entscheidung wohl durchdacht - wohlgemerkt von allen Seiten - vielleicht zu Gunsten der Aktionäre ausfallen lassen.
Alles andere wäre inakzeptabel.

Aber in Amerika ist nichts unmöglich (das Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten). Siehe den Klimabeschluss auf Bali und die Reaktion der Regierung Bush. Unglaublich das die Amis so einen Menschen zum Präsidenten gewählt haben!
Mich persönlich würde interessieren was der californische Gouverneur "Arnold Terminator Schwarzenegger" vom Calpine mitbekommt und wie seine Meinung dazu ist. Schließlich ist er in Sachen Klimaschutz Vorreiter in den Staaten.

Ich persönlich Glaube, dass der das Zeug zum Präsidenten hätte. Schade, dass das nach deren Verfassung nicht geht.

Einen schönen

und hoffen wir das Beste für die kommende Woche - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.780.946 von Dostojewski am 16.12.07 13:17:51

..CEO May soll der Steigbügelhalter der Deutschen Bank sein, welche ua. Calpine in die Insolvenz getrieben hat

[Charly_2]

..falls next two weeks für die Shareholders alles den Bach runter gehen sollte ist nach US-Gesetz noch dies möglich

http://www.uscourts.gov/journalistguide/appellate_process.ht…

Aussicht auf Erfolg ist aber eher als gering einzuschätzen...- geschraubt ist eben geschraubt

Unser SHC ist wohl auch bereits vor dem Ergebnis geschraubt, die verlassen sich wohl auch bereits auf den Richter, dass der die Kohle aus dem Feuer holt...falls nicht ist der Ofen aus....

...also eher nur Spielgeld hier ruhen lassen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.781.078 von Charly_2 am 16.12.07 13:51:34

Erfolgsrate für Winning on Appeal liegt bei unter 10%

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2005/11/odds_…

[Charly_2]

...Shit happens...hätte mir besser einige Aktien von Berkshire Hathaway ins Depot gelegt

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKN163708922007…

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.781.078 von Charly_2 am 16.12.07 13:51:34

Eine Wortmeldung zu nächtlicher Stunde:

Ich glaube nicht, dass das SHC zurück stecken wird.
Vielmehr ist jetzt deren Zeit für den finalen Auftritt gekommen - und die Presse/Öffentlichkeit beobachtet das Geschehen.

Theoretische könnte wirklich noch ein \"unbekannter\" Dritter zum Zuge kommen und sich Calpine einverleiben.
Wenn zwei sich streiten freut sich der Dritte und wir evtl. auch noch.

Wenn sich G&S und Harbinger mit dem SHC vor Gericht streiten und den Wert immer weiter nach unten prügeln, um die lästigen Aktionäre los zu werden, warum sollte in diesem Moment nicht ein \"unerwarteter\" Zugriff (Angebot) von einem Interessenten erfolgen? Dieser dürfte sich doch freuen, mit dem Bieten auf einem solch niedrigen Level anzufangen.

Was ich damit sagen will:
Es gibt garantiert weiterhin Interessenten, die Calpine lieber selbst kaufen würden, als sie G&S, Harbinger oder gar der deutschen Bank zu überlassen. Aber warum greifen die jetzt nicht zu?

Folgender grober rechnerischer Überschlag:

482.200.000 x 60 US-Cent = 289.320.000 Mio. US-Dollar Marktkapitalisierung.
http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/CPNLQ?dist=mktwstoryquote

Jetzt kommt ein potentieller Käufer.
Dieser ist bereit 20.000.000.000 US-$ Schulden zu übernehmen (hat Calpine überhaupt noch so viel?) bzw. zahlt die Schuldner aus und bietet für die Aktien 5 US-Dollar das Stück.
Das sind 2.411.000.000 US-$.
Zusammen (mit vermuteten Schulden i.H.v. 20.000.000.000 US-$): 22.41 Milliarden-Dollar.
Bei einem Unternehmen das laut SHC-Schätzung round about 10 US-Dollar pro Share Wert sein soll, würde ich einen Schnitt von 2.4 Milliarden Dollar machen. Mehr als 10 Prozent Rendite!
Und selbst wenn ich es nach dem Kauf gar nicht betreiben will (eigentlich verrückt bei den positiven Zukunftsaussichten im Hinblick auf den Bedarf an sauberer Energie), könnte ein solches Unternehmen scheibchenweise wieder verkauft werden. Selbst wenn ich Zinszahlungen an dieser Stelle mit einrechen würde, dürfte immer noch ein Gewinn übrigbleiben.

Wo ist mein Denkfehler? Warum greift keiner zu?
Oder ist Calpine doch nichts Wert?

Wir werden sehen. Möge diese Woche unsere Woche werden!

Grüße in den frühen Montag Morgen, einen erfolgreichen Wochenstart und nat. frohes Schaffen - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.787.399 von Dostojewski am 17.12.07 02:18:25

Harbinger will sich billigst die ganze Firma unter den Nagel reissen, es ist zu hoffen dass da noch wer auftaucht um diesem Pack einen Strich durch die Rechnung zu machen

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.787.474 von Charly_2 am 17.12.07 07:13:14

Guten Morgen.

Es wird doch wohl einen amerikanischen (oder auch ausländischen) Investoren aus der Energiebranche geben, der die finanzielle "Power" hat und in dessen Portfolio dieses strategische Geschäftseinheit hineinpasst!

Es sei denn wir denken noch einen Schachzug weiter und gehen von der Annahme aus, dass Harbinger im Auftrag für einen solchen handelt, der beim "Massakrieren" von Calpine nicht selbst öffentlich in Erscheinung treten möchte, auf die Gefahr hin seinen guten Namen verlieren.

Warten wir ab, ob, und wenn ja wie, die Kuh vom Eis geholt wird.

Gut, dass die Öffentlichkeit bei einem Fall solcher Größe sensibilisiert hinsieht. Ist Calpine das erste große Unternehmen welches nach den "neuen Regelungen des Chapter11" behandelt wird (oder was das Mirant)?

Es grüßt - Dosto

(Die grüne Farbe im Gesicht trifft am besten die Wiedergabe meines Gemütszustandes im Bezug auf die bevorstehenden Ereignisse diese Woche.)

... und außerdem ist auch noch Montag

[voltago01]

Es gibt garantiert weiterhin Interessenten, die Calpine lieber selbst kaufen würden, als sie G&S, Harbinger oder gar der deutschen Bank zu überlassen. Aber warum greifen die jetzt nicht zu?

Hatten wir, glaube ich schon mal. Wenn jetzt jemand Calpine einfach kauft, hat er das gleiche Risiko wie die jetzigen Altaktionäre, dass er beim Exit aus Chapter 11 enteignet wird. Er müsste also einen eigenen POR vorlegen, um seine Interessen zu sichern. Und sich dann mit allen Parteien darauf verständigen. Wie man jetzt schon sieht, ist dies sehr mühsam. Ausserdem ist die Frist für einen Gegen-POR womöglich schon abgelaufen. Viel bequemer ist es daher, CPN nach dem Exit zu übernehmen.

Bei einem Unternehmen das laut SHC-Schätzung round about 10 US-Dollar pro Share Wert sein soll, würde ich einen Schnitt von 2.4 Milliarden Dollar machen. Mehr als 10 Prozent Rendite!

Nur dass die Firma nach Ansicht von CPN selbst gar keinen Wert hat...

Im übrigen, warum sollte jetzt jemand 5 $ bieten? Über die Börse könnte man zur Zeit dicke Pakete zu einem Bruchteil davon einsacken. Wenn jemand aktuell Interesse hätte, hätte er längst gesammelt und der Kurs stünde deutlich höher.

Und was die Unterbewertung der Assets angeht, das ist im Konkursverfahren durchaus üblich. Wenn hier eine mittelständische Betrieb Konkurs macht, wird das Firmenvermögen oftmals regelrecht verramscht. Selbst wenn die Firma durch einen Aufkäufer weitergeführt wird, wird sie vom Konkursverwalter oft deutlich unter Wert veräussert, weil der Aufkäufer das Risiko eingeht, ob er die Firma wieder in die schwarzen Zahlen bringen kann.
Auch CPN macht wohl noch keine Gewinne.

Daher ist es sehr schwer, zu sagen, wo der "faire" Wert von CPN liegt. Bleibt nur das Beste zu hoffen...

Viele Grüsse in die norddeutsche Tiefebene und darüberhinaus...
voltago01

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.788.643 von voltago01 am 17.12.07 10:35:50

Voltagooooooooooooooooooooo01 ... schön Dich hier wieder zu lesen

Für mich ist hier eh alles zu spät, ich bin mit einer Masse meiner finanziellen Streitkräfte in diesem Kessel in eine eingeigelte Verteidigungsstellung übergangen und harre verbissen aus. Immer in der Hoffnung das Entsatz kommt und der Ausbruchversuch gelingt.

In vielen Dingen steht Calpine für mich als ein zweites Verdun, oder Stalingrad.

Wenn das hier schiefgeht - was ich partout verdränge - ist das der Anfang vom Ende. Oder vielleicht gleich das Ende?

Oder anders:
Dann komme ich, vom Regen, unter Umgehung der Traufe, direkt in die Sch.... .

Mich würde einmal Deine ganz persönliche Meinung zu dem Fall Calpine interessieren. Lassen wir die objektive und nüchterne Sicht der betriebswirtschaftlichen Perspektive ganz außen vor. Meinst Du nicht auch, dass das hier Abzocke aller übelster Sorte ist?

Grüße in Richtung Alpenfestung und darüber hinweg - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.788.643 von voltago01 am 17.12.07 10:35:50

Nachtrag:

Nur dass die Firma nach Ansicht von CPN selbst gar keinen Wert hat...


Na ja, frage mal einen Frosch zu seiner Meinung, wenn man ihm den Tümpel trocken legen will.

[voltago01]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.789.215 von Dostojewski am 17.12.07 11:27:10

Frage:

Meinst Du nicht auch, dass das hier Abzocke aller übelster Sorte ist?

Antwort:

Na ja, frage mal einen Frosch zu seiner Meinung, wenn man ihm den Tümpel trocken legen will.


Damit ist doch schon alles gesagt!

[CosmicTrade]

.

bald wird einigen der Schweiss über die Stirn rinnen...


OTHER OTC USA





.

[Wilhelmine04]

Guten Abend zusammen!

War heute nicht irgend ein Termin? Weiß schon jemand was? Ist ja gar nicht lustig, was da gerade passiert...

[Dostojewski]

Jetzt wird mit aller Macht Panik geschürt... man braucht wirklich Nerven - und ein bischen Fatalismus ist auch ganz gut.

Mädels ich esse jetzt erst einmal meine Packung Baldrian auf.

Gruß in diesen Horrormontagabend hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.759.907 von Charly_2 am 13.12.07 22:16:05

....gar nix ist entschieden worden bisher, sondern Calpine will emäss Mr. Cieri (Anwalt von Calpine) die Einwände der 6 Parteien die den POR ablehnen bis Mittwoch bearbeiten....

....das schaffen sie NIE bis dann

[Dostojewski]

Damit man mal einen Eindruck von diesen Leuten um Calpine herum bekommt:

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID…

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Schlechte Nachricht aus dem Court - das SHC wurde geschraubt - Value der Company liegt unter $20 Mrd. und die Anwälte des SHC haben das akzeptiert - das sind Dummköpfe!! - damit haben die Shareholders verloren !!:O

Die Shareholders bekommen 10% der Firma, aber sie müssen dafür Warrants (Call) in Aktien tauschen, dies bedingt dass man zusätzliche Kohle in die Finger nimmt, um den eingefahrenen Verlust zu decken.

Warrants geben das Recht, die neuen Aktien zu kaufen - in diesem Fall zu 115% vom Ausgabepreis, wahrscheinlich zu $23/ Aktie - das WIRD DER TEUERSTE WARRANT DEN ES JE GAB

Der Warrant ist nur bis im August 2008 handelbar, danach verfällt er wertlos...

Der Warrant wird separat gehandelt, man kann ihn kaufen und verkaufen....steigt die Aktie auf $30, kann man den Warrant für ~ $10 verkaufen - ziehmlich unwahrscheinlich, denn innert 6 Monaten wird die Aktie nicht soviel zulegen....und fällt die Aktie unter $20 ist der Warrant eh wertlos weil er nicht mehr im Geld liegt (Strike = Ausübungspreis = $20)

Vorgehen bis ex-Bankruptcy 31.1.2008

Bis zum 31.1.2008 sollte die Aktie wieder zulegen, denn der aktuelle Wert in Bezug auf den ausgegebenen Warrant liegt bei $0.725 (theoretisch!) .... aber wie wir wissen wird diese Aktie eh manipuliert nach Strich und Faden ...

...Zocker werden kaufen, in der Hoffnung bis dahin über 100% Gewinn zu machen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.797.161 von Charly_2 am 17.12.07 22:33:11

....Warrants halten bis nach dem 31.1.2008 ist die nächste Spekulation...

...wenn danach ein Übernahme kommt, müssen die wohl kräftig in die Tasche greifen und der Aktienkurs geht asap durch die Decke und der Warrant ist das x-fache eines US$'s wert...

...Shit....ist nicht mehr als die nächste Spekulation

[XIO]

0.34 US Dollar = 0.23573 Euro

mein lieber Schwan, back to the roots
...hätt ich nicht gedacht

[Dostojewski]

Das kann doch nicht wahr sein. Ist das jetzt eine Fakemeldung?

Gruß - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.797.161 von Charly_2 am 17.12.07 22:33:11

Wenn wir jetzt also ganz noch großes Glück haben (sofern man noch von Glück sprechen darf) steigt der Sharepreis auf $0.725.

Ich bin kurz vor dem Weinen.

[enuxx]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.797.438 von Dostojewski am 17.12.07 23:03:35

"Ich bin kurz vor dem Weinen."

Wegen 1% Verlust deines Depots?

[Charly_2]

Calpine Reaches Tentative Valuation Deal With Shareholders
Last update: 12/17/2007 11:20:30 AM

By Christopher Witkowsky
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--An attorney for Calpine Corp. (CPNLQ) said Monday the company has reached a tentative settlement with its shareholders and unsecured creditors on the power company's postbankruptcy value, a deal that would head off a fight that threatened to delay Calpine's exit from bankruptcy. Richard Cieri, an attorney representing Calpine in its Chapter 11 case, said the settlement would set the company's postbankruptcy value at $18.95 billion. That's down $400 million from the company's previous estimate of $19.35 billion. The tentative deal would give Calpine's existing shareholders warrants to buy up to 10% of the reorganized company's shares, in spite of the drop in the company's anticipated postbankruptcy value. The shareholders, who've insisted the company will be worth about $24.4 billion, wouldn't have recovered anything under the Calpine's reorganization plan if the bankruptcy court had agreed with the company's valuation. (This article also appears in Daily Bankruptcy Review, a publication from Dow Jones & Co.) Cieri, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan Monday that Calpine would push bank until Wednesday confirmation hearings on the Chapter 11 plan to give the company more time to resolve remaining objections. -Christopher Witkowsky, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4296; [e-mail] (END) Dow Jones NewswiresDecember 17, 2007 11:20 ET (16:20 GMT

[tjcc281086]

was nun?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.797.932 von tjcc281086 am 18.12.07 00:24:18

Gute Frage

Der exakte Warrant Strike Preis könnte etwa hier liegen, siehe unten - $26
...ist aktuell Spekulation da noch nicht bekanntgegeben....

Da es voraussichtlich pro gehaltene 10 Aktien nur 1 Warrant gibt, kann man die Rechnung, zB. für 20000 Aktien schnell machen:

20000/10 = 2000 Warrants

Ich will keine Kohle mehr investieren, so:
a) 20000 Aktien Verkauf sofort zu $0.35 = $7000

b) Steigt die Aktie auf $36, Verkauf alle Warrants für je ~$7-10 = $14-20000 (kommt drauf an wie schnell die Aktie steigt, ist Spekulation...)

c) Legt die Aktie nicht zu und liegt unter $26 am 1.8.2008 (Verfallstag der Warrants), so sind die Call-Warrants wertlos = Totalverlust!

Ich investiere, kaufe neue Aktien zu $26:
Kaufpreis neue Aktien = 2000 x $26 = $52000

Aktien halten und zu $36 in xx Monaten verkaufen
=> Gewinn $20000

legt die Aktie nicht zu ..... Verlust


The actual number is $18.9 Calpine (New Valuation Number) minus the new long term debt of $7.6 Billion (Was $8.0 Billion) = New Stock Holders Equity of $ 11.3 Billion.

The new stock IPO price will be divided by the number of shares that will be issue to swap out debt. Your number of 500 million makes sense.....So to get the price of the shares issued it will be $11.3 Billion equity divided by 500 million shares equals $22.60 a share.

So what is the warrant strike price?.....$22.60 issue price times 115% = ~$26.00....and because 10% warrants will be issued basically 50 million which will be one warrant for every 10 old shares.

[Charly_2]

Calpine to Cut Ch 11 Financing by $400M

By Associated Press December 17, 2007

Calpine Corp. will lower its bankruptcy-exit financing package by $400 million to $7.6 billion, under a deal with its lenders that gives the power company an extra week to emerge from Chapter 11 and loosens some of the loan's financial covenants.

Calpine said it agreed to amend the financing after its lenders, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., raised concerns that it wouldn't be able to meet all the conditions to access the financing "including, most significant, as to financial covenants."

The company said it disagreed with the lenders' interpretation but reached a deal to preserve the loan, which is "among the most valuable assets of the estates" and the "bedrock" upon which Calpine's bankruptcy-exit plan is built.

The changes, approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan Monday, give Calpine "additional room" to meet certain financial conditions and extend the closing deadline on the financing pact to Feb. 7 from Jan. 31.

Calpine had cautioned that it could lose its financing if it couldn't exit Chapter 11 protection by the end of January. Confirmation hearings on the company's reorganization plan were slated to begin Monday but have been pushed back to Wednesday.

"Put simply, the amended and restated exit facility contains far more favorable terms than (Calpine) would be able to obtain if requires to solicit an entirely new exit financing in current market conditions," the company said in court papers filed Friday.

Calpine negotiated the $8 billion exit loan before a recent credit crunch, fueled by a crisis in the subprime-mortgage industry, made it more difficult for companies to secure financing to exit bankruptcy protection. Tight credit markets forced auto-parts supplier Delphi Corp. to slash its proposed exit financing by $2 billion and has delayed Dura Automotive Systems Inc.'s emergence from Chapter 11.

Calpine, based in San Jose, Calif., supplies electricity to 27 million U.S. households and operates natural-gas-fired power plants.

Also Monday, an attorney for Calpine said the company has reached a tentative settlement with its shareholders and unsecured creditors on the power company's post-bankruptcy value, a deal that would head off a fight that threatened to delay Calpine's exit from bankruptcy.

Richard Cieri said the settlement would set the company's post-bankruptcy value at $18.95 billion. That's down $400 million from the company's previous estimate of $19.35 billion.

The tentative deal would give Calpine's existing shareholders warrants to buy up to 10 percent of the reorganized company's shares, in spite of the drop in the company's anticipated post-bankruptcy value.

The shareholders, who've insisted the company will be worth about $24.4 billion, wouldn't have recovered anything under the Calpine's reorganization plan if the bankruptcy court had agreed with the company's valuation.

Cieri, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan Monday that Calpine would push back until Wednesday confirmation hearings on the Chapter 11 plan to give the company more time to resolve remaining objections.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.798.116 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 01:56:47

..könnte eher so kommen, Warrant im Geld, dh. noch nicht gefährdet dass der Warrant bereits unter den Strike fällt und somit nicht mehr werthaltig ist

If the new issue is priced at $17.50, then we can hope for a strike price below that of $12.50 or $15.00 for in the money warrants. Also because of interest consideration a strike price of $15.00 might trade at a preminum for $3.50. I certainly hope we are issued in the money warrants. Although from some know it all bashers we have heard about the downside of the warrants but all the sides are not put together. IMO the deal is not a done deal and we will learn more tomorrow or Wednesday.

[Charly_2]

WICHTIG !

Alles was unten steht ist NICHT bestätigt, dh. der Richter Lifland MUSS den Entscheid fällen wie Calpine aus dem Schlamassel raus kommt...

...jedenfalls wurden mehrere 1 Mio und zig 100K Aktienblocks gekauft, dass die Balken krachen

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.798.133 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 02:20:45

Guten Morgen.

Eine verlorene Schlacht ist noch kein verlorener Krieg!

Aber das Calpine nur noch unter 20 Mrd. Dollar wert ist bleibt bestehen - stimmts?
Oder liegt die Entscheidung diesebezüglich seitens des Richters und des von ihm im Auftrag erstellten Gutachtens noch in irgendeiner Schublade?

Weil - wie Du schon geschrieben hast - immerhin wurden gestern in den USA rund 56,5 Mio. Aktien gehandelt (sprich auch gekauft)!!!

Es könnte doch noch eine Überraschung kommen!

Gruß - Dosto

[xxt]

Evtl. wurde das SHC ja damit gutmütig gestimmt, dass die Ausgestalltung der Warrants relativ attraktiv sein wird. Damit könnte ich leben.

[Dostojewski]

Was genau wird bzw. soll in den nächsten Tagen (bis zum 27.12.) überhaupt noch verhandelt werden? Nur das Bezugsverhältnis der Warrants?

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.799.076 von Dostojewski am 18.12.07 09:33:11

...also wenn sich die Parteien einigen dann kann man erwarten dass der Richter Lifland dem Deal zustimmt (er soll gestern nur gelächelt haben...), ohne die SHC-Crew überlegt's sich nochmals, das ist wohl eher unwahrscheinlich......

...diese SHC-Anwälte sind wohl fertige Deppen , lassen sich über den Tisch ziehen - der G. Kaplan soll sich wie Augenzeugen im Court auf dem IV-Board berichteten nach der Anhörung aus dem Staub gemacht haben, 2 Vertreter des Shareholder ad hoc Committees die im Raum waren mussten sich mit anderen Parteien unterhalten um Fragen beantwortet zu bekommen.

Bis zum Datum ex-Bk kann noch viel passieren...und Calpine steht ja danach eh mit einer inkompetenten Mgmt-Crew da, das bietet gerade noch eine grosse Angriffsfläche für eine Übernahme, denn dann können sie sich nicht mehr hinter Chapter 11 verstecken

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.799.807 von xxt am 18.12.07 10:38:54

...sehe ich nicht so, weil wenn schon Warrants dann müssen diese eine Laufzeit von 2-3 Jahren haben und nicht 6 Monate! ...sonst hat man keine Chance, falls der Kurs abschmiert sind die Warrants subito wertlos per Ablaufdatum 1.8.2008

PS: ...dass die Warrants nur 6 Monate Laufzeit haben ist noch nicht verbrieft, das war eine Aussage auf eine gestellte Frage im Court von gestern

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.802.806 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 14:42:11

...kommt dazu dass Harbinger auf 18% der Aktien kommt nach ex-Bk...

...hier muss man aufpassen, die werden dann weiter hedgen bis sie über 50% in Aktien an Calpine haben :O

[Charly_2]

...tönt hönisch

Under terms of the tentative deal, current Calpine shareholders will receive warrants to buy 10 percent of the undiluted shares of the reorganized company, attorney Richard Cieri said at a hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.802.689 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 14:32:41

Jetzt mal unter uns Klosterschwestern:

Sind das da im SHC alles Leute ohne Rückgrat, sind die extrem verblödet, oder alle geschmiert???

Ich sehe das doch richtig, dass das SHC sich aus Vertretern von Aktionären zusammensetzt - stimmts? Außerdem sind diese Vertreter selbst Shareholder - stimmts?

Wie können die einem solchen Deal zustimmen?

Sch... drauf! Die lassen sich über den Tisch ziehen wie Schuljungs.
Die haben uns Aktionäre verraten und verkauft.
Leider ist keiner von uns im SHC.

Jetzt lassen die sich mit den Warrants auf eine Wette ein bei der sie am Ende noch einmal abgekocht werden!

Diesen Deal hätte ich vor die Wand gefahren! Denen von Calpine und dem Rest der Gangster hätte ich die Pistole auf die Brust gesetzt und gesagt: "Entweder kriegen wie pro Share einen ordentlichen Betrag X, oder wir lehnen alles ab und ihr könnt euch euern POR und den 31.01.2007 in den .... stecken. Dann verhökern wir die Bude über Ebay und ihr habt wenigsten auch nichts davon!

Sitzen die heute wieder im Court, oder feiert das Calpinemanagement bereits zusammen mit seinen Anwälten, einigen Vertretern des SHC und Herrn Kaplan bei Harbinger in der Chefetage?

Gerade letzte Woche gab es um 22.15 Uhr einen Bericht im ZDF über Kalifornien und die Entwicklung eines Elektroautos (schon sehr weit gediehen). Kostet 100.000 US-Dollar mehrere Bestellungen liegen schon vor (auch der Terminator will eins). Geiles Design (ein Cabriolet in Sportflitzerform - so schnell wie ein Porsche. In der Beschleunigung noch schneller!)
Die in Kalifornien sind viel weiter in Sachen Klima als der Rest der USA. Insgesamt findet aber dort ein langsames Umdenken statt. Und wenn Bush ersteinmal weg ist, wird ein ganz anderer Weg eineschlagen!!!!!!!! Aber dann gucken wir schon lange in die Röhre und die fetten Gewinne mit Calpine fahren die Herren in den 10.000 Dollar Anzügen ein.

Das hätte anders ausgehen können und müssen - Dosto

PS. Mal sehen wie Calpine heute massakriert wird.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.804.086 von Dostojewski am 18.12.07 15:51:26

Was soll man dazu noch sagen...

...irgend was stimmt hier mit dem Kursgang der Aktie nicht....

...da wird die Aktie gedumpt und dann gekauft in Paketen >200K - massivst

...da scheint mir was zu kommen, aber was...ist wie immer - Insider wissen mehr

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.804.606 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 16:27:39

...aktuell wird vom Pack konzertiert die Platte "Warrants wertlos" gespielt in dieser Aktie, durch dumpen der Aktie wird alles aufgesogen das geschmissen wird....scheint so dass sich dies für das Pack noch lohnen wird

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.804.809 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 16:40:43

Aktuell ist die Aktie eindeutig zu billig um zu schmeissen `!!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.804.838 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 16:42:45

...der grösste Fehler des SHC war wohl diese Shit-Valuation, die hätten einfach IMMER den POR ablehnen sollen und Shares verlangen und wären somit nicht erpressbar gewesen

[Charly_2]

...ich schätze, dass man einen durchschn. EP von $0.75 haben sollte, um hier einigermassen break even rauszukommen...

...aktuell kann man noch verbilligen, aber das braucht CASH !

[Charly_2]

Aktuelle Sprachregelung in den PRs ist

"tentative"

=unverbindlich, vorläufig, nichts ist entschieden !

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.804.896 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 16:47:09

hab lange nur zugeschaut und bin dem pack dann gestern quasi in letzter sekunde in die falle gegangen. nachdem der kurs kurz von 0,58 $ hoch auf über 0,7 $ ist, hab ich mir (gottseidank nur) 2k zugelegt und bin hinterher weihnachtsgeschenke kaufen gegangen mit geld, das sich währenddessen in luft aufgelöst hat. aber wie sagten schon die alten lateiner: gegen dummheit kämpfen selbst die götter vergebens...

wenn jetzt nicht schmeissen, da die aktie zu billig ist, was dann? verbilligen? abwarten und tee trinken? baldrian nehmen und mit dosto eine selbsthilfegruppe gründen?

doch galgenhumor beiseite, gibts inzwischen schon anzeichen, wie es weiter gehen könnte?

grüße in die polarnacht hinaus (so schnell tag wird es wohl nimmer)

federico

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.805.764 von federico29 am 18.12.07 17:47:39

deine antworten waren schneller als meine frage, da könnte ich ja mit viel glück null auf null rauskommen. nochmal kohle reinstecken werd ich wohl nicht mehr, das ist mir zu heiss.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.805.764 von federico29 am 18.12.07 17:47:39

Schwierig

Kommt ganz drauf an was dann die DEFINITIVE Lösung sein wird (morgen Mittwoch müssten wir es wissen) für die Shareholders, jedenfalls sind diese Warrants sauteuer, ausser diese Bude wird gleich übernommen...

...von einem weissen Ritter der $25 Mrd. bietet...dann ist der
Warrant CPNW innert Minuten das 4-fache wert, von $1 auf $4...

Abwarten bis der definitive Entscheid da ist, allerdings bei 2K Aktien gibt es voraussichtlich nur 200 Warrants (pro 10 Aktien 1 Warrant), also da kann man gleich sofort schmeissen weil die Differenz minim ist....oder dann JETZT zukaufen....

Die Frage ist, wieviel Risiko will man eingehen - muss jeder selber wissen!

[Ayrton1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.805.753 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 17:46:53

Guten Abend alle zusammen. Nachdem der erste Schreck verdaut ist, stellt sich mir jetzt die Frage wie es weiter geht? Kannst du mir und vielen anderen da einen Rat geben Charly ? Ich hatte nochmal nachgekauft, in der Hoffung das alles Gut wird und nun das!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.805.966 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 18:00:04

...diese Kr.pelaktie kann demnext abgehen wie Anton und niemand weiss wieso

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.805.975 von Ayrton1 am 18.12.07 18:00:20

Was ist dein EP in $ ?

[Charly_2]

...stellt sich noch die Frage ob das valuation hearing gestrichen wird oder nicht...

..bis jetzt ist noch keine Meldung rausgekommen.

[Ayrton1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.806.034 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 18:03:23

Nun muss ich dich fragen was EP bedeutet?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.806.099 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 18:07:56

Zumindest gehe ich davon aus, dass die SHC-Anwälte noch eine Anhörung am Court verlangen (auch wenn die anderen Parteien dies NICHT wollen) und dann muss der Richter Lifland antraben mit allen Parteien, denn das ist das Recht jeder Partei in einem solchen Fall...

...der Richter darf dies nicht ablehnen!

Wird keine Anhörung mehr verlangt vom SHC, so wird es subito Klagen hageln.....und dann kann es teuer werden für Fried & Frank und Mr. Kaplan ist dann erst recht erledigt! Auf der F&F Homepage wurde beim Eintrag Kaplan bereits der Vermerk Calpine herausgenommen, scheint für F&F keine gute Referenz mehr zu sein

Also, das Game ist noch nicht vorüber, Calpine selber wird darauf drängen dass asap der Chapter 11 Spuk vorüber ist....

...aber es könnte immer noch eine überraschende Wende eintreten, denn $19 Mrd. sind einfach zuwenig für diese Bude

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.806.165 von Ayrton1 am 18.12.07 18:12:46

EP = Einstandspreis = Preis pro Aktie der bezahlt wurde

[Ayrton1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.806.278 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 18:19:54

Zur Zeit ist der Aktien Durchschnittspreis 2,80$ = 1,95 €

[Charly_2]

Die Laufzeit der Warrants in einem solchen Fall ist in der Regel 60 Monate...da hat man eine Chance was an Buch-Verlusten wieder auszugleichen...

..kann sein, dass unsere Kollegen im Court dies nicht richtig verstanden haben, anstatt six könnte es auch sixty geheissen haben und das wäre dann 60 und doch akzeptabel !

Hier noch eine detaillierte Sicht, die man adaptieren kann wenn die Warrants-Definition ausgegeben und bestimmt ist:

CPN-Wert: 18,95 Mrd. (ist bestimmt)
Aktien: 1 Mrd. (Annahme)
Aktien für Shareholder: 100'000'000 (10%)
Die 482,000,000 oldCPNLQ Aktien können die neuen 100,000,000 Aktien bekommen, wenn sie der Gesellschaft den Strikepreis bezahlen, dh. über den Warrant CPNW die newCPN Aktie kaufen.

Basisbetrachtung daraus: 4,82 oldCPNLQ entspricht damit 1 newCPN Aktie.

Basispreis pro Aktie ergibt $ 21.7825 ($18.95 + 15 % Preis-Aufschlag ist bestimmt worden).

Geht newCPN auf $25, kann man den Warrant für $3.2175 an der Börse verkaufen (25-21.7825).

Dies bedeutet, dass jede der gegenwärtig gehaltenen oldCPNLQ Aktien dann den folgenden Wert hat: 3.21/4.82 = $0.66.

Hat man für oldCPNLQ $0.60 bezahlt kann man die Kosten decken.

Kauft man zu $0.30 so kann man 100% Gewinn machen.

Kaufte man zu $0.70 müsste die Aktie auf $30 zulegen, usw.

Übersetzt ab dieser Quelle:
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=13743&pt=…

Also, hat man höheren EP oldCPNLQ als $0.70 ist es schwierig, das eingesetzte Kapital wieder zu sehen, leider

[Charly_2]

...die Marktkapitalisierung dürfte bei Calpine gering sein wenn sie aus Bk herauskommt, das ist eine grosse Chance dass die Aktien abgeht wie Anton - UP!

Sie wird ca. bei 7,4 Mrd. sein, MIR hat aktuell 9.9 Mrd., macht aber nur halb soviel Umsatz wie Calpine

The company is setting the beginning market cap at $7.358 billion for allocation to debt holders.
If they issue 500 million shares that equals ($7.358 / 500 = $14.71)
If they issue 450 million shares that equals ($7.358 / 450 = $16.35)

When the stock starts to trade, then the market will determine the correct valuation. That may be 1.5 times book as you suggest. Then the stock will go up 50%.
But to start with the company is setting the market cap at $7.358 as of yesterday.

[Charly_2]

Retailer werden geschraubt und das Pack macht den grossen Reibach...das nennt man US Bk-Gesetz

Nachbörslich
t 0.2655 200000 OTO 16:03:08
t 0.29 300 OTO 16:02:39
t 0.275 1000000 OTO 16:02:07
t 0.275 1000000 OTO 16:00:55
t 0.28 1724000 OTO 16:00:40
t 0.275 320000 OTO 16:00:35
t 0.28 20000 OTO 16:00:30
t 0.28 200 OTO 16:00:09

[Charly_2]

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=13835&pt=…

[savenm]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.806.774 von Charly_2 am 18.12.07 18:55:51

Hilfe!
Bin aus Italien und habe 15300 CPNQL-Aktien direkt im OTC über meinen Directa Trading Konto gekauft. Nicht billig, um 0,90$. Was wird mit meinen Aktien, muss ich Warrants kaufen (das will ich nicht)? Was wäre bestens für mich?

[Dostojewski]

Irgendetwas stimmt hier ganz und gar nicht!

Das investierte Geld habe ich "a fond perdu" abgeschrieben. Zu diesem lächerlichen Kurs werde ich garantiert nicht verkaufen! Ich werde aber auch keine Warrants zu haaresträubenden Bedingungen kaufen und dem schlechten Geld noch gutes hinterher werfen. Einmal Roulette reicht!

Das ganze Drumherum ist nicht stimmig zu dem was bislang vorgetragen wurde.

Das SHC wird garantiert gerade von denen in die Zange genommen, die nicht mit dem zufrieden sind wie es jetzt gerade ist. Vielleicht gibt es ja doch eine Sammelklage.

Oder es kommt doch ganz anders und das alles ist ein großangelegtes Ablenkunsmanöver.

Und wenn nicht... Pech gehabt.

Warten wir auf den Urteilsspruch des Richters Lifland.

Ich wünsche einen schönen vierten Advent, ein schönes Weihnachtsfest und am 27.12. lesen wir uns hier wieder.

Bis dahin Gruß und durch - Dosto

[voltago01]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.812.916 von Dostojewski am 19.12.07 11:52:13

Ich werde aber auch keine Warrants zu haaresträubenden Bedingungen kaufen und dem schlechten Geld noch gutes hinterher werfen

M.E. müssen die Warrants nicht gekauft werden, sondern werden einfach zugeteilt. Geld muss man nur in die Hand nehmen, wenn die Warrants werthaltig werden und man sie ausüben möchte (Meine Annahme, ohne Gewähr).

Gruss,
voltago01

[xxt]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.812.991 von voltago01 am 19.12.07 11:58:15

Ich hoffe mal, dass die Warrants börsennotiert sein werden. Hoffentlich auch in Deutschland.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.812.916 von Dostojewski am 19.12.07 11:52:13

Class Action - Sammelklage gegen Calpine

Hier kann man sich anschliessen

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=13983&pt=…

e-Mail-Adresse: you can email me at [e-mail].

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.813.464 von xxt am 19.12.07 12:33:07

Die Warrants werden in USA frei handelbar sein, das ist bereits bestätigt, ob auch in Deutschland ist nicht unklar - da muss man wohl den Broker in Deutschland fragen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.818.232 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 18:49:40

sollte heissen: ob auch in Deutschland ist nicht klar

[xxt]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.818.259 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 18:51:43

Entstehen durch die Klage irgendwelche Kosten? Gibt es Risiken? Wie läuft das mit der Klage als Deutscher?

[Charly_2]

Warrant Therm Sheet
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712180000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.818.385 von xxt am 19.12.07 19:02:21

>>Entstehen durch die Klage irgendwelche Kosten? Gibt es Risiken? Wie läuft das mit der Klage als Deutscher?

Einer Klage kann man sich in den USA anschliessen, allerdings ist man als Nicht-Amerikaner eh nur Trittbrettfahrer...Kosten unklar..

Risiko ist dass die Klage ins Leere läuft...dh. ohne Erfolg - dann sind zumindest Anwaltskosten zu bezahlen durch diejenigen die die Klage angestrebt haben...

Aktuell sollte man dem Geschehen vorerst zuschauen und nichts unternehmen, ob eine Klage zustande kommt wird wohl erst noch analysiert, um abzuwägen, ob überhaupt eine Chance auf Erfolg besteht.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.818.679 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 19:31:39

Wie vermutet gibt es pro 10 Aktien nur 1 Warrant und der Warrant läuft nur bis zum 25.08.2008 - das ist sehr schlecht da viel zuwenig lang wenn die neue Aktie bis dann nicht gewaltig zulegt verfällt der Warrant wertlos oder der Wert des Warrants wird rapide abnehmen!

Die Firma hat einen MARKET value von $18.9 Mrd. (noch unbestätigt) ab ex-Bk Datum (Mitte Februar). Auf dieser Basis ist ab dem 1. Tag jeder Warrant $3.78 (10% für Alt-Aktionäre = 1,89 Mrd./50 Mio Warrants) Wert, das sind mindestens gegen $0.70 pro CPNLQ-Aktie, dort sollte die aktuelle Aktie JETZT gehandelt werden...das zeigt dass aktuell gedumpt eingesammelt wird um später abzukassieren!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wenn die Aktie zu $1.00 gekauft wurde, dann ist somit die Kostenbasis pro Warrant genau $10.

Durch Verkauf eines Warrants kann man eine Aktie zu $23,88 erwerben (=kaufen) und ist damit wieder Aktionär der neuen Firma.

Oder dann kann man die automatisch eingebuchten Warrants an der Börse verkaufen...

Meine Strategie ist nun, die Aktien zu behalten und zu warten bis die Warrants eingebucht sind. Ich hoffe auf einen kräftigen Anstieg der ausgegebenen Aktien ab dem 1. Handelstag

..ohne die CPNLQ-Aktie legt bis zu letzten Handelstag noch kräftig zu...

Exhibit 21

Warrant Term Sheet

K&E 12307615.1

Calpine Term Sheet Regarding Warrants to be Issued to Holders of Interests Under

Calpine Plan of Reorganization

THIS TERM SHEET IS NOT AN OFFER WITH RESPECT TO ANY SECURITIES OR A

SOLICITATION OF ACCEPTANCES OF A CHAPTER 11 PLAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF

SECTION 1125 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE. ANY SUCH OFFER OR SOLICITATION WILL

COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND/OR PROVISIONS OF THE

BANKRUPTCY CODE. THIS TERM SHEET CONTAINS MATERIAL NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION

ABOUT A PUBLIC COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS.

This Term Sheet is among Calpine Corporation et al., debtors and debtors in possession

in Case No. 05-60200 (BRL), pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

District of New York (the “Debtors”), the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Calpine

Corporation et al. (the “Creditors Committee”), and the Official Committee of Equity Security

Holders of Calpine Corporation (the “Equity Committee”), with respect to the issuance of

warrants (the “Warrants”) under the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Joint Plan of Reorganization, as

amended (“Plan”).1

Notional Amount of Warrant* An amount to be determined and agreed among

the Parties intended to be equal to 10% of the

total undiluted issued and outstanding equity of

Reorganized Calpine on the Effective Date.

For illustrative purposes, assuming the

issuance of 500 million shares on the Effective

Date, the aggregate notional amount of the

warrants would be 50 million.

Exercise Price* For purposes of the Exercise Price on the

Warrants only, an amount per share based on

$11.942 billion of reorganized equity value as

calculated on the attached exhibit. For

purposes of clarity, in determining the Exercise

Price, the $11.942 billion of reorganized equity

value shall be deemed to remain constant;

provided; however, if, prior to the Effective

Date, there occurs any asset sale or other

disposition of assets (other than those included

in the Distributable Value in Miller Buckfire's

expert report) and the proceeds of any such

sale or distribution are not reinvested, retained

or used to reduce the Reorganized Debtors'

debt obligations, the Exercise Price shall be

reduced by such amount that is not so

reinvested, retained or used to reduce the

1 Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Plan.

2

K&E 12307615.1

Reorganized Debtors' debt obligations. The

purpose of the foregoing sentence is to ensure

that if equity value is reduced due to asset

sales, the Exercise Price shall be reduced

accordingly. For illustrative purposes,

assuming the issuance of 500 million shares on

the Effective Date, the exercise price would be

$23.88 per share.

Expiration Date Expiration date is the later of (i) August 25,

2008, or (ii) six months after the Effective

Date.

Anti-Dilution Mechanical anti-dilution only (e.g., stock

splits, stock dividends, etc.). No economic

anti-dilution.

SEC Registration Both Warrants and underlying New Calpine

Common Stock will be Section 1145 eligible

and freely transferable. No registration

required.

Implementation Issuance of Warrants, as well as customary

provisions, including without limitation a

stipulation between the Debtors and the

Creditors

Committee as to New Calpine Total Enterprise

Value of $18.95 billion (to which the Equity

Committee does not object), shall be

incorporated into the Plan. The Debtors shall

file a motion to modify the Plan to make it

consistent with this Term Sheet. Unless

otherwise agreed by the Parties, this Term

Sheet shall be of no further force and effect,

and all Parties reserve their rights to proceed as

if the Term Sheet had not been executed if the

Plan (as to the distribution of Warrants to

Interest Holders) and the motion to approve the

modification to incorporate the Warrants are

not approved by the Bankruptcy Court either

on the record at a hearing or by entry of the

Confirmation Order on or before December 20,

2007.

3

K&E 12307615.1

Plan Treatment Holders of Allowed Class E-1 Interests shall

receive their pro rata distribution of the

Warrants as their sole recovery under the Plan

on account of such Allowed Class E-1

Interests, regardless of the ultimate total

amount of Allowed Claims.

Treatment of Equity Securities Claims Term Sheet is conditioned upon Plan providing

that Equity Securities Claims shall be satisfied

solely by available insurance proceeds, if any.

Documentation Subject to definitive documentation

satisfactory to the Parties.

* The intent is for the Warrants, when issued, to have a sum certain defined for both the

notional amount and the exercise price per share as described above, whether based on estimates,

agreement among the Parties, or otherwise.

* * * * *

(the remainder of this page is intentionally left blank)

4

K&E 12307615.1

December 18, 2007

_____________________________________

CALPINE CORPORATION, et al., Debtors

and Debtors in Possession

By: /s/ David R. Seligman

Counsel to the Debtors

_____________________________________

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED

CREDITORS OF CALPINE CORPORATION

By: /s/ Philip C. Dublin

Counsel to the Official Committee of

Unsecured Creditors

______________________________________

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY

SECURITY HOLDERS OF CALPINE

CORPORATION

By: /s/ Gary L. Kaplan

Counsel to the Official Committee of

Equity Security Holders

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.819.849 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 21:07:09

SPEKULATION (bei dieser manipulierten Aktie weiss man NIE)

..also wer jetzt VOLLE KANNE Shares einsammelt der wird ex-Bk dafür sorgen dass der Kurs der neuen Aktie explodiert um dann die Warrants teuerst zu verkaufen

Ich warte darauf

Zudem ist aus meiner Sicht 19 Mrd. MarketCap einige Mrd. zu tief, diese sollte eher bei $25 Mrd. liegen....aber die Wallstreet versteht es zu manipulieren

[Charly_2]

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.819.849 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 21:07:09

hallo charly,

hab ich einen knoten im hirn oder was kapier ich da nicht: wenn 1 warrant $ 3,78 wert sein wird und ich dafür 10 aktien brauch, dann ist eine aktie jetzt doch ca. $ 0,378 wert und nicht 0,70, oder?!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.820.820 von federico29 am 19.12.07 22:35:20

Shit happens...wir werden es noch herausfinden

[Charly_2]

Basierend auf den verfügbaren Aufzeichnungen des Gerichts (alle öffentlichen Dokumente), wird erwartet, daß der Strikepreis des Warrants bei ca. $23 (Basis neue Aktie) sein wird, und die Aktie um ca. $ 30 zu stehen kommt wenn man eine Marktkapitalisierung von 500 Mio Aktien * $30= $15 Mrd. einsetzt. Dies gibt dem Warrant einen inneren Wert von ca. $5 - $6. Damit hat der Warrant etwa diesen Wert wenn diese Marktkap. erreicht ist. Wie sich der Warrant in den 6 Monaten entwickelt ist allerdings schwer abschätzbar und 1:1 abhängig vom Kursstand der Aktie und durch den schleichenden Zeitwertverlust bei Warrants nimmt der Wert gegen Ende der Laufzeit rapide ab, liegt der Warrant im Geld (Kurs der Aktie grösser als $23) so ist der Zeitwertverlust weniger gravierend - aber am 25.08.2008 läuft der Warrant definitiv ab. Vorher sollte man den Warrant möglichst teuer verkauft haben oder dann in Aktie gewandelt haben.

15 Mrd. Marktkapitalisierung ist realistisch, denn MIR hat mit halb soviel Umsatz wie Calpine aktuell 9,8 Mrd. Allerdings muss die Aktie bis zu dieser Marktkap. um 3,5 Mrd. resp. $7/ Aktie zulegen...

...und dies ist sehr ambitiös innert 6 Monaten!

Ich tippe mal auf einen Spike auf knapp über $30 innert 2-3 Monaten und dann geht der Aktie die Luft aus - Manipulation beginnt um die Warrantshalter zum Verkauf der Warrants zu bringen, dann MUSS MAN schmeissen...denn der Warrant verliert dann schnell an Wert !

[Charly_2]

Niemand weiss an der OTC genau wieviele Short-Aktien noch im Markt liegen, das können wie gemeldet nur noch 15 Mio oder dann ein Vielfaches davon sein.

...bis Ende Januar 2008 müssen diese Short-Aktien nun eingedeckt werden und das gibt der Aktie kursmässig hoffentlich noch einen gehörigen Druck nach oben !

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.833.646 von Charly_2 am 21.12.07 00:10:23

...und Naked Shorts Aktien hat's auch noch einige 100 Mio im US-Nirwana System...

Unterster Balken: 2,6 Mrd. Aktien, letzte Periode - gehört zu Ende 2005!
http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?CPNLQ

...wundere mich nur wie die noch eindecken könnten wo doch fast alle Aktien in festen Händen sind

[Charly_2]

Warrants kann an der OTC/ NASDAQ gehandelt werden.

Newsline...Calpine Announces Warrant Details

Calpine Announces Warrant Distribution as Part of Plan of Reorganization SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Dec 21, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/

Calpine Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: CPNLQ) announced today that as part of its Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan"), it will issue warrants to purchase approximately 50 million shares of its new common stock, or about 10 percent of the common stock to be issued pursuant to the Plan, to holders of its currently outstanding common stock. Each warrant will represent the right to purchase a single share of Calpine's new common stock. The exercise price per share has not yet been determined, but it is expected to be based on a stipulated reorganized equity value of $11.942 billion. For illustrative purposes, assuming the issuance of 500 million shares on the effective date, the exercise price would be $23.88 per share. The expiration date of the warrants will be Aug. 25, 2008 or the date that is six months after the effective date of the Plan, which ever is later. No fractional warrants will be issued and no cash in lieu of fractional warrants will be distributed. The warrants will be transferable, but they will not be listed on any exchange.

The specific number of warrants to be issued, the exercise price and expiration date have not yet been determined. In addition, the exercise price, when issued, is intended to be "out-of-the-money," although the extent to which it is or is not "out-of-the-money" will depend on the market price of the new Calpine common stock, which can not be known at this time. There can be no assurance that the warrants will be "in-the-money" at any time prior to their expiration date.

The currently outstanding shares of common stock will be cancelled on the effective date of the Plan and will no longer represent an interest in Calpine Corporation.

[xxt]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.846.524 von Charly_2 am 22.12.07 10:31:22

An welchem Tag wird gewandelt?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.846.779 von xxt am 22.12.07 11:57:40

..ich denke am 31.01.2008....

..aber noch ist es nicht soweit, Klage gegen den Entscheid des Court wird vorbereitet

Diese muss bis zum 28.12.2007 eingereicht werden beim Gericht.

[Charly_2]

aus anderem Board.....

What other shareholders are saying unconnected to the I/V Community................

I believe that what appears an attempt by Calpine to defraud shareholders may backfire if shareholders take legal action to object to the issuance of worthless warrants and give current shareholders shares instead of warrants.

In the confirmed Calpine exit Plan, is Exhibit 21, Warrant Term Sheet and the reference to the Miller Backfire analysis. The Miller Backfire analysis is also a part of the Calpine Exit plan.

In Exhibit 21 is the "without limitation a stipulation between debtors and creditors Committee as to New Calpine Total Enterprise value of $18.95 B (to which the Equity Committee does not object) shall be incorporated into the Plan."

When the revised Total Enterprise Value was submitted to the Court for the Plan confirmation prior to voting by all classes, Miller Buckfire estimated the updated TEV to be $19.350 B, a decrease of $900 M from the previous TEV midpoint. This decrease resulted in an updated Reorganized Equity Value of $8,801 B (High Claims) to $8,862B (Low Claims) which was less than the $9,619 B (High Claims) to $8,667 B (Low Claims) of the unsecured creditors who are to be given equity for their claims. Shareholders could get $0 or $0.41.

Then Calpine had to reduce exit facility by $400 M because lenders doubted that Calpine could meet loan conditions. This caused a bigger problem where the Reorganized Equity value would drop below the range where there was no equity left for current shareholders.

Thus, the warrant idea proposed by the Equity Committee emerged and Exhibit 21 was written and accepted by all Committees. The central most important point brought out in this Exhibit 21 is the stipulation to $11.942 billion as the reorganized equity which is now changed to a value much larger than previously estimated in the Miller Buckfire analysis of $8,801 B (high) to $8,862 B (low).

The important result is that the $11,942 B is now the number established by the Court and all Committees and it is much larger than the unsecured claims of $9,619 B (High Claims) and the $8,667 (Low Claims). Thus, it shows that in the approved waterfall payoff of creditors that after all claims of the unsecured creditors are paid there is equity left over for E-1 shareholders of $2,323 B (High Claims) to $3,275 B (Low Claims). The $2,323 B when divided by current shareholders of approximately 480 m results in a $4.84 (High Claims) value for current shares to $6.82 (Low Claims).

On exit from BK Dec 31 2007, shareholders would get shares as determined by the value they hold in old shares divided by $23.88 value set for the new Calpine shares.

Getting shares is much better than warrants that are not listed and expire in six months. The warrants will probably be set far out of the money (far above $23.88) so that there will be no chance for exercise of the warrants before they expire.

There is a big problem in the numbers that are now before the Court and approved by Judge Lifland. The $18,950 TEV does not result in a balance of $11,942 when secured debt of approximately $12 B are subtracted. This appears to indicate that the $11,942 B number was a manipulation to raise the exercise price of the warrants far out of the money so that in six months there would be no chance to exercise the warrant.

Recommend the Ad Hoc Committee under its letter head send pertinent parts of this email to Calpine and threaten suit to throw out warrants as not consistent with waterfall plan and the stipulated $11,942 B reorganized equity value. Calpine would certainly not want this to happen. A suit would certainly hit the papers and would the press and the Feds have a field day.

I would speculate Calpine would want to settle quietly to avoid a law suit. A proposal for warrants with Calpine shares selling on opening at proposed Miller Buckfire recommendations of $17.62 to $17.72 as adjusted for the $400 M lower exit facility and sales of assets such as the $144 M bonds etc. The strike price should be set close to the opening sale price so perhaps $20 exercise price with 5 year expiration would be very nice along with listing on the exchange.

Thanks,
GO

[Charly_2]

..nicht validiert ob dies so stimmt...

Per Exhibit to Term Sheet:$ Billions
Total Claims 19,552
-% Appreciation 15
-TEV 22,485
-Debt (11,037)
-Cash 494
-----------
Equity Strike Price 11,942 ( this includes 115% premium and is used for pricing warrants only)

Per 12/31/07 pro forma balance sheet
-Liab and Equity 24,160
-Liabilities (13,792)
-----------
Equity 10,368 (times 115% premium equals 11,923)

Conclusions:
-The 11,942 or $32.88 per share contains a 15% premium and the warrants are designed to be out-of -the-money by that amount.
-There is no $2Billion of extra equity floating around.

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14617&pt=…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14617&pt=…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.859.201 von Charly_2 am 23.12.07 23:46:47

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14617&pt=…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.859.201 von Charly_2 am 23.12.07 23:46:47

Aus aktueller Sicht ist der Wert $18,95 B eine erfundene Nummer - es ist nicht eruierbar wie dieser zustandekam, und ob dies inkl. die 1,4 Mrd. Cash und inkl. die 1,2 Mrd. NOL's ist .... dies ist nicht transparent ...

...dies ist derselbe Versuch (wie bei der Reduktion des Assetswerts nach Bk um 5 Mrd.) Intransparenz für eigene Zwecke zu nutzen, zu Lasten der Shareholder....

...und der Richter lässt dies ohne nähere eingehende Prüfung der präsentierten Zahlen einfach zu...und stellt den unsäglichen Deal noch als fair hin

So kann man natürlich die Shareholder schrauben und mit Warrants zu unfairen Konditionen abspeisen....


Re: $2B Equity No, 115% Premium...Nope
Well Oleguy .................

"....thats a good start. Now you need to look at the total of Unsecured Claims that will be given new Calpine equity to satisfy. Total Unsecured Claims run from $9.619 B (High Claims) down to $8.862 B (Low Claims). If you subtract out these claims ranges from the $11.942 B which is labeled "reorganized equity value" in Exhibit 21, you come out with the billions that I pointed out in my synopsis that should go to shareholders.

Since the entire $11.942 B in new Calpine stock is proposed to go to satisfy the Unsecured Creditors claims, if you divide that by the 450 m new Calpine shares that will be given to them to satisfy their claims, the value of each share of new Calpine stock works out to be $26.53/share. So thats where trading should start and that is certainly "well in the money" when compared to $23.88 warrant exercise price. That would be very nice.

So Calpine certainly has a problem if they try to work the exercise price "out of the money" within the constraints already stipulated to in Exhibit 21. They will have to come out with another Miller Buckfire magical analysis, as you have said, they will come out with whatever number you want.

The $22,485 TEV that you state below is not consistent with the $18,95 B stipulated in Exhibit 21. Thats another disconnect that don't make the numbers add up. The $18.95 TEV is way too small. You can't subtract the $11.037 B debt you indicate below and come up with thew $11.942 B equity.

For the $11.942 B equity the proper TEV is a lot closer to that you provided below, $22.485 B. The problem is that is not what is stipulated to in Exhibit 21, $18.95 B is what is stipulated as the TEV."

http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14619&pt=…

[Charly_2]

Ich wünsche allen schöne Weihnachten und einen guten Rutsch ins 2008 !

[macsoja]

Heute gibt es ja wieder massiv auf die Mütze, kann aber keinen Grund so richtig erkennen.

Bevor wir wieder vom "billigen einsammeln" finsterer Mächte reden, würde ich das ganze noch mal durchrechnen.

So weit ich das also verstanden habe, berechtigen 10 alte CPN-Aktien zum KAUF! einer neuen Calpine-Aktie zum Wert von $23.88 und zwar zum 25.8.2008.

Des weiteren haben wir ca. 500 Mio. Aktien.

D.h. bevor der Call überhaupt an Wert gewinnt, muß der Börsenwert der Firma bei mind. 23,88*500Mio = 11,940 Mrd. liegen.

Fakt ist auch, daß der Call überhaupt um 1 Cent steigt, wenn die Aktie 10 cent zulegt und damit 50 Mio Marktkapitalisierung zulegt.

Wie der Markt die Aktie bewertet werden wir sehen, fakt ist jedoch, daß einige Interessierte wohl schauen, wie Sie Geld für den normalen Aktienkauf zusammen bekommen, statt jetzt noch einen Call auf eine neue Aktie zu erwerben.

Auf der anderen Seite ist es auch eine nachvollziehbare Strategie, wenn man den Wert der Firma in den Keller drückt, um später mit deutlich positiveren Bewertungsansätzen den Kurs in die Höhe zu treiben, was dann vor allem dem Call zugute käme.

Trotz allem sollten wir uns konservativ damit abfinden, daß man derzeit ohne die Alt-Aktie deutlich sicherer ist, weil die Aktie nach Emission gewiß steigen wird, das haben restrukturierte Firmen nun mal an sich.
D.h. man steigt später in Ruhe ein und zerbricht sich nicht den Kopf, wann das Investment in einen Call überhaupt noch lohnt.

Was mir völlig unklar ist:
Seid Ihr sicher, daß die Shorts noch bedient werden müssen, wenn die Aktie Ihr Leben aushaucht. D.h. gibt es überhaupt ein Risiko für die Leerverkäufer, wenn keiner die Aktie haben will und sich auf die neuen Aktien konzentriert?
-> wohl eher nicht.

Fazit:
Man sollte genau überlegen, ob man immer weiter verbilligt und nicht mit einem ruhigen Investment in die Aktie besser fährt. Und ich denke, daß ist momentan die Devise.
Die Phantasie ist raus und keiner wird sich jetzt aufmachen, um VOR der Ausgabe neuer Aktien weitere Phantasien zu schüren.
Kommt ja auch darauf an, wo die restlichen 90% der Aktien platziert werden sollen -> wahrscheinlich im Markt und bei neuen Investoren und wird sich das Bild dann wieder verbessern.
Aber wie gesagt, die Frage ist, ob sich das für einen Call-Käufer noch lohnt, das muß jeder für sich klären.

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.876.393 von macsoja am 26.12.07 21:58:44

Hier mal eine schöne Liste, wo man sieht, daß der Börsenwert natürlich die 7,03 Mrd. Schulden noch mit sich herumtragen muß:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14205&pt=m…

[Ayrton1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.876.393 von macsoja am 26.12.07 21:58:44

Hallo alle zusammen,
kann mir jemand erklären wie ich meine Aktien in Warrents umtauschen kann? Und ab wann ist die möglich?

Gruß
Ayrton

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.877.775 von Ayrton1 am 27.12.07 11:05:49

Gute Fragen - einige Angaben dazu...

Hat man Aktien nicht in $ sondern in € im Depot, muss man unbedingt mit dem Broker abklären, ob Warrants auch in Deutschland ausgegeben werden und analog wie in den USA handelbar sein werden.

Der Warrant wird in den USA nicht an der gleichen Börse wie die Aktie (an der NYSE) gelistet, wo ist noch unklar...ev. an der OTC...was auf einen grossen Spread (Kauf/Verkauf) für den Warrant hindeutet...d.h. ungünstige Bedingungen für deren Handel

Hat man die Aktie CPNLQ im Depot, erhält man automatisch pro 10 Aktien je 1 Warrant eingebucht..diese sind dann sofort handelbar... der Anfangswert des Warrant ist nicht vorhersehbar, er ist abhängig vom Kursstand der Aktie...

Das genaue Datum ab wann die Warrants gehandelt werden können ist unklar, wenn die Warrants 180 Tage laufen und das Ablaufdatum der 25.08.08 ist dann dürfte dies ab ca. mitte Februar 08 sein...oder auch schon früher...oder später wenn noch eine Klage hängig sein sollte

=> Aktuell ist eine Klage gegen den Deal in Vorbereitung

Ein Warrant ist ein Risikopapier!!

Ausüben Warrant (Aktie kaufen):
Dies kann man mit dem Warrant während der ganzen Laufzeit (bis 25.08.08), das braucht zusätzlich Cash und kostet $23.88 pro Aktie, unabhängig davon wo der Aktienkurs gerade steht.

Verkauf Warrant gegen Cash:
Dies kann man während der ganzen Laufzeit, allerdings gibt es nur Cash als Gegenwert, wenn der Aktienkurs höher als $23.88 liegt...
...zudem unterliegen Warrants einem Zeitwertverlust...je näher das Ablaufdatum desto weniger ist der Warrant wert...im Extremfall sogar wertlos....also sollte man den Warrant in den ersten 2 Monaten schmeissen wenn der Aktienkurs hochschiesst, falls überhaupt...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.877.617 von macsoja am 27.12.07 10:36:29

...die Liste ist eine theoretische Betrachtung. Schlussendlich wird der Markt asap zeigen wo der faire Marktwert liegt...

...alleine die über 20 Geysers-Anlagen mit 800 MW repräsentieren schon einen Marktwert von über $3 Mrd. und stehen mit lächerlichen $300 Mio in den Büchern

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.879.238 von Charly_2 am 27.12.07 14:11:02

Hi Charly,

klar ist das theoretisch oder sagen wir konservativ.

Aber besser man wird positiv überrascht, als andersrum, denn das hatten wir ja schon zur Genüge

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.880.041 von macsoja am 27.12.07 15:50:31

..ja klar!

[Charly_2]

Sollte ein Appell oder Klage beim Gericht gegen den POR-Entscheid eingereicht werden, so wären die folgenden Punkte berechtigte Inhalte:

Das Gericht sollte aufgefordert werden, Teile zu überdenken, die den 6. POR für die Calpine Corporation Reorganisation betrifft, die vor kurzem am NY-Gericht am 19. Dezember 2007 gefeilt und bestätigt wurde.

Die Bestätigung, dh. der Inhalt des Plans muss als teilweise fehlerhaft beurteilt werden (ua. hat der Richter den POR einfach mit dem vorgetragenen Zahlenwerk akzeptiert ohne diesen im Detail überprüft und in einem Abschluss-Hearing mit den Parteien diskutiert und zu einem Akzept geführt zu haben).

=> Dies ist vom US Bancruptcy-Gesetz her unzulässig denn alle Parteien müssen angehört werden!

Der Richter hat Calpine in aller Eile den POR abgenommen und damit die Aktionäre geschraubt, um zu vermeiden dass der Termin vom 31.01.2008 noch hinausgeschoben werden muss, denn an diesem Termin hängt die $7,6 Mrd. DIP von Goldman Sachs!
=> Dieses Vorgehen ist unakzeptabel, denn die Prüfung der Faktenlage und der korrekten Zahlen ist unabdingbare Voraussetzung für die Akzeptanz des POR!

=> Eigentlich ist eine umgehende Prüfung der CPN-Bilanz und des erfolgten Monats-Reportings von Calpine unabdingbar um die betrügerischen Machenschaften aufzudecken. Diese Prüfung muss durch einen unabhängigen Gutachter erfolgen, da jegliches Vertrauen bei der Calpine-Gurkentruppe verspielt ist!!

Der Richter hat einen Mangel an Transparenz zugelassen, ob willentlich oder nicht steht nicht zur Debatte, ist aber Tatsache.

Treuhänderischer Ausfall der obligaten Schuldnerverwaltung um den Besitz (von Calpine) zu Gunsten aller Parteien, inkl. der Shareholder zu schützen.

Falsche Berichterstattung durch Calpine, herunterschrauben des Firmenwerts durch Falschangaben - Willentlich? betrügerisch? in Folge Fehlern der Beteiligten oder der Insider?
=> Es wird ein unabhängiger Gutachter/ Revisor gefordert, der die Bücher und Machenschaften zu untersuchen hat

Findet der Revisor heraus, dass der Firmenwert gegenüber den Gläubigerklassen falsch dargestellt wurde und damit auf falschen Tatsachen basiert (die der Richter akzeptierte), ist eine entsprechende Lösung zu treffen, in welcher die Aktionäre entsprechend abgegolten werden.
Im Extremfall ist Chapter 7 anzuordnen, dies wäre der Verkauf aller Anlagen mit Abgeltung der Aktionäre wenn man nicht zu einer akzeptablen Einigung kommt, denn dann entscheidet der Markt über die erzielbaren Preise!

An einem Appell an das Gericht wird gearbeitet, ich gehe davon aus dass diese eingereicht wird, noch dieses Jahr! Ob das was bringt ist schwierig einzustufen, aber vorerst besser als nichts!

Vielleicht gibt es ja noch andere Parteien die intervenieren, zB. grosse Aktienhalter oder CALPERS, wo die Mitarbeiter von Calpine ihre CPNLQ-Aktien (als Renteneinlagen) verwaltet bekommen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.883.471 von Charly_2 am 27.12.07 22:09:51

...und das SHC habe ich hier noch nicht "gewürdigt"...

...aufgrund deren PRs, wie zB. vor Gericht durch Gerry Kaplan von Fried&Frank - die Aktie sei $6-$7 wert und die Bewertungsstudie von PW mit einem Firmenwert von über $24 Mrd. haben sich viele in der Aktie zusätzlich eingedeckt...

...und sitzen aktuell auf einer Aktie zu $0.195...

...wenn dieser Gerry Kaplan der sich als Chief des SHCs weinerlich am letzten Gerichts-Hearing präsentiert haben soll (und danach abgehauen ist grrrrr), wenn der nicht Teil einer Gurkentruppe ist....

.....dieser Kaplan ist nach meiner Ansicht nun auch erledigt - der hockt nun wohl irgendwo in den Alpen beim Skifahren, der muss sich wohl infolge Misserfolgs demnext einen Job als Liftboy suchen....

[Charly_2]

Vorabversion ans Gericht - da sieht wohl jede(r) dass die Shareholder mit dem Vorgehen nicht einverstanden sind !

.................
.................
Petitioner


UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________

In re: )

) Chapter 11

Calpine Corporation, et al., )

) Case No. 05-60200 (BRL)

Debtors. ) Jointly Administered
___________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO RECONSIDER CONFIRMATION

Comes now the Petitioner, Shareholder Elias A Felluss, pro se, to beg the court to reconsider portions of this Court's confirmation order. Namely, as to the manner in which the Calpine Debtors have made their interpretation regarding the Calpine Corporation's Sixth Plan of Reorganization (The Plan) recently filed and confirmed by order in this court on December 19, 2007 as referenced in Judge Lifland's Confirmation Order, Section U, paragraph 64. And finally, in consideration of the implications inherent to shareholders.

Elias A Felluss, a shareholder is not affiliated with the Calpine Corporation now or any time in the past, nor was the Petitioner associated with the Board of Directors or the Official Shareholder Committee this court affirmed to organize.

The Petitioner is not an institution nor does he have significant resources. It is very likely that his motion is liable to find the petitioner in contempt, incarcerated and all without ever having uttered a word....

What few words are mentioned here will have little or no bearing on the outcome, but the Petitioner believes it is important enough to have these ideas recorded. The intent here is not to stop or stall the proceeding but to put on the record the deep dissatisfaction most shareholders both past and present have felt as this bankruptcy has progressed. The deep dissatisfaction lies in the manner in which the Debtor Management, Debtor Board of Directors, the shareholders own counsel and in some ways, this court has treated shareholders. Now it would be fair to say there are many shareholders here, myself included who have only had shares for 2 years in the Calpine Corporation. However, in the capacity of moderator of the Calpine Ad Hoc Committee, the Petitioner can say there are many shareholders who have been with Calpine for many, many years only to see their investment and confidence in the company wiped out. The Petitioner's only hope is this motion will serve as a record with regard to those dissatisfactions.

The Petitioner comes before this court in the belief he has standing on the ground that the confirmation order is flawed, and the shareholders status and standing would not be destroyed because of the existence and separate representation of a shareholder committee. (CITATION) Further, the Petitioner asserts he has been damaged by errors in ministerial calculations, which accrue to the benefit of senior classes of creditors and materially at the expense of this shareholder, as well as others in the shareholders in this class. (CITATION)

The Debtor's finding of fact upon that which a distribution can be made is entirely unreasonable based on the evidence and in agreements already stipulated to by all parties in interest during this Calpine bankruptcy proceeding goes beyond general accounting principles

Furthermore, this shareholder petitioner did not vote in favor of the Plan for Reorganization and did not waive any right to further litigation.

Additionally, a stay in this petition has not been requested. However, it would be remiss to not say it would be egregious to the court to permit a distribution to be made by the Debtors ahead of a forensic examination of the Debtors calculations with regard to the warrants that shareholders can expect to receive. The intrinsic value of these warrants, since this is the shareholders only recovery should be stayed by the Court's order until such time as the Debtor can represent both with clarity and transparency a satisfactory accounting.

Speaking for the Petitioner, this shareholder wants nothing that isn't his.

A filing of a MOTION TO RECONSIDER, alone, does not stay anything. A stay is a form of relief that needs to be sought independent of the notice of appeal and is not requested here.

There is a sufficient ground to make a motion the court for reconsideration when a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence upon which an Order was given.

Background

To comprehend the magnitude one would have to unwind four years of Calpine corporate history. and is not the purpose here. Like a Gilbert and Sullivan trilogy, there would be much to cover with little of germane value. Facts not in dispute and borne out by the historical record, however, are worth noting.

It is useful to re-create the context within which we now find ourselves.

In the summer of 2005, Calpine under its predecessor management sought to liquidate its holdings in gas and oil interests to a group of insiders, reconstituted in a new company called ROSETTA. In fact, the current Debtor Management has a suit filed to recover some of what it can recover as a result of that transaction. The prior company management, having executed this dislocation of assets. In the following months, the previous Debtor management had a suit filed against in Delaware in the jurisdiction of Judge Leo Shrine. The Plaintiffs in that action sought to cure a breach in their financing covenant which they accused Calpine of broaching.

The precarious nature of the Calpine's financial structure, witness the now concluding bankruptcy proceeding, could withstand no assault by the creditors. Calpine was found guilty of breaching those covenants and judgment was in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Ironically, the creditors now to receive a controlling interest in the NEW CALPINE were the same creditors who brought this action to Delaware and were both instrumental in funding the Rosetta transaction. These same groups of creditors were sponsors, at a discount, the convertible debentures which allocated shares so that the company would there by undermine its very own share structure. In other words, this proceeding, if these allegations can be borne out, was a result of a fiscal suicide of sorts. The Petitioner would also add these stated premises are easily verified by journals of record.

Under the direction of the same BOD that favored the disposition of the oil and gas interests, Chairman, Mr. Derr summarily dismissed the prior management team, Peter Cartwright, CEO and Mr. Kelly, CFO.

With the CEO Peter Cartwright and CFO Kelly, gone, Chairman Derr installed Robert May as the restructuring CEO and was hired to lead Calpine out of the morass it now finds itself.

Following his appointment, Mr. May assured all stakeholders in a press release, he would be an arbiter of good will and look after for all parties of interest.

To wit, there are a great many shareholders who relied on what Mr. May said as far as recovery was concerned and continued to maintain there position hoping they would get new shares in the company. Now they find their investment is virtually wiped out. We are speaking about many people who can least afford to sustain such a financial setback. And because in part, by comments made by the Debtor Management.

Since the time of Mr. May's announcement there has been evidentially an absence of "Good Faith" in his duty to maximize the estate to the benefit of all holders. (CITATION)

This malfeasance extends even to reporting and identifying the assets of Calpine and how they are carried on the balance sheet. Calpine has steadfastly refused to provide a line item valuation for plants and equipment and was asked many times by shareholders for just such an accounting.

It does not come as surprise a line item for plants and equipment would not be provided as the company has concealed from its shareholders the true nature of its balance sheet. However, an as an example, it is known the Geyser facilities in Northern California are carried on the books at $300 million dollars less depreciation.

$300 million dollars for a facility secured by the DIP loan facility of $4 Billion dollars?

This is curious and has miffed shareholders for sometime. It gives the appearance the company has been concealing its assets both from the view of shareholders and this court. One could even surmise this is both odious and somewhat unseemly.

Had Calpine been forthright then all holders of interest would have been able to faithfully exercise their own due diligence. The Debtor management denied this disclosure.

The point here is the company has not been forthright with its shareholders to which they still have a duty, not that their books are suspect.

The law requires even having relinquishing sovereignty to the court of the company's affairs, the debtors and Board of Directors still the remaining obligation to maximize the estate to the benefit of ALL holders. The refusal of Calpine to render an accounting of its assets is evidence of bad faith, not good faith. (CITE)

In the court's haste to assist the Debtor's emergence from Bankruptcy, so that the debtors might meet the requirements of its exit financing package, and among other reasons, the court may have been misled by erroneous accounting when it confirmed the PLAN. The Petitioner makes no assertion as to whether the erroneous reporting of the Debtors finances were causal by intention or faulty accounting practices.

The thrust of this motion to reconsider is focused on ministerial errors made by the Debtor where material damage accrues to the Petitioner and numerous others in the shareholders class as follows:

In the Miller Buckfire report on valuation and the "waterfall" distribution which all parties stipulated to, forms the basis for the warrants to be issued.

Confirmed by the court, the net equity provided therein indicates a range of $8.801 Billion (High Claims) to $8.862 Billion (Low Claims) reorganized equity value. (Exhibit 21, page 6.)

Included in the expanded version of Exhibit 21 were notations regarding adjustments to be made in equity should there be any liquidation of assets after the report was published.

Included in these were several adjustments. These included asset sales and insurance distributions in favor of the creditors.

There have been asset sales and the Debtors balance sheet remains the same. In some measure, even worsened if the 6the revision of the 6th Plan of Reorganization is to be believed. Proceeds resulting from such asset liquidations together with any insurance recoveries made by creditors further reducing claims should have gone directly to the equity line.

While it is impossible to know what insurance claims, if any, have been received by the creditors, it is not impossible to know what liquidations have been made that would further reduce claims and the theoretical TEV values intrinsic to the Buckfire calculations.

To wit, 2 sales of significant assets amounting to $488 Million dollars should have been injected to the net equity results.

Using the High Claims number of $8.801 Billion and taking out the $488 million asset sales, one arrives to $8.313 total net Reorganized Value. That 488 million should have flowed to shareholders.

The Debtor management in a press release dated December 21, 2007 states with regard to the Warrants distribution, that the basis for determining the price of the shares would be $11.942 Billion.

The meaning of this in the Debtor Management's own word's is: " The exercise price per share has not yet been determined, but it is expected to be based on a stipulated reorganized equity value of $11.942 billion. For illustrative purposes, assuming the issuance of 500 million shares on the effective date, the exercise price would be $23.88 per share."

Stipulated value as confirmed by the court is $8.801 Billion (High Claims) and should be less any material adjustments.

The United States is a country of laws and about fair play, not pigs at the trough expected to wrestle with lions at the gate.

The petitioner believes the calculations for the intrinsic strike price should be made on the basis upon which this court confirmed the plan of reorganization and no other evidence outside the scope of this court.

The Court confirmed, per the Miller Buckfire valuation report, $8.801 Billion Net Reorganized Equity Value (High Claims), not $11.942 billion. It is an affront to reason and generally accepted accounting rules to add debt to equity to arrive at fair market value.

And it is more of an insult to add a premium of 15% on top of that.

When a company is bought, debt is not part of the purchase package, not even in Mongolia. When purchasing equity the bar includes Equity, appreciation, and cash, but never debt.

In this case, the debtors are including debt in the strike price and adding a premium en plus.

Yet the Debtor management with a straight face is inputting debt into the calculus of the purchase of equity and adding a premium. This seems hardly fair but is how the warrants to shareholders has been fixed.

All to say, that 500 million shares should calculate to a strike price for the warrants at $16.60 and not $23.88 based on the evidence presented and can be gleaned from that which has not been sealed by the court.

Relief

The petitioner seeks a review of the warrants by this court so ascertain their fairness of the distribution in fair to the petitioner and the thousands of other beleaguered investors who have suffered.

The warrants if issued in place of equity should be at a minimum duration of 3 years and preferably 5 years. The strike price should be at the net asset value of the TEV equity stated and stipulated to by all parties to the settlement.

Enron and K-mart as well as many others, have eviscerated the hopes of many "Main Street" shareholders, let's not allow Calpine to establish yet another example of corporate excess.

The warrants should be listed on the same stock exchange as the new shares. This will give individual shareholders a more liquid market in which to trade their warrants. In order to avoid the appearance of the discriminatory distribution. Otherwise, large institutions purchasing and selling large blocks of shares would have a significant cost advantage in trading.

Now comes the Debtor who has already announced to the Securities and Exchange Commission their plan of distribution. I pray the Court in its wisdom will intercede on the behalf of shareholders in the interest of fair play and make a forensic review of the metrics surrounding the issues raised here with regard to the Warrants.

[Charly_2]

Form 8-k
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx…

[Charly_2]

Seite 162: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=103361&p=irol-se…

For Immediate Release

CALPINE RECEIVES COURT CONFIRMATION OF PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

Expects to Emerge From Court Protection Prior to February 7, 2008

(SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Texas) – December 19, 2007 – Calpine Corporation (Pink Sheets: CPNLQ) announced today that the Honorable Burton R. Lifland of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision confirming Calpine’s Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Court ruled that Calpine had met all of the statutory requirements to confirm its Plan. Calpine remains on track with its current timetable and expects to emerge from Chapter 11 prior to February 7, 2008.

“The Court’s confirmation of our Plan is a very welcome step – and one of the final steps for us –as we look to emerge from court protection early next year,” said Robert P. May, Calpine’s Chief Executive Officer. “We continue to be very proud of what we have been able to accomplish as we work to emerge as a financially stable, stand-alone company with an improved competitive position in the energy industry. I would personally like to thank Greg Doody for his leadership and stewardship, as well as the efforts of our entire team who worked on our restructuring. Additionally, on behalf of the Board and management team, I would like to thank the employees of Calpine for their hard work, dedication and loyalty, during these uncertain and challenging times. Calpine would not have been able to accomplish all that we have during our restructuring without the outstanding effort and commitment of our employees.”

Calpine’s General Counsel, who has acted as the company’s Chief Restructuring Officer, Gregory L. Doody, said, “This has been the largest and most complex reorganization conducted under the new bankruptcy laws, and our progress as a Company has been truly remarkable. We’d also like to thank our dedicated professionals for their tireless efforts throughout this process and we look forward to continuing our work with our creditors and key constituencies after our emergence from bankruptcy protection.”

Voting by classes of creditors entitled to vote on the Plan illustrate broad-based support for the Plan. All ten classes of creditors entitled to vote on the Plan in fact voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Plan. Details of the voting results including votes on a class-by-class basis will be available on December 19, 2007, at the following website: http://www.kccllc.net/calpine.

About Calpine

Calpine Corporation is helping meet the needs of an economy that demands more and cleaner sources of electricity. Founded in 1984, Calpine is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering nearly 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable, and fuel-efficient electricity to

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.887.855 von Charly_2 am 28.12.07 14:36:45

Schweine am Trog::O

Part of the BK exit is to give 2 to 3% of Common stock Management and Directors.

500 Mio Aktien x 3% x23.95 = $359.25 Mio

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.820.701 von Charly_2 am 19.12.07 22:22:19

[Charly_2]

Die Eingabe an das Gericht in N.Y. wurde soeben persönlich abgegeben durch den Ersteller, dies hat uns $250 und viel Arbeit gekostet....

Da der Petitionär kein Rechtsanwalt ist, kann er nicht für eine Gruppe sprechen und muss daher die Eingabe unter dem eigenen Namen machen.

Elias A Felluss, Shareholder
Pro Se
71 Centershore Road,
Centerport, NY 11721
United States of America
Tel. [phone]

Petitioner

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________

In re: )
) Chapter 11
Calpine Corporation, et al., )
) Case No. 05-60200 (BRL)
Debtors. ) Jointly Administered
__________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO RECONSIDER CONFIRMATION

Comes now the Petitioner, Shareholder Elias A Felluss, Pro Se, to beg the court to reconsider portions of this Court's confirmation order relating to the Calpine Corporation's Sixth Plan of Reorganization (The Plan). This was recently filed and confirmed by order in this court on December 19, 2007 as referenced in Judge Lifland's Confirmation Order, and beg review of Section U, paragraph 64. And finally, in consideration of the implications inherent to shareholders.

Elias A Felluss, a shareholder is not affiliated with the Calpine Corporation now or any time in the past, nor was he associated with the Board of Directors or the Official Shareholder Committee this court affirmed.

The Petitioner is not an institution nor does he have significant resources. It is very likely that his motion is liable to find the petitioner in contempt and possibly incarcerated without having ever uttered a word in the courtroom.

Citations are all a part of current court filings. The Petitioner has used nothing that is not already before the court.

What few words are mentioned here may have little or no bearing on the outcome, but the Petitioner believes it is important enough to have these ideas recorded. The intent here is not to stop or stall the current proceedings but to put on record the deep dissatisfaction most shareholders both past and present have felt as this bankruptcy has progressed. The deep dissatisfaction lies in the manner in which the Debtor Management, Debtor Board of Directors, the shareholders own counsel and in some ways, this court has treated shareholders. Now it would be fair to say there are many shareholders here, myself included who have only had shares for 2 years in the Calpine Corporation. However, in the capacity of moderator of the Calpine Ad Hoc Committee, the Petitioner can say that there are many shareholders that have been with Calpine for many, many years only to see their investment in the company totally wiped out. The Petitioner's only hope is this motion will serve as a record with regard to those dissatisfactions.

The Petitioner comes before this court in the belief he has standing on the ground that the confirmation order is flawed, and the shareholders' status and standing should not be destroyed because of the pre-existence of a shareholder committee.

Further, the Petitioner asserts he has been damaged by errors in ministerial (managerial act) error, which accrue to the benefit of senior classes of creditors at the expense of this and other shareholders. (19 U.S.C. § 1675(h) defines ministerial errors as "errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.)

The Debtor's finding of fact upon which a distribution has been confirmed is faulty. The Confirmation Plan makes a mockery of general accounting principles and the evidence and agreements already stipulated to by all parties in interest during this Calpine bankruptcy proceeding. The Plan would have a buyer of equity pay for an interest in debt plus a premium on that debt and finally the equity, and a premium on the equity.

Furthermore, this shareholder petitioner did not vote in favor of the Plan for Reorganization and did not waive any right to further litigation.

Additionally, a stay in this petition has not been requested. However, it would be remiss to not say it would be egregious to the court to permit a distribution to be made by the Debtors ahead of a forensic examination of the Debtors calculations with regard to the warrants that shareholders can expect to receive. The intrinsic value of these warrants, since this is the shareholders only recovery should be stayed by the Court's order until such time as the Debtor can represent both with clarity and transparency a satisfactory accounting.

Speaking for the Petitioner, this shareholder wants nothing that isn't his.

A filing of a MOTION TO RECONSIDER, alone, does not stay anything. A stay is a form of relief that needs to be sought independent of the notice of appeal and is not requested here.

There is a sufficient ground to make a motion the court for reconsideration when a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence upon which an Order was given.

Background

To comprehend the magnitude one would have to unwind four years of Calpine corporate history. and is not the purpose here. Like a Gilbert and Sullivan trilogy, there would be much to cover with little of germane value. Facts not in dispute and borne out by the historical record, however, are worth noting.

It is useful to re-create the context within which we now find ourselves.

In the summer of 2005, Calpine under its predecessor management sought to liquidate its holdings in gas and oil interests to a group of insiders, reconstituted in a new company called ROSETTA. In fact, the current Debtor Management has a suit filed to recover some of what it can recover as a result of that transaction. The prior company management, having executed this dislocation of assets. In the following months, the previous Debtor management had a suit filed against in Delaware in the jurisdiction of Judge Leo Shrine. The Plaintiffs in that action sought to cure a breach in their financing covenant which they accused Calpine of broaching.

The precarious nature of the Calpine's financial structure, witness the now concluding bankruptcy proceeding, could withstand no assault by the creditors. Calpine was found guilty of breaching those covenants and judgment was in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Ironically, the creditors now to receive a controlling interest in the NEW CALPINE were the same creditors who brought this action to Delaware and were both instrumental in funding the Rosetta transaction. These same groups of creditors were sponsors, at a discount; the convertible debentures, which allocated shares so that the company would there by, undermine its very own share structure. In other words, this proceeding, if these allegations can be borne out, was a result of a fiscal suicide of sorts. The Petitioner would also add these stated premises are easily verified by journals of record.

Under the direction of the same BOD that favored the disposition of the oil and gas interests, Chairman, Mr. Derr summarily dismissed the prior management team, Peter Cartwright, CEO and Mr. Kelly, CFO.

With the CEO Peter Cartwright and CFO Kelly, gone, Chairman Derr installed Robert May as the restructuring CEO and was hired to lead Calpine out of the morass it now finds itself.

Following his appointment, Mr. May assured all stakeholders in a press release, he would be an arbiter of good will and look after for all parties of interest.

To wit, there are a great many shareholders that relied on what Mr. May said as far as recovery was concerned and continued to maintain there position hoping they would get new shares in the company. Now they find their investment is virtually wiped out. We are speaking about many people who can least afford to sustain such a financial setback. And because, in part, by comments made by the Debtor Management were induced to continue to maintain their position and even embolden to add more shares to average down their investment.

Since the time of Mr. May's announcement there has been evidentially an absence of "Good Faith" in his duty to maximize the estate to the benefit of all holders. (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jan., 1949), pp. 509-511 doi:10.2307/1336541)

This malfeasance extends even to reporting and identifying the assets of Calpine and how they are carried on the balance sheet. Calpine has steadfastly refused to provide a line item valuation for plants and equipment and was asked many times by shareholders for just such an accounting.

It does not come as surprise a line item for plants and equipment would not be provided as the company has concealed from its shareholders the true nature of its balance sheet. However, an as an example, it is known the Geyser facilities in Northern California are carried on the books for something less than its actual value.

The exact amount is not known, for a fact, but many do understand that it was a significant element in the $4 billion dollar DIP package the Debtor received.

This is curious and has miffed shareholders for sometime. It gives the appearance the company has been concealing its assets both from the view of shareholders and this court. One could even surmise this is both odious and somewhat unseemly.

Interestingly, several shareholders thought seriously of offering to purchase the Geyser facility at twice their stated balance sheet value but were rebuffed.

Had Calpine been forthright then all holders of interest would have been able to faithfully exercise their own due diligence. The Debtor management denied this disclosure.

The point here is the company has not been forthright with its shareholders to which they still have a duty, not that their books are suspect.

The law requires even having relinquishing sovereignty to the court of the company's affairs, the debtors and Board of Directors still have a remaining obligation to maximize the estate to the benefit of ALL holders. The refusal of Calpine to render an accounting of its assets is evidence of bad faith, not good faith. (In re: V&.M MANAGEMENT, INC., Debtor, Alphonse Mourad, Appellant, V. Donald F. Farrell, et al., Appellees AND Mirant Corp., et. al, case No. 03-46590, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket No. 8060 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2005).

In the court's haste to assist the Debtor's emergence from Bankruptcy, so that the debtors might meet the requirements of its exit financing package, and among other reasons, the court may have been misled by erroneous accounting when it confirmed the PLAN. The Petitioner makes no assertion as to whether the erroneous reporting of the Debtors finances were causal by intention or faulty accounting practices.

The thrust of this motion to reconsider is focused on ministerial errors made by the Debtor where material damage accrues to the Petitioner and numerous others in the shareholders class as follows:

In the Miller Buckfire report on valuation and the "waterfall" distribution which all parties stipulated to, forms the basis for the warrants to be issued.

Few people seem willing to acknowledge that the facts may have been dead set against the common position. Certainly, there is no way in the world for anyone to create value if the facts are against you…not the Official Shareholders Committee (SHC), not their lawyers, and not their experts.

It is entirely possible the process worked. The competing valuations of the advocates vetted by Judge Lifland's experts and the record support decisions made. Yet there are errors in the record, which defies logic and requires assumptions that are invalid. Those errors are illustrated here:

There are two approaches that can provide a cure to the fault in logic.

One such approach could be as follows:
Confirmed by the court, the net equity provided therein indicates a range of $8.801 Billion (High Claims) to $8.862 Billion (Low Claims) reorganized equity value. (Exhibit 21, page 6.)

Included in the expanded version of Exhibit 21 were notations regarding adjustments to be made in equity should there be any liquidation of assets after the report was published.

Included in these were several adjustments. These included asset sales and insurance distributions in favor of the creditors.

There have been asset sales and the Debtors balance sheet remains the same. In some measure, even worsened if the recent revision of the 6th Plan of Reorganization is to be believed. Proceeds resulting from such asset liquidations together with any insurance recoveries made by creditors further reducing claims should have gone directly to reconstituting "The Updated Reorganized Equity Value"..

While it is impossible to know what insurance claims, if any, have been received by the creditors, it is not impossible to know what liquidations have been made that would further reduce claims and the theoretical TEV values intrinsic to the Buckfire calculations.

To wit, 2 sales of significant assets amounting to $488 Million dollars should have been injected to the net equity results.

Using the High Claims number of $8.801 Billion and taking out the $488 million asset sales, one arrives to $8.313 total net Reorganized Value. That 488 million should have flowed to shareholders or reduced the equity basis for new shares.

The Debtor management in a press release dated December 21, 2007 states with regard to the Warrants distribution, that the basis for determining the price of the shares would be $11.942 Billion.

The meaning of this in the Debtor Management's own word's is: " The exercise price per share has not yet been determined, but it is expected to be based on a stipulated reorganized equity value of $11.942 billion. For illustrative purposes, assuming the issuance of 500 million shares on the effective date, the exercise price would be $23.88 per share."

Stipulated value as confirmed by the court is $8.801 Billion (High Claims) and should be less any material adjustments.

A second approach follows the near same formula:
In the Miller Buckfire report on valuation and the "waterfall" distribution which all parties stipulated to, should form the basis for the warrants to be issued.

The Debtors' approach to the calculation of the warrant strike price and whether the terms offer the current shareholders any real value are questioned based on the limited information available.

Using information from Exhibit 21, a more sensible approach to computing the warrants strike price can be obtained. If from the item Total Claims one subtracts Debt Net of Project Cash and adds Corporate Cash the result will be total Equity.

Equity than should be multiplied by a factor of 1.15 to arrive at $10,360 million Equity Strike Price with a premium of 15%. Based on 500 million new shares this would result in a strike price of $20.72 per share. The Debtors' calculations showed a strike price of 23.88 which included a 15% premium on Debt which is not appropriate when calculating share value.

In addition the Debtor has based his calculations on Claims which appear higher than the $18.95 billion agreed upon Valuation for the Debtor. Claims by definition do not reflect what something is worth. An example would be the owner of an automobile with a bluebook value of $18,000 believing it is worth the loan balance he owes of $20,000. The petitioner believes the calculations for the intrinsic strike price should be made on the basis upon which this court confirmed the plan of reorganization and no other evidence outside the scope of this court.

All to say, that 500 million shares should calculate to a strike price for the warrants at $20.72 or lower and not $23.88 based on the evidence presented and can also be gleaned from that which has not been sealed by the court.

In Summary, the Exhibit 21 states conflicting data from apparently two sources.

The Miller Backfire TEV analysis has been used as the basis for the Exit Plan and indicates a TEV of $19.350 billion which is adjusted down to $18.95 billion and is included in Exhibit 21.

The Miller Backfire TEV analysis also indicates an Updated Reorganized Equity Value of $8.801 billion which should in turn be revised downward by $400 million to $8.401 B (high) to $8.462 B (low). The Miller Buckfire equity values as compared to the Miller Buckfire unsecured claims was used to justify giving warrants to current shareholders rather than shares.

These adjusted Updated Reorganized equity Values from Miller Buckfire do not agree with the $11.942 B that is stipulated in Exhibit 21 as the Reorganized Updated Equity Value.

The $11.942 billion number was apparently the result of another analysis different from the Miller Buckfire methodology and not on the record. Functionally, it works to raise the proposed strike value of the warrants purposefully far out of the money when compared to the Miller Buckfire Illustrative value per share of $17.60 to $17.72 or $16.60 when adjusted for the $400 million reduction in exit facility.

The United States is a country of laws and about fair play, not pigs at the trough expected to wrestle with lions at the gate.

The petitioner believes the calculations for the intrinsic strike price should be made on the basis upon which this court confirmed the plan of reorganization and no other evidence outside the scope of this court.

The Court confirmed, per the Miller Buckfire valuation report, $8.801 Billion Net Reorganized Equity Value (High Claims), not $11.942 billion. It is an affront to reason and generally accepted accounting rules to add debt to equity to arrive at fair market value.

And it is more of an insult to add a premium of 15% on top of that.

When a company is bought, debt is not part of the purchase package, not even in Mongolia. When purchasing equity the bar includes Equity, appreciation, and cash, but never debt.

In this case, the debtors are including debt in the strike price and adding a premium en plus.

Yet the Debtor management with a straight face is inputting debt into the calculus of the purchase of equity and adding a premium. This seems hardly fair but is how the warrants to shareholders have been fixed.

All to say, that 500 million shares should calculate to a strike price for the warrants in a range of $16.60 to $21.00 and not $23.88 based on the evidence presented to this court and confirmed all of which can be gleaned from that which has not been sealed by the court.

Relief

The petitioner seeks a review of the warrants by this court so ascertain their fairness of the distribution to the petitioner and the thousands of other beleaguered investors who have suffered.

The warrants if issued in place of equity should be at a minimum duration of 3 years and preferably 5 years. The strike price should be at the net asset value of the TEV equity stated and stipulated to by all parties to the settlement.

Enron and K-mart as well as many others, have eviscerated the hopes of many "Main Street"shareholders, let's not allow Calpine to establish yet another example of corporate excess.

The warrants should be listed on the same stock exchange as the new shares. This will give individual shareholders a more liquid market in which to trade their warrants. In order to avoid the appearance of the discriminatory distribution. Otherwise, large institutions purchasing and selling large blocks of shares would have a significant cost advantage in trading.

Now comes the Debtor who has announced to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) their plan of distribution making equitable distribution moot. I pray the Court in its wisdom will intercede on the behalf of shareholders in the interest of fair play and make a forensic review of the metrics surrounding the issues raised here with regard to the Warrants.

Unless the SEC has jurisdiction over this Court, we pray Judge Lifland to stay that portion of the Confirmation as it relates to the strike price of the warrants and their duration. Until such time as rapid forensic examination can be made so in "service to all," these clouds may be removed.

Dated: December 28, 2007

New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

Elias A Felluss (Shareholder)
71 Centershore Road
Centerport, New York 11721
Tel.[phone]
Pro Se

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.889.913 von Charly_2 am 28.12.07 18:24:41

...das Schreiben ist auch an die US-Presse gegangen...schaun wer mal was die über's Weekend daraus machen wenn sie die Bestätigung des Filings online erhalten haben

In dem Sinne - schönes Weekend!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.889.913 von Charly_2 am 28.12.07 18:24:41

Übersetzung - ohne Gewähr - Wichtiges

Die grosse Unzufriedenheit liegt in der Art und Weise, in der Calpine's Schuldner Management und der Schuldner-Aufsichtsrat, sowie die Aktionärs-Vertreter, und teilweise auch dieses Gericht die Aktionäre behandeln.

An dieser Stelle ist erwähnt, daß es hier viele Aktionäre gibt, mich selbst eingeschlossen, die nur während 2 Jahren Aktien an der Calpine Corp. besassen. Jedoch kann ich als Vertreter eines Calpine Ad Hoc Komitee’s versichern, daß es viele Aktionäre gibt, die in Calpine-Aktien langjährig investiert sind, und daß nun alle ihre Investition in die Gesellschaft zunichte gemacht sehen. Der Bittsteller ist voller Hoffnung dass dieser Antrag dazu dient als eine Aufzeichnung mit Rücksicht auf diese Unzufriedenheiten.

Der Bittsteller kommt vor dieses Gericht im Glauben, daß die Bestätigung des Plans fehlerhaft ist, und der Status und die Position der Aktionäre wegen der Präexistenz des Aktionärskomitee’s nicht zerstört werden sollten.

Weiter behauptet der Bittsteller, daß er von Fehlern in Ministeriellem (leitende Tat) beschädigt worden ist, die dem Nutzen von älteren Klassen von Gläubigern auf Kosten der Aktionäre dienen. (19 US-C. § 1675 (h) definiert ministerielle Fehler als "Fehler aus Addition oder Subtraktion, oder andere arithmetische Funktion, administrative Fehler die sich aus unrichtigem Kopieren, Vervielfältigungen, falsche Wiedergabe, und jede andere Art des unabsichtlichen Fehlers ergeben, den die verwaltende Autorität als ministeriell betrachtet).

Der Bestätigungs-Plan verspottet die Richtlinien von allgemeinen Bilanzierungsgrundsätzen, die Beweise und die Verträge, die bereits zuvor von allen Parteien im Interesse aller während dieses Calpine Bankrottverfahrens vereinbart wurden.

Der Aktionärsbittsteller stimmte nicht zugunsten des Plans für die Reorganisation und weiteren Rechtsstreit zu fördern.

Außerdem ist ein Aufenthalt in dieser Petition nicht gefordert worden. Jedoch wäre es säumig, nicht zu sagen, daß es vom Gericht nicht zulässig ist, von den Schuldnern eine Verteilung zu erlauben, bevor eine forensischen Überprüfung der Schuldnerberechnungen mit Rücksicht auf die Vollmachten (Warrants, welche die Aktionäre zu erhalten erwarten können).
Der Warrants-Ausübungspreis (Strike) sollte erst festgelegt werden, nachdem Klarheit und Transparenz geschaffen wurde und dieses Gericht die Korrektheit und die Rechtmässigkeit der Bilanz von Calpine untersucht und bestätigt hat.

Es gibt ausreichende Gründe, um einen Antrag für die Überprüfung an das Gericht zu machen, als ein Befund von Tatsache ganz unvernünftig war, zu machen auf den Beweisen, auf denen einer Bestellung stattgegeben wurde.

Hintergrund

Um die Größenordnung zu erfassen, müssen die letzten vier Jahre Geschichte der Calpine Corp. erwähnt werden. Aber dies ist hier nicht der Zweck? Wie eine Gilbert und Sullivan Trilogie gäbe es viel, die mit wenigem des Werts von Belang zu bedecken ist. Bestätigte Tatsachen als historische Aufzeichnungen sind beachtenswert.

Es ist nützlich, den Kontext wieder zu schaffen, innerhalb dessen wir uns aktuell befinden.

Im Sommer 2005 suchte Calpine unter seiner Vorgängerverwaltung, seinen Besitz in Gas- und Ölinteressen an einer Gruppe von Insidern zu liquidieren, dieser Besitz wurde wieder hergestellt in einer neuen, ROSETTA genannten Gesellschaft. In der Tat hat die gegenwärtige Schuldnerverwaltung einen Antrag angestrengt, um etwas davon wiederherzustellen, was es in Folge dieses Geschäfts wiederherstellen kann, was die vorherige Geschäftsleitung, die diese Beeinträchtigung von Vermögenswerten ausgeführt hat. In den folgenden Monaten ließ die vorherige Schuldnerverwaltung einen Antrag feilen gegen in Delaware in der Zuständigkeit von Richterleo Schrein. Die Kläger in dieser Tat suchten, einen Bruch in ihrem Finanzierungsvertrag zu heilen, wegen dessen sie Calpine anklagten.

Die prekäre Natur der finanziellen Struktur Calpine’s, das jetzt abschließende Konkursverfahren erlebt mit, keinem Angriff durch die Gläubiger standhalten konnte. Calpine wurde für davon schuldig befunden, jene Verträge zu durchbrechen, und Urteil war zugunsten der Kläger.

Ironischerweise waren die Gläubiger, die jetzt einen Mehrheitsanteil an der neuen CALPINE erhalten, dieselben Gläubiger, die diesen Handel nach Delaware brachten, und waren beide instrumental bei der Finanzierung des Rosetta Geschäfts beteiligt? Diese gleichen Gruppen von Gläubigern waren Sponsoren an einem Rabatt; die konvertierbaren Schuldscheine, welche Calpine in Aktien ausgab, so daß die Gesellschaft damit seine seiner eigene Finanz-Struktur unterhöhlte. Mit anderen Worten war dieses Verfahren, wenn diese Behauptungen bestätigt werden können, als Ergebnis eine Art von Finanz-Selbstmord. Der Bittsteller kann auch anfügen, daß diese Gegebenheiten bestimmt einfach aus Pressemitteilungen oder Aufzeichnungen nachgeprüft werden können.

Unter der Direktion desselben Managements, das die Veräusserung des Öl- und Gasgeschäfts unterstützte, entließ der Vorsitzende, Herr Derr das vorherige Leitungsteam, Peter Cartwright, der Vorstandsvorsitzende und Herrn Kelly, CFO summarisch.

Mit dem entlassenen Vorstandsvorsitzenden Peter Cartwright und CFO Kelly Vorsitzender Derr installierte Robert Mai als der Umstrukturierungs-Vorstandsvorsitzende und wurde eingestellt, um Calpine aus dem Morast herauszuführen, in dem es sich jetzt befindet.

Seinem Termin folgend, sicherte Herr May allen Stakeholders in eine Pressemitteilung zu, er wäre ein Entscheidungsträger in guten Willen und Blick, für alle Parteien.

Dies war ein schlechter Rat für alle Aktionäre, die sich auf Herrn May verließen. Jetzt müssen sie feststellen, daß ihre Investition praktisch zunichte gemacht wird. Wir sprechen über viele Leute, die sich am wenigsten leisten können, solch einen finanziellen Rückschlag aufrechtzuerhalten. Und weil ein Teil durch vom Schuldner gemachte Kommentare die Leitung dazu gebracht wurde, fortzufahren, ihre Position zu behaupten, und sogar dazu zu ermutigen, Aktien hinzuzufügen um damit ihre durchschnittlichen Aktienpreis zu verringern.

Seit der Zeit von Herrn May’s Ankündigung ist offensichtlich ein grosser Mangel des "guten Vertrauens" zu seiner Pflicht feststellbar, den Besitz zum Nutzen aller Halter zu maximieren. (Harvard Gesetzesüberprüfung, Vol. 62, Nr 3 (Jan, 1949), pp. 509-511 doi: 10,2307/1336541)

Dieses Mangel erstreckt sich sogar darauf, die Vermögenswerte von Calpine, und wie sie auf der Bilanz getragen sind zu berichten und zu identifizieren zu verstecken. Calpine hat sich standhaft geweigert, ihre Buchführung mit Wert-Angaben über ihre Kraftwerksanlagen und Equipment offenzulegen, obwohl sie mehrmals von Aktionären um diese Offenlegung gebeten wurde.

Es kommt nicht einer Überraschung gleich, die Werte der Kraftwerksanlagen und Equipment in der Bilanz vor den Aktionären zu verbergen. Als ein Beispiel weiss man dass die Geysir-Anlagen in Nordkalifornien werden in den Büchern viel zu gering gegenüber dem aktuellen Wert eingesetzt.

Der genaue Betrag ist nicht bekannt, es ist aber eine Tatsache, viele verstehen, daß es ein bedeutsames Element war, im $ 4 Milliarden gezogenen Kerzenpaket, das der Schuldner erhielt.

Dies macht neugierig und hat irgendwann die Aktionäre verstimmt. Es gibt die Ansicht die Gesellschaft hat seine Vermögenswerte vor den Aktionären und diesem Gericht verborgen. Man kann sogar vermuten, daß dies beides widerwärtig und unschicklich ist.

Interessant dachten mehrere Aktionäre ernsthaft an ein Angebot, die Geysireinrichtung zu kaufen, zu doppeltem Bilanzwert ($576 Mio), dies wurde aber von Calpine abgewiesen.

Der Punkt ist hier, dass die Gesellschaft nicht offen mit seinen Aktionären gewesen ist, zu denen sie eine Pflicht haben, auzuzeigen dass ihre Bilanzen nicht suspekt sind.

Das Gesetz erfordert, sogar zu haben und Souveränität aufzugeben, zum Gericht von der Gesellschaft Angelegenheiten, die Schuldner und der Aufsichtsrat haben noch eine übrige Verpflichtung, den Besitz zu maximieren, zum Nutzen aller Halter. Die Weigerung von Calpine, eine Buchführung seiner Vermögenswerte wiederzugeben, ist genug Beweis des schlechten Vertrauens, nicht guten Vertrauens. (Ein bezüglich: V & . M Leitung, INC., Schuldner, Alphonse Mourad, Berufungskläger, V. Donald F. Farrell, et al ., Appellees und Mirant Corp., et. al, Fallnr 03-46590, Memorandummeinung und Bestellung fassen Nr 8060 zusammen (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 26. Jan 2005).

In der Eile des Gerichts, dem Aufkommen des Schuldners vom Bankrott zu helfen, so daß die Schuldner die Erfordernisse seines Verlassenfinanzierungspakets erfüllen können und unter anderen Gründen das Gericht von irrtümlicher Buchführung irregeführt worden sein kann, als es den Plan bestätigte. Der Bittsteller macht keine Behauptungen, ob die Schuldnerberichte irrtümlich falsch oder durch Absicht oder kausal mit fehlerhafter Buchführung sind.

Der zu überdenkende Stoß von diesem Antrag wird auf vom Schuldner Klasse gemachte ministerielle Fehler wie folgt gerichtet, wo materieller Schaden dem Bittsteller und zahlreichen Anderen und den Aktionären erwächst:

Wenige Leute scheinen bereit, zu bestätigen, daß die Tatsachen völlig gegen die gemeinsame Position gesetzt worden sein können. Sicher gibt es keinen Weg in der Welt, daß irgend jemand Wert schafft, wenn die Tatsachen gegen sie sind, die offiziellen Aktionäre Komitee (SHC), nicht ihre Rechtsanwälte und nicht ihre Experten.

Es ist ganz gut möglich, daß der Prozeß funktionierte. Die konkurrierenden Schätzungen der Befürworter durch Richter Liflands Experten überprüft wurden und die Entscheidungen, die getroffen sind. Und doch gibt es Fehler in der Aufzeichnung, die sich der Logik widersetzt und Annahmen erfordert, die ungültig sind. Jene Fehler werden nachfolgend erläutert:

Es gibt zwei Ansätze, wie Logik-Fehler korrigiert werden können.

Ein solcher Ansatz könnte wie folgt sein:

Überprüft vom Gericht, zeigt sich dass das Nettoeigenkapital im Bereich von $ 8,801 Milliarden (hohe Schätzung) zu $ 8,862 Milliarden (niedrige Schätzung) Eigenkapitalwert liegt. (Exhibit 21, Seite 6.)

In der erweiterten Version von Exhibit 21 einbezogen wurden Notationen, bezüglich zu machender Änderungen im Eigenkapital, sollte es Liquidierung von Vermögenswerten geben, nachdem der Bericht herausgegeben wurde.

In diese einbezogen wurden mehrere Änderungen. Diese schlossen Vermögenswertverkäufe und Versicherungsverteilungen zugunsten der Gläubiger ein.

Es hat Vermögenswertverkäufe gegeben, und die Schuldnerbilanz blieb unverändert. In irgendeinem Maß, das sich sogar verschlechterte, wenn der neuen Revision des 6. Plans von Reorganisation geglaubt werden soll. Erlös, der sich aus solchen Vermögenswert-Liquidierungen zusammen mit Versicherungs Reduzierungen ergibt, die von Gläubigern dazu gebracht sind, zu fördern, Behauptungen zu reduzieren, hätte direkt dazu gehen sollen, "den aktualisierten reorganisierten Eigenkapitalwert" zu erhöhen (ist nicht der Fall).

Während es unmöglich ist, zu wissen, welche Versicherungs-Reduzierungen, wenn vorhanden, von den Gläubigern erhalten worden sind, ist es nicht unmöglich, zu wissen, dass Liquidierungen gemacht worden sind, die weiter Behauptungen und die theoretischen TEV Werte reduzieren würden, die für die Buckfire Berechnungen wesentlich sind.

So hätten 2 Verkäufe von bedeutsamen Vermögenswerten, die $ 488 Millionen Dollars betragen, zu den Netto-Eigenkapitalergebnissen zugefügt werden sollen. (ist nicht der Fall)

Die hohe Schätzung von $ 8,801 Milliarden verwendend und die $ 488 Millionen Vermögenswertverkäufe ausnehmend, kommt man auf $ 8,313 als Netto-Endsumme an reorganisiertem Wert. Diese $ 488 Millionen hätten an die Aktionären gehen sollen oder die Eigenkapitalbasis reduziert werden sollen für neue Aktien. (ist nicht der Fall)

Die Schuldnerverwaltung, datierte vom Dezember 21, 2007 in einer Pressemitteilung gibt mit Rücksicht auf die Warrants-Verteilung an, dass die Basis für das Bestimmen des Preises der Eigenkapitalwerts sei nun $11,942 Milliarden.

Die Bedeutung in Worten der Schuldnerverwaltung ist: "Der Ausübungspreis pro Aktie sind noch nicht bestimmt worden, aber er wird auf einem vereinbarten reorganisierten Eigenkapitalwert von $ 11,942 Milliarden erwartet. Für illustrative Zwecke: Bei 500 Millionen Aktien wäre der Ausübungspreis $ 23,88 pro Aktie".

Vereinbarter, vorgegebener Wert wie vom Gericht bestätigt ist $ 8,801 Milliarden (hohe Schätzung) und sollte abzüglich materieller Änderungen sein. (ist nicht der Fall)

Ein zweiter Ansatz folgt der nahezu gleichen Formel:

Im Müller Buckfire Bericht über Schätzung und die "Wasserfall" Verteilung, die alle Parteien vereinbarten, sollte die Basis bilden damit die Warrants-Eckdaten (Strikepreis) definiert werden können.

Der Ansatz zur Berechnung des Warrants-Ausübungspreises (Strike) und deren gegenwärtige Bedingungen werden von den Aktionären auf der Grundlage von beschränkt verfügbaren Information angezweifelt.

Mit Hilfe der Information von Exhibit 21 kann ein vernünftigerer Ansatz erhalten werden um den Warrants-Ausübungspreis zu berechnen.

Eigenkapital, mit einem Faktor von 1,15 multipliziert das $ 10.360 Millionen Eigenkapital beträgt, so fällt auf, daß mit einer Prämie von 15% verfahren wird.
Basierend auf 500 Millionen neuen Aktien würde dies zu einem Ausübungspreis von $ 20,72 pro Aktie führen. Die Berechnungen der Schuldner zeigten einem Ausübungspreis von $23,88, welches eine 15% höhere Nachfrage bei Schuld einschloß, die nicht angemessen ist, wenn sie den Inventarwert berechnet.

Außerdem hat der Schuldner seine Berechnungen auf Behauptungen basiert, die höher scheinen, als sich das $ 18,95 Milliarden auf Schätzung für den Schuldner einigte. Diese Festlegung reflektiert nicht den Wert. Der Bittsteller glaubt, daß die Berechnungen für den inneren Ausübungspreis auf der Basis gemacht werden sollten, auf der dieses Gericht den Reorganisations-Plan festlegte, und nicht auf anderen Grundlagen, die nicht vom Gericht bestätigt wurden.

500 Millionen Aktien sollten auf den gezeigten Beweisen zu einem Ausübungspreis für die Warrants zu $ 20,72 basieren und nicht $ 23,88, da jener Wert ($ 20.72) vom Gericht besiegelt worden ist.

In Zusammenfassung gibt das Exhibit 21 unterschiedliche Daten an von anscheinend zwei Quellen.

Die Müller Backfire TEV Analyse (Total Unternehmenswert; theoretisch) verwendet als Basis für den Plan ein TEV von $ 19,350 Milliarden was dann auf $ 18,95 Milliarden reduziert wurde, Exhibit 21.

Die Müller Backfire TEV Analyse, zu der TEV Analyse auch einen aktualisierten reorganisierten Eigenkapitalwert von $ 8,801 Milliarden anzeigt, das wiederum um $ 400 Millionen nach unten revidiert wurde, $ 8,401 B (hoch) zu $ 8,462 B (niedrig). Diese durch Müller Buckfire verwendete Eigenkapital Festlegung (auf nicht gesicherter Grundlagen) will damit rechtfertigen, den gegenwärtigen Aktionären Warrants zu geben, anstatt Aktien.

Dieser von Müller Buckfire aktualisierte Eigenkapitalwert stimmt nicht mit der $ 11,942 B überein, das in Exhibit 21 als der reorganisierte aktualisierte Eigenkapitalwert vereinbart wurde.

Die $ 11,942 Milliarden war anscheinend das Ergebnis einer anderen vom Müller Buckfire verwendeten Analyse Methode und nicht auf der Aufzeichnung. Funktionell funktioniert es so, dass damit der vorgeschlagene Warrants-Ausübungspreis (Strike) weit aus dem Geld angehoben wurde. Verglichen mit geschätzt pro Aktie von $ 17,60 zu $ 17,72 oder $ 16,60.

Die Vereinigten Staaten sind ein Land von Gesetzen und mit fairem Spiel, nicht von Schweinen am Trog, von denen erwartet wird, daß sie mit Löwen am Tor ringen.

Der Bittsteller glaubt, daß die Berechnungen für den inneren Ausübungspreis der Warrants auf der Basis gemacht werden sollte, auf der dieses Gericht den Reorganisations-Plan bestätigte, und nicht anderen Grundlagen die das Gericht nicht bestätigte.

Das Gericht bestätigte, den Müller Buckfire Bericht mit $ 8,801 Milliarden reorganisiertem Eigenkapitalwert (hohe Schätzung), nicht $ 11,942 Milliarden. Es ist ein Affront zu argumentieren, und allgemein anerkannte Buchführung beherrscht, um Eigenkapital Schuld hinzuzufügen, um an fairem Handelswert anzukommen.

Und es ist eine Beleidigung, eine hohe Prämie von +15% zusätzlich hinzuzufügen.

Wenn eine Gesellschaft gekauft wird, ist Schuld nicht Teil des Kaufpakets, nicht einmal in der Mongolei. Wenn er Aktien kauft, schließt es Eigenkapital, Wertsteigerung und Bargeld ein, aber nie Schulden.

In diesem Fall fügen die Schuldner Schulden in den Ausübungspreis der Warrants hinzu und zusätzlich noch eine Prämie obenauf. (ist dreist, dh. unzulässig)

Überprüfung/ Entlastung

Der Bittsteller ersucht um die Überprüfung durch dieses Gericht, um damit Gerechtigkeit vor der Verteilung der Aktien (und Warrants) für den Bittsteller und Tausende von anderen betroffenen Anlegern zu garantieren.

Wenn Warrants anstelle von Aktien ausgegeben werden, sollten diese eine Minimaldauer von 3 Jahren oder besser 5 Jahre haben. Der Ausübungspreis sollte am Inventarwert vom angegebenen und vereinbarten TEV Eigenkapital festgelegt werden.

Die Warrants sollten an derselben Börse wie die neue Aktie gelistet werden. Dies gibt den Aktionären einen liquideren Markt, um ihre Warrants zu handeln, um damit eine diskriminierende Verteilung zu vermeiden. Falls nicht werden große Institutionen, die große Blöcke kaufen und verkaufen einen bedeutsamen Kostenvorteil im Handel haben.

Der Schuldner hat seinen Plan für die Listung der Aktien der Aktien- und Börsenkommission (SEK) angekündigt für deren Verteilung. Ich hoffe, daß sich das Gericht in seiner Weisheit im Interesse der Aktionäre und des fairen Spiels einsetzt, und eine forensische Überprüfung der Maßsysteme macht, die die hier vorgebrachten Punkte aufzeigen.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.897.214 von Charly_2 am 29.12.07 21:29:23

Exhibit 21: http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712200000000…

[Charly_2]

Cool
http://digg.com/business_finance/Little_Guys_Take_On_Wall_St…

[Charly_2]

...am Montag wird dem Calpine-Management die Decke auf den Kopf fallen, der wahre Spiegel wird ihnen vorgehalten !!

http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/2007/12/calpine-shar…

[Charly_2]

Sogar Google News hat die Story aufgenommen - wir sind drin

"Calpine Shareholder Files Motion to Reconsider Confirmation
By Lyonnes News Agency(Lyonnes News Agency)
Now comes the Debtor who has announced to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) their plan of distribution making equitable
distribution moot. I pray the Court in its wisdom will intercede on the behalf of shareholders in the ...

http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/2007/12/calpine-shar…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.897.625 von Charly_2 am 29.12.07 22:23:24

Mit der Verbreitung über Google kommen wir einen riesen Schritt weiter, dann damit wird es asap politisch, und es werden wichtige Adressen die richtigen Fragen zu stellen wissen

Alle kommen in Zugzwang....und der Druck auf das Gericht wird demnext massiv zunehmen !!

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.897.214 von Charly_2 am 29.12.07 21:29:23

Guten Abend, alle zusammen.

Es gibt also noch einen einsamen Streiter (David) in Amerika, der versucht gegen Goliath anzugehen.

Wenn man das liest, wird einem nur bestätigt was man schon vorher vermutet hat. Das es aber so offensichtlich betrügerisch vor einem Gericht zugeht und das selbe auch noch alles durchwinkt, schlägt dem Fass schon den Boden aus.

Eigentlich müssten Anwälte aus dem Bereich Wirtschaftsrecht (der Fall ist doch publik) Schlange stehen und den geschädigten Aktionären ihre Dienste anbieten. Wem es von denen gelingt, das Geschehene noch "umzubiegen" und einen Wert für die Aktionäre herauszuringen, der hat d i e beste PR/ Werbung für seine Kanzlei.

Besteht im Geringsten die Chance, dass die Shareholder davon profitieren, dass dieser einsame Streiter aufbegehrt? Schließen sich vielleicht die anderen Aktionäre zusammen und treten dem SHC in den Hintern?

Gruß in die Samstag Nacht hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.897.720 von Dostojewski am 29.12.07 22:36:47

Hi Dostojewski

Ich denke die Chance besteht, die eingereichte Motion ist vorerst jedoch nur ein Tür um in die geschlossene Runde beim US Bankruptcy Prozess von Calpine einzusteigen, mehr nicht.

Ich denke aber wie schon geschrieben, der Richter kann dies nicht einfach unter den Tisch wischen - es wird viel Staub aufgewirbelt und das Schreiben ist schon an alle Parteien per Post verteilt - die Sekretärin des Richters soll hübsch sein - und wenn sich noch wer finden lässt, der mit seiner Kanzlei einsteigt dann kommt die Sache erst ins rollen...

Soweit bekannt, vertritt das SHC Rechtsanwaltbüro Fried & Frank auf telefonische Anfrage die Meinung, der aktuelle Deal sei das was herauszuholen war....sie sind abbgetaucht, 2 Mitglieder des SHC haben bereits demissioniert

.merke...Anwälte sind gut entlohnt...die wandern weiter zur nächsten Bankrott-Karawane um mit Richtern zu dealen..

[Charly_2]

...und hier der Beweis für das Filing - die Dampflokomitive läuft

[Charly_2]

Platzierung der Motion in den Medien läuft

Re: Press Release On Internet Newswire Services for release asap

This release is scheduled to go out on Jan 1, 2008....Am trying to see if it can get on the wire now...have a call into the news service...also took their peite package for $80 instead of their full media package for $360...am watching the bucks...

Calpine Shareholders Say Not So Fast!.... 'Main Street' Once Again Has Milk Swiped from Coffee by Wall Street Fat Cats

Little Guys Take On Wall Street Big Cats in Bankrupt Calpine -- Another story of corporate & Wall Street Big Cats winning again on the backs of the little guy? A group of small shareholders says 'NO'! Yesterday a motion was filed with the bankruptcy court in hopes the court reconsiders. Is this just another Enron or Kmart where the little people get wiped out? Only to see the big cats load up their pockets?

Calpine Shareholder Files Motion to Reconsider Confirmation http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/search?q=

Little Guys Take On Wall Street Big Cats in Bankrupt Calpine
--- Another story of corporate & Wall Street Big Cats winning again on the backs of the little guy? A group of small shareholders says "NO"! Yesterday a motion was filed with the bankruptcy court in hopes the court reconsiders. Is this just another Enron or Kmart where the little people get wiped out? Only to see the big cats load up their pockets? http://digg.com/business_finance/Little_Guys_Take_On_Wall_St…

Internet is Used as Weapon in this David & Goliath Story
--- Small investors are using the Internet to take on bankrupt Calpine. The Calpine Ad Hoc Committee has been speaking out against what they view as a 'rape of Main Street,' where the average investor is gamed by large investment institutions whose access to markets and large amounts of capital puts the average investor at a distinct disadvantage. http://digg.com/business_finance/Internet_is_Used_as_Weapon_…

Calpine Shareholders Say "Bunk" to San Jose
http://calpineshareholders.blogspot.com/2007/12/calpine-shar…


Shareholders Speaking out...

'Whose' the Fireman Saves the Day? ....Only Time Will Tell!
On Friday, a fireman nicknamed 'Whose' accomplished the impossible against insurmountable odds. Tears came to my eyes on that day. A special place in my heart was hit. My Dad was a fireman in the Syracuse, NY fire department. Coming from a fireman's family, along with what has happened here, has drawn many parallels for me to those days long ago.

Since 911, people of the world have been given an inside look into the fireman's world. It is a special place and here too is a special place, much like one of many fire engine houses of the world. The engine house is the place where firemen live together, fight fires and rally to help each other and others when the call comes. 'Whose' is the Captain and Hero of our Internet house, the Calpine InvestorVillage message board.

The fire that 'Whose' went to put out on Friday was a very different type of fire that has been spreading for too long and has become a 'wild fire'. On Friday he showed up on the steps of the Southern Manhattan Courthouse wearing his fireman's jacket and badge to deliver a message for the little people that have been wronged by Wall Street, the corporate institution and the US court system.

One can only hope that the message delivered is told to the public through the newspaper press. A bigger hope is that the court listens and a wrong is made right........Only Time will Tell...

[Dostojewski]

Einen guten Rutsch und und ein erfolgreicheres Jahr 2008.

Gruß in den die Nacht des Jahreswechsels hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Ich wünsche Euch ebenfalls ein erfolgreiches 2008, mögen alle Wünsche in Erfüllung gehen

[Charly_2]

Wir sind nicht alleine - eine Company denkt gleich wie wir

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP

Peter D. Wolfson (PDW-5956)
Carole Neville (CN-5733)
Matthew B. Stein (MBS-0062)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Compania Internacional
Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities
Fund, Standard Bank of London, and
Leonardo Capital Fund SPC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re:

CALPINE CORPORATION, et al. Debtors.
Chapter: 11
Related Dkt. Nos. 7253, 7256
Case No.: 05-60200 (BRL)

Jointly Administered

MOTION TO RECONSIDER CONFIRMATION

ORDER AND SECOND MODIFICATION ORDER

Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund and Standard Bank of London, whose investments are each managed by Yomi Rodrik (collectively, the “Rodrik Group”), and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC, whose investments are managed by Leo
Fund Managers, Ltd. (the “Leo Group” and collectively with the Rodrik Group, the “Objecting Shareholders”), holders of Calpine Corporation common stock, by and through their counsel, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, hereby submit their Motion for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Confirmation Order”, Dkt. No. 7256) and Order Approving Motion Seeking Approval of Immaterial Modifications to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Without the Need for Further Solicitation of Votes (the

- 2 -

17584088\V-2

“Second Modification Order”, Dkt. No. 7253). In support of their motion, the Objecting

Shareholders respectfully states as follows:

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2007, Calpine Corporation and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors” or “Calpine”) filed a motion to approve changes incorporated into their Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Sixth Amended Plan”) as immaterial (the “Second Modification Motion”), as well as an ex parte motion to have the Second Modification Motion heard on the following day at the confirmation hearing. Despite that the ex parte motion to shorten time recites that the modifications to the plan were structural and “central to proceeding with the confirmation hearing,” and that the Second Modification Motion was listed on the agenda of the hearing as a contested motion, no notice was provided to shareholders. The lack of notice deprived shareholders of a meaningful opportunity, or even any opportunity, to object despite the clear fact that their rights were dramatically affected by the modifications. On December 19, 2007, this Court entered the Second Modification Order.

The Debtors did two things in the Second Modification Motion to eviscerate shareholder recoveries. First, the Debtors set an artificially low enterprise valuation for the reorganized Debtors (the “New Calpine”), without any indicia of support offered for the valuation. The plan valuation was billed as a compromise of various valuations proposed by several parties, which were filed either under seal or not at all. Second, the modifications altered the consideration to be provided to equityholders, by substituting a significant percentage of the New Calpine common stock for significantly less valuable warrants, as reflected in the bare bones term sheet filed on December 19, 2007. These changes, designed to sidestep legitimate disputes concerning valuation and allocation among the creditor groups and shareholders, are material in nature and do not constitute immaterial modifications.

- 3 -

17584088\V-2

Both the Bankruptcy Code and due process require that equityholders be afforded the opportunity to review a disclosure statement that actually describes the plan being confirmed, as well as an opportunity to object thereto.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) requires 25-days notice of a hearing on a disclosure statement and a hearing on confirmation, permitting equityholders and creditors time to object for good reason. Plan confirmation is the culminating point in a Chapter 11 proceeding. In substituting what is effectively a new plan, in literally the eleventh hour, without providing notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, the Debtors violated the Bankruptcy Code and the Objecting Shareholders’ due process rights. The rush to emerge from bankruptcy is no substitute for Constitutional mandate.

=> DAGEGEN WURDE IN GRÖBSTER WEISE VERSTOSSEN!!

The opportunity to object to the Sixth Amended Plan is critical. The plan as confirmed violates at least Section 1129(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as applicable non-bankruptcy law, as discussed more extensively in the memorandum of law being submitted herewith.

RELIEF REQUESTED

By this motion, the Objecting Shareholders respectfully request that this Court enter an order vacating its Second Modification and Confirmation Orders and permit the Objecting Shareholders to prosecute their own objection to confirmation of the Sixth Amended Plan in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b).

BASIS FOR RELIEF

As the basis for the relief sought, the Objecting Shareholders respectfully refer the Court to, and hereby reference and incorporate herein, their Memorandum of Law in Support of their
Motion to Reconsider the Confirmation Order and Second Modification Order.

- 4 -

17584088\V-2

NOTICE

Notice of this motion has been provided to: (a) the Debtors; (b) the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York; (c) counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; (d) counsel to the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; (e) counsel to the ad hoc committees; (f) counsel to the administrative agents for the Debtors’ prepetition secured lenders; (g) the indenture trustees pursuant to the Debtors’ secured indebtedness; (h) counsel to the Debtors’ post-petition lenders; (i) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (j) the United States Department of Justice; (k) the Internal Revenue Service; and (l) all parties entitled or who have requested notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002.

No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made to this or any other court.

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.214 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 12:05:06

Die von unserem ad hoc Committee eingegebene Motion tritt damit in den Hintergrund.....

...jedenfalls wird es das Gericht nicht einfach haben, die nun eingegebene Motion einfach vom Tisch zu wischen, denn es wurden grundlegende Fehler gemacht die einem US-Gericht einfach nicht passieren dürfen, das war stümperhaft, na ja man kann von einem 79-jährigen Richter wohl nix anderes erwarten als alles was einem von den Krücken vorgetischt wird durchzuwinken

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.291 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 12:14:04

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP

“Practice Areas” (among other things) -

• Bankruptcy
• Capital Markets
• Climate Change
• Congressional Investigations
• Corporate
o Banking & Finance
o Corporate Governance
o Mergers & Acquisitions
o Private Equity & Buyouts
o Public Finance
o Securities
http://www.sonnenschein.com/practice_areas/index.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">
http://www.sonnenschein.com/practice_areas/index.html

[Charly_2]

Hier gibt's noch mehr Holz für das Gericht, mit diversen Begründungen und Facts....

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re:

CALPINE CORPORATION, et al.

Debtors.

Chapter: 11

Related Dkt. Nos. 7253, 7256

Case No.: 05-60200 (BRL)

Jointly Administered

COMPANIA INTERNACIONAL FINANCIERA, S.A., COUDREE GLOBAL
EQUITIES FUND, STANDARD BANK OF LONDON AND LEONARDO CAPITAL FUND
SPC'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
CONFIRMATION ORDER AND SECOND MODIFICATION ORDER

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP

Peter D. Wolfson (PDW-5956)

Carole Neville (CN-5733)

Matthew B. Stein (MBS-0062)

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Compania Internacional

Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities

Fund, Standard Bank of London and

Leonardo Capital Fund SPC

December 31, 2007

- 2 -

17584073\V-9

Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund, and Standard Bank of London, whose investments are each managed by Yomi Rodrik (collectively, the "Rodrik Group"), and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC (the "Leo Group" and collectively with the Rodrik Group, the "Objecting Shareholders"), who are collectively holders of over 25 million shares of Calpine Corporation common stock, by and through their counsel, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, hereby submit this memorandum of law in support of their Motion for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Confirmation Order", Dkt. No. 7256) and Order Approving Motion Seeking Approval of Immaterial Modifications to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Without the Need for
Further Solicitation of Votes (the "Second Modification Order", Dkt. No. 7253). In support of their motion, the Objecting Shareholders respectfully state as follows:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Calpine Corporation and its affiliated debtors (the "Debtors" or "Calpine") filed a Second Modification Motion (as defined below) to approve changes incorporated into the Sixth Amended Plan (as defined below) as immaterial as well as an ex parte motion to have the Second Modification Motion heard on the following day at the confirmation hearing. Although the ex parte motion to shorten time recites that the modifications to the plan were "central to proceeding with the confirmation hearing" and the Second Modification Motion was listed on the agenda of the hearing as a contested motion, there was no notice to or a meaningful opportunity for shareholders, whose rights were dramatically affected by the modifications to be heard or object, or both. Consequently, on December 19, 2007, this Court entered the Second
Modification Order and the Confirmation Order.

- 3 -

17584073\V-9

The Debtors did two things in the Second Modification Motion to eviscerate shareholder recoveries. First, the Debtors set an artificially low enterprise valuation of the reorganized Debtors (the "New Calpine"). There was no support offered for the valuation. The plan valuation was billed as compromise of various valuations prepared by and for several parties, which were generally filed either under seal or not at all. Second, the plan modifications substituted a substantial percentage of the New Calpine common stock for significantly less valuable warrants, as reflected in a bare bones term sheet filed on December 19, 2007. This "structural" change, designed to sidestep legitimate disputes about value and allocation among the creditor groups and shareholders constitutes a very material change, not, as the Second
Modification Motion argued, an immaterial modification.

The Debtors took over 18 months to file their plan of reorganization, and then amended that plan on numerous occasions over the next 6 months, culminating in the Sixth Amended Plan
-- filed on the day of the confirmation hearing. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) and due process require that equityholders have the opportunity to review a disclosure statement
that actually describes the plan being confirmed, and an opportunity to object thereto. For good reason, the same notice period is required for a confirmation hearing, in order to allow interested parties, including all creditors and shareholders, to object. Plan confirmation is the key event in a Chapter 11 case. By substituting a materially new plan at the very last minute, without notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, the Debtors violated the Bankruptcy Code and the Objecting Shareholders’ due process rights. The rush to emerge from bankruptcy is no substitute for the Constitutional mandate of due process or the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.

The opportunity to object to the Sixth Amended Plan is critical. The plan as confirmed violates at least Section 1129(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as applicable non-bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the Objecting Shareholders request that this

- 4 -

17584073\V-9

Court vacate the Second Modification and Confirmation Orders and set an appropriate objection deadline to permit the Objecting Shareholders to contest confirmation in accordance with Federal

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Beginning on December 20, 2005 (the "Petition Date"), the Debtors commenced the above-referenced chapter 11 cases by filing voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (as amended, the "Bankruptcy Code").

2. On May 9, 2006, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York appointed the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee") pursuant to section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code.

3. On June 20, 2007, 18 months later, the Debtors filed their Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Debtors’ Disclosure Statement for Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Plan", Dkt. No. 5018). The Plan and related documents were subsequently amended several times. On September 26, 2007, the Court entered the Order Approving Disclosure Statement (the "Disclosure Statement Order", Dkt. No. 6136), despite the fact that the Debtors were in the process of updating their valuation and projections.

4. On September 27, 2007, the Debtors filed their Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and their Fourth Amended Disclosure Statement for Debtors’ Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Fourth Amended Plan", Dkt. Nos. 6139 and 6140, respectively). The Fourth Amended Plan was subsequently disseminated in accordance with the approved solicitation procedures.

- 5 -

17584073\V-9

5. Following the solicitation, on November 2, 2007, the Debtors filed their Motion Seeking Approval of an Immaterial Modification to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Without the Need for Further Solicitation of Votes (the "First Modification Motion", Dkt. No. 6489). On November 8, 2007, the Court entered an Order Approving Motion Seeking Approval of an Immaterial Modification to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Without the Need for
Further Solicitation of Votes (the "First Modification Order", Dkt. No. 6542). These changes related to settlement of a dispute with the CalGen Lenders and did not affect the right of existing
equity to common stock in reorganized Calpine under the Fourth Amended Plan.

6. On November 30, 2007, the Equity Committee filed its Preliminary Objection to Confirmation of the Debtors’ Forth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Equity Committee Plan Objection", Dkt. No.
6818).

7. On December 18, 2007, the day before the confirmation hearing, the Debtors filed a Motion Seeking Approval of Immaterial Modifications to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization Without the Need for Further Solicitation of Votes (the "Second Modification Motion", Dkt. No. 7206) in connection with its filing of the Debtors’ Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Sixth
Amended Plan", Dkt. No. 7237). The Debtors also filed an ex parte motion to shorten time on the Second Modification Motion, which was served on a huge list of parties by overnight mail, without any chance that the Second Modification Motion would actually reach any party in interest before the hearing on the next morning. The Objecting Shareholders were not served with notice of the modifications and only learned of them after the order had been entered. In sum, the Debtors went through the motions of providing notice but without any of the substance.

- 6 -

17584073\V-9

8. The Second Modification Motion had several purposes. First, the Debtors sought to incorporate a number of "one-off" or "buy-off" settlements they reached with various objecting creditors. Second, the Debtors set a low enterprise valuation without any support in
the public record of the cases. The Sixth Amended Plan purportedly resolved a valuation dispute by setting the total enterprise value of the Debtors at $18.95 billion, a value the Objecting Shareholders believe is artificially and materially low. Finally, the Debtors sought to resolve disputes among the creditor and equity constituencies regarding allocation and value via a significant structural change to the stock ownership.

9. Pursuant to the Second Modification Motion and under the Sixth Amended Plan, the Debtors materially altered the proposed treatment of and distribution to equityholders. The new plan provides that equityholders will no longer receive shares of New Calpine common
stock based on the real value of the business, but instead will receive warrants to purchase stock predicated on the lower value -- warrants that are worth far less than the New Calpine stock that
they were originally receiving and that expire on the later of August 25, 2008 or six months after the effective date. The warrants are of limited time duration (unlike the common stock) and do not allow for the same upside if the market value of the equity in reorganized Calpine is higher than certain of the valuation reports might suggest.

10. On December 19, 2007, the Court entered its Second Modification Order and confirmed the Sixth Amended Plan.

ARGUMENT

I. OBJECTING SHAREHOLDERS MEET THE RECONSIDERATION STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs a motion to reconsider in bankruptcy proceedings. Rule 59 provides that reconsideration may be granted in any action tried without a jury for any reason upon which a

- 7 -

17584073\V-9

rehearing may be granted in a suit of equity. In addition, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has adopted Local Bankruptcy Rule 9023-1(a), which requires that the "motion shall set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has not considered."

Reconsideration is a remedy that is employed sparingly so as not to permit a second bite at the apple to re-argue issues previously raised. In re Bird, 222 B.R. 229, 235 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing see Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assocs., L.P., 153 F.R.D. 60, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (criticized on other grounds); N.Y. News Inc. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers’ Union of N.Y., 139 F.R.D. 294, 294-95 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff’d sub nom., N.Y. News Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1992)). Reconsideration is appropriate here because there was no opportunity to be heard and object in the first instance prior to the approval of the Second Modification Motion.
Further, there was no support for or legitimate case made for the valuation established in the Sixth Amended Plan and no cross-examination of that valuation at the hearing.

It is beyond cavil that a court may reconsider its earlier decision when a party can show "that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters ‘that might materially have
influenced its earlier decision.’" Nat’l Ass’n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, 990 F. Supp. 245, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Anglo Am. Ins. Group, P.L.C. v. CalFed,
Inc., 940 F. Supp. 554, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)); see In re Bird, 222 B.R. at 235 (quoting Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 460, *473 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), reconsideration denied, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2313, 1996 WL 88565 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1996)). Alternatively, a court may reconsider a prior ruling if the movant can "demonstrate the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 363 F. Supp. 2d 592, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), reconsideration denied, 72 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)); see In re Bird, 222 B.R. at

- 8 -

17584073\V-9

235 (quoting see Doe v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983)).

To materially change the Plan without affording adequate notice as well as an opportunity to object to the new valuation and structure constitutes just such a manifest injustice.

The facts of this matter and due process require reconsideration.

II. THE SECOND MODIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION ORDERS SHOULD BE
VACATED BECAUSE THE SUBSTITUTION OF WARRANTS FOR STOCK IN
THE DISTRIBUTION TO EQUITYHOLDERS CONSTITUTED A MATERIAL
MODIFICATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN.

On reconsideration, the Court should vacate the Second Modification and Confirmation Orders because the Sixth Amended Plan violates at least Sections 1129(a)(1-3) and (7) as well as Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code as:
(i) the Sixth Amended Plan does comply with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code;
(ii) the Debtors, as the proponents of the Sixth Amended Plan, do not comply with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code;
(iii) the Sixth Amended Plan is not proposed in good faith, and is in contravention of applicable nonbankruptcy law; (iv) the Sixth Amended Plan violates the best interest of creditors test; and
(v) the Sixth Amended Plan violates the absolute priority rule by providing creditors more than payment in full on their claims. Moreover, the Plan violates Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy
Code and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3019, because the Debtors’ amendment substituting short-term warrants for primary equity on the day before confirmation constituted a material modification and required, at the very least, re-notification and an opportunity for equityholders to object.

A. THE MATERIAL MODIFICATION OF AN ACCEPTED PLAN

PRECLUDES CONFIRMATION

Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that "the proponent of a [plan] modification shall comply with section 1125 of this title with respect to the plan as modified." Section 1125

- 9 -

17584073\V-9

requires a disclosure statement containing "adequate information" for an "investor typical of holders of claims or interest in the relevant class." Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3019 only permits immaterial modifications to a plan of reorganization prior to confirmation without providing all creditors and equityholders notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Admittedly, it is common practice to make immaterial modifications to a Chapter 11 plan shortly before or at a confirmation hearing without: (i) re-soliciting ballots; (ii) amending the disclosure statement; or (iii) giving a new 25-day notice period allowing an opportunity to object. However, courts have interpreted Section 1127(c) and Rule 3019 to require a new disclosure statement, re-solicitation, and a new 25-day period to object when a plan proponent makes a material modification to the proposed plan after voting has occurred and before confirmation of a plan of reorganization. E.g., In re Concrete Designers, Inc., 173 B.R. 354,
357-59 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994) (material change in distribution pursuant to plan required re-notification and re-solicitation). As the Debtors recognize, additional disclosure is "necessary when the proposed modification materially and adversely impacts a claimant’s treatment."

Second Modification Motion, p. 4 (citing see Resolution Trust Corp. v. Best Prods. Co., Inc. (In re Best Prods. Co., Inc.), 177 B.R. 791, 802 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 68 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1995);

Enron Corp. v. New Power Co. (In re New Power Co.), 438 F.3d 1113, 1118 (11th Cir. 2006)).

Courts have routinely held that a modification to a proposed plan is material if it affects an interest holder’s rights and would cause them to reconsider the decision about the plan. In re
Dow Corning Corp., 237 B.R. 374, 379 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999), aff’d sub nom., Certain Foreign Claimants v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16939 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2000) (no parallel citation); In re Frontier Airlines, Inc., 93 B.R. 1014, 1023 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1988); In re Am. Solar King Corp., 90 B.R. 808, 824 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1988). The term "acceptance," as utilized in Rule 3019, merely denotes a temporal

- 10 -

17584073\V-9

limitation -- in that modification must come after sufficient votes to accept the plan are cast -- and does not limit a remedy to creditors who have voted in favor of the plan. In re Dow Corning
Corp., 237 B.R. at 377-78 (citing 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3019.01). Undoubtedly, claimants who rejected the original plan "are to be given an opportunity to consider the modification and decide whether they wish to accept it or continue the rejection." Id. at 379.

As noted in Collier’s, "[c]learly, a reduction in consideration would be a change in treatment," and a "dilution of equity ownership" would probably be considered similarly. 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3019.01 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 15th ed. rev.) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court in In re Concrete Designers, Inc. held that distribution of a new disclosure statement and re-solicitation was necessary where the proposed dividend to unsecured creditors was changed from 100% over five years or a lump sum payment of 40% to approximately 80% over four years or a lump sum payment of 50%. 173 B.R. at 357. The court
noted that since the distribution scheme under the plan was modified with respect to unsecured creditors, it could not confirm the modified plan under section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy
Code. Id.

Additionally, Rule 2002(b) requires 25 days notice of the time to object to the adequacy of information in a disclosure statement and to file objections to the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that reasonably calculated notice is essential to apprise interested parties of an action and allow them an opportunity to raise any objections. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). In these cases, the Objecting Shareholders received no notice of the material modifications included in the Sixth Amended Plan or the Second Modification Motion, were not given any time to
object to the Sixth Amended Plan, and consequently, were deprived of their Constitutionally bestowed right of due process. The failure to follow the proper notification process precludes a

- 11 -

17584073\V-9

finding that the Debtors met the requirements of Section 1129(a)(2) with respect to the Sixth Amended Plan.

B. THE POST-SOLICITATION MODIFICATIONS OF THE DEBTORS’

PLAN WERE BOTH MATERIAL AND EXTENSIVE

On December 19, 2007, literally on the day of confirmation, the Debtors filed their Sixth Amended Plan, which contained an additional 5 pages of text and 744 modifications as compared to its previous incarnation. See generally Blackline of Debtors’ Sixth Amended Joint

Plan of Reorganization (Dkt. No. 7238).

In their Second Modification Motion filed the day before, the Debtors sought approval of what they described to the Court as "three structural, non-material modifications" that would result in acceptance of the Plan and settle the valuation dispute between the Debtors and creditors and equity holders. Second Modification Motion, p. 2. (emphasis added). Those modifications -- which were, by definition, material -- relate to the proposed distribution to and treatment of equityholders. The first settled the longstanding valuation dispute by setting the New Calpine Total Enterprise Value at a low $18.95 billion. Id. The second altered the distribution allotted to equityholders from issuance of New Calpine common stock to short-term warrants. Id. Moreover, the warrants expire on the later of 180 days after the effective date, or August 25, 2008. Id. Third, even if the warrants were not valueless, equityholders would still have to purchase those shares as opposed to having them in hand in consideration for their interests. The cost of this is described by the Debtors themselves, who in the Second Modification Motion explained that "[a]ssuming Calpine issues 500 million shares on the Effective Date, the exercise price would be $23.88 per share." Id. In contrast to the basic and logical conclusion that these changes were material, the Debtors’ misrepresentations to the Court regarding the effect of the substitution are glaring.

- 12 -

17584073\V-9

The setting of New Calpine [Total Enterprise Value] and the distribution of Warrants to Interest Holders are not material
changes to the Plan because they will not materially and negatively
impact creditor or shareholder recoveries. Rather, these changes
will guarantee Interest Holders an immediate recovery -- albeit
limited -- on account of their Old Calpine Common Stock, which
will give those Interest Holders the prospect of participation in
the future upside of Reorganized Calpine. Without the Plan
modifications, Interest Holders are guaranteed nothing, and,
moreover, are projected to receive nothing assuming the Debtors’
mid-point valuation and projected claims estimates. Indeed,
under the Fifth Amended Plan, Interest Holders only will receive
a distribution if the New Calpine Total Enterprise Value is high
enough, and the claims pool at the end of the claims resolution
process is low enough, to result in payment of all Claims in full,
inclusive of postpetition interest.

Id. at 5 (emphasis added).

There is, however, no "guarantee" that equityholders will receive anything of value under the Sixth Amended Plan. As opposed to receiving New Calpine common stock, equityholders now only have short term warrants, with which they may purchase such stock at a high exercise price. The Debtors themselves have admitted that shares in hand that were to be distributed to the equityholders maintained a value of up to $0.41 per share as of the effective date of the Sixth Amended Plan based upon a revised mid-point New Calpine Total Enterprise Value of $19.35 billion. Debtors’ Updated Valuation Analysis, p. 6 (Dkt. No. 6642).

The only precedent cited by the Debtors in support of the modification to warrants is In re Am. Solar King Corp., 90 B.R. at 824. The parenthetical appended to the citation makes clear that the Debtors have attempted to slip this modification under the wire of confirmation without re-notification. The Debtors want to rely on the Solar King "finding that a plan modification was not material where it resulted in dilution of less than one percent of equity holders’ recoveries." Second Modification Motion, p. 6. In these cases, however, the warrants, replacing more valuable primary equity, are "less than 1% of Calpine’s reorganized equity value" have "less than a 1% impact on general unsecured creditor recoveries," Id. at 6, but a significantly

- 13 -

17584073\V-9

greater impact on the equity holders. The Sixth Amended Plan shifted all the common stock to

the creditors (regardless of the claim amounts), subject to very limited potential dilution by the

warrants. While this may have been a boon for the creditors, it is a severe stripping of value away from the equityholders compared to the Fourth and Fifth Amended Plans.

Therefore, re-notification is necessary in order to permit the Objecting Shareholders to object to the Plan for failure to meet the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.

III. THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THAT THE
OBJECTING SHAREHOLDERS BE ALLOTTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDED PLAN

The equityholders due process rights cannot be sacrificed simply to permit confirmation. The Bankruptcy Code specifically precludes as much in Section 1129(a)(1) by placing compliance with its provisions above a debtor’s interest in confirmation. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(1) ("The court shall confirm a plan only if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The plan complies with the applicable provisions of this title."). Additionally, the fundamental effectuation and execution of the reorganization process requires that the finality of a confirmation order give way to due process and an opportunity to be heard prior to confirmation
of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In re Hanson, 397 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir. 2005) ("Although we recognize the strong policy favoring finality of confirmation orders, due process entitles creditors to the heightened notice provided for by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, and the dictates of due process trump policy arguments about finality.").

Due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution takes the primary position, as an order of confirmation cannot be binding upon a party that did not
receive adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 N. Lasalle St. P’ship, 526 U.S. 434, 471 (1999) (denying confirmation for failure to permit
the filing of a competing plan); DePippo v. Kmart Corp., 335 B.R. 290, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

- 14 -

17584073\V-9

(quoting Grant v. U.S. Home Corp. (In re U.S.H. Corp. of N.Y.), 223 B.R. 654, 657 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1141 and 524; Brown v. Seaman Furniture Co., Inc., 171 B.R. 26, 27 (E.D. Pa. 1994))).

The United States Supreme Court has established, that "[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314.
Notably, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals contemplated the trump of due process over confirmation in light of a substantial modification without sufficient notice even prior to promulgation of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. N. Am. Car Corp. v. Peerless Weighing & Vending Machine Corp., 143 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1944) (declining to resolve the issue based upon an untimely motion filing). Despite the fact that the Court decided to not resolve the
issue on a procedural technicality, it did recognize that a lack of notice was fundamentally improper when a substantial modification of a plan of reorganization was effectuated. Id. Accordingly, the Objecting Shareholders must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to
object to confirmation of the Sixth Amended Plan.

IV. OBJECTING SHAREHOLDERS’ GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION TO
CONFIRMATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDED PLAN

The equity holders objections to the plan can not be compromised away with an adverse change and no opportunity to be heard.

On November 30, 2007, the Equity Committee filed its preliminary objection to confirmation of Debtors’ earlier Plan. See generally Equity Committee Plan Objection (Dkt. No. 6818). In its objection, the Equity Committee raised the issues, inter alia, that the plan, as then proposed, violated the best interest test under Section 1129(a)(7) as well as the absolute priority

- 15 -

17584073\V-9

rule under Section 1129(b)(2). Id. at 10-13, 21-27, 31-44.1 These objections are even more relevant to the Sixth Amended Plan.

A. THE SIXTH AMENDED PLAN VIOLATES THE BEST INTEREST OF

CREDITORS TEST

Section 1129(a)(7)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code implements the best interest test.

Applying this test, courts "consider the value of the debtor’s assets in excess of valid liens and exemptions, and determine . . . that each non-accepting . . . interest holder will receive at least as much under the plan as it would if the debtor’s assets were liquidated under Chapter 7 at the date of confirmation." In re Best Prods. Co., Inc., 168 B.R. 35, 71 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994), appeal
dismissed sub nom., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Best Prods. Co., Inc. (In re Best Prods. Co., Inc.), 177 B.R. at 791, aff’d, 68 F.3d at 26. As an impaired interest holder of a non-accepting class, the
Objecting Shareholders are entitled to bring a best interest objection. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(7) (best interest); 11 U.S.C. § 1124(1) (impaired); ACC Bondholder Group v. Adelphia Commc’ns
Corp. (In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp.), 361 B.R. 337, 364 n.138 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Based upon the findings and analysis of the Equity Committee, the Objecting Shareholders believe that the liquidation analysis adopted by the Debtors, concluding that claim and interest holders would receive a lesser recovery in a Chapter 7 liquidation than under the Sixth Amended Plan, is inaccurate. The expert report submitted by the Equity Committee and prepared by Peralla Weinberg Partners LP stated that a Chapter 7 liquidation of the Debtors’
assets would result in between $22.2 billion and $23.9 billion of proceeds distributable to claim and interest holders. Equity Committee Plan Objection, p. 11. The most recent transactions on
the power markets indicate that even this valuation, combined with Calpine’s cash on hand, is an 1 The Objecting Shareholders relied on the Equity Committee Plan Objection and the Equity Committee’s
representations that it would fight vigorously to defend equityholders’ rights. Given that the Objecting Shareholders
had no say in the Equity Committee’s withdrawal of its objection and no opportunity to raise its own objections, the Objecting Shareholders must now be given the right to prosecute its own objections to confirmation.

- 16 -

17584073\V-9

extremely conservative estimate. This valuation far exceeds the $18.95 billion that the Sixth Amended Plan set as the valuation of the reorganized Debtors. If the Objecting Shareholders are
successful in obtaining additional time to object to the Sixth Amended Plan, they will hire their own valuation expert to pursue an 1129(a)(7) objection -- an objection unexpectedly and without
notice dropped by the Equity Committee. The Objecting Shareholders believe that a sale of Calpine in pieces offers significantly more value than the Plan as confirmed.

B. THE SIXTH AMENDED PLAN VIOLATES THE ABSOLUTE

PRIORITY RULE

The Sixth Amended Plan was confirmed over the rejecting vote of the equityholders under Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. To confirm a plan under the cram down provisions, the plan must meet the tests of Section 1129(b)(2), commonly referred to as the
"absolute priority rule." It "provides that a dissenting class of unsecured creditors must be provided for in full before any junior class can receive or retain any property [under a reorganization] plan." Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 202 (1988)
(emphasis in original). A corollary to the absolute priority rule is that no senior class may receive more than full compensation for its claims, as any excess value must cascade down to junior classes in the waterfall scheme. In re Granite Broad. Corp., 369 B.R. 120, 140 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing see, e.g. New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Rutland R. Co., 143 F.2d 179, 186 (2d Cir. 1944), reh’g denied, 143 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1944)).

The Sixth Amended Plan provides that general unsecured creditors will be paid either:
(i)a ratable share of the New Calpine common stock pool, defined as shares of New Calpine issued net shares reserved for the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan (as defined in the Plan); or (ii) $50,000 in cash based upon an agreed reduction and allowance of the claim, with both payments including interest. If the stipulated valuation of the Debtors in the amount of 2 Moreover, this estimate does not include any value realizable from tax attributes.

- 17 -

17584073\V-9

$18.95 billion is an underestimation by even the smallest percentage, unsecured creditors receiving shares will have received more than full payment on their claims. The absolute priority
rule does not permit such a payment as distribution to claimants must be capped at a maximum of full satisfaction of their claims plus interest. Id.

C. THE SIXTH AMENDED PLAN VIOLATES THE GOOD

FAITH REQUIREMENT

The Sixth Amended Plan also violates Section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code and applicable non-bankruptcy law by permitting the Debtors’ management and directors to receive personal financial benefit under the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan, which benefit is not equally shared by equityholders.

A proposed plan of reorganization must have "been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law." 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3). In determining whether a plan has been proposed in good faith, courts in the Second Circuit look to whether the plan is proposed with "honesty and good intentions." Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 649 (2d Cir. 1988).

It is fundamental that corporate directors and officers owe a duty of loyalty both to the corporation and its shareholders, requiring "undivided and unselfish loyalty" and "no conflict between duty and self-interest." Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939); see In re LNR Prop. Corp. S’Holders Litig., 896 A.2d 169, 175 (Del. Ch. Ct. New Castle County 2005). It is "[a] well settled precept of Delaware corporate law is that a fiduciary is considered interested
where he or she will receive a personal financial benefit from a transaction that is not equally shared by the stockholders." In re LNR Prop. Corp. S’Holders Litig., 896 A.2d at 175 n.36 (citing Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 936 (Del. 1993)). "[W]here a self-interested corporate fiduciary has set the terms of a transaction and caused its effectuation," the business judgment
rule is inapplicable. AC Acquisitions Corp. v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., 519 A.2d 103, 111 (Del. Ch. Ct. New Castle County 1986) (citing Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701 (Del.

- 18 -

17584073\V-9

1983)). Instead, when the directors of a corporation are financially interested in and are on both sides of a transaction, they are required to demonstrate the utmost good faith and scrupulous fairness of the bargain. In re LNR Prop. Corp. S’Holders Litig., 896 A.2d at 176 n.41 (citing Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 710).
Where corporate fiduciaries with a conflict of interest influence a proposed plan of reorganization, good faith is negated and the plan is not confirmable in violation of Section 1129(a)(3). In re Bush Indus., Inc., 315 B.R. 292, 303-08 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying
confirmation pursuant to Section 1129(a)(3) due to the inclusion of a "golden parachute" for the debtor’s former chief executive officer in a proposed plan). As Section 1129(a)(3) looks to the
process by which a plan is developed and proposed, it is irrelevant whether the terms of the plan are fair and equitable. Id. at 304, 305 ("While other provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a) speak to
the content of a plan, subdivision (a)(3) imposes a strict mandate for proper process and methodology." "Because section 1129(a)(3) speaks more to the process of plan development than to the content of the plan, amendments that merely change outcome may not necessarily remedy the underlying deficiency."). Therefore, where a plan that is the product of self-interest and self-dealing, the proper remedy is to deny confirmation, not merely to excise portions thereof linked to the improper conduct. Id. at 308.
Under these facts of these cases, the Debtors seek to retain the vast majority of their management structure, including:
(i) Robert P. May and David Merritt as directors of Calpine Corporation;
(ii) Robert P. May as chief executive officer and Gregory L. Doody as executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of Calpine Corporation; and
(iii) all of the directorsand officers of the remaining debtors. Disclosure of Management Structure (Dkt. No. 7096); Sixth Amended Plan (Dkt. No. 7237). As insiders, officers and directors of New Calpine, management approved the Debtors’ restated certificate of incorporation, restated bylaws and the

- 19 -

17584073\V-9

Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan. The Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan provides up to 3.03% of New Calpine common stock to directors, officers, management and employees of the reorganized debtors.

Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan (Dkt. No. 6633).
The incentive plan is structured to provide fixed awards on the
effective date of the Sixth Amended Plan (the "Emergence Awards") and annual awards thereafter. Notably, the aggregate value of the Emergence Awards -- which account for only 1.3% of the equity pool, or less than half of the shares to be awarded -- hold a value in excess of $66 million. Id. While thousands of the Debtors’ employees are eligible for awards, a large portion of the awards are directed to two individuals, both of whom will continue their executive positions with the reorganized Calpine Corporation. Id. Specifically, Robert P. May and Gregory L. Doody will receive almost $11 million and in excess of $2 million in equity value,
respectively, in Emergence Awards alone. Id.; Disclosure of Management Structure (Dkt. No. 7096).

Clearly, the retained management approved the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan while bearing a financial interest in its effectuation. As such, management was on both sides of the transaction and had a financial self-interest in such transaction, evidenced by the fact that the value of the 3.03% of New Calpine common stock allocated for distribution under the incentive plan is well in excess of the value of the warrants distributable to
equityholders under the Sixth Amended Plan. See In re LNR Prop. Corp. S’Holders Litig., 896 A.2d at 175 n.36 (citing Rales, 634 A.2d at 936). Under these circumstances, the directors of New Calpine are not cloaked in the protection of the business judgment rule and are required to demonstrate the utmost good faith and scrupulous fairness of the allocations under the Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan and the Sixth Amended Plan. See In re LNR Prop. Corp. S’Holders Litig., 896 A.2d at 176 n.41 (citing Weinberger, 457 A.2d at 710). The

- 20 -

17584073\V-9

docket in these proceedings provides no indicia that the Debtors’ ever presented any evidence concerning the fairness of the process in determining these distributions. Indeed, it is noteworthy
that management wanted the common equity originally offered to the equityholders as well rather than the short-term warrants - if management thinks the warrants are valuable, then it should be receiving warrants as well.

The Objecting Shareholders submit that the utmost good faith and scrupulous fairness of the process for determination of these allocations cannot be shown. New Calpine management will receive over $66 million dollars in Emergence Awards, plus an additional reserve of 1.73% of New Calpine common stock for payment of annual awards thereafter, under the Sixth Amended Plan. Management and Director Equity Incentive Plan (Dkt. No. 6633). In contrast,
equityholders will receive warrants for New Calpine common stock, which, even if exercised during their short effective period, would still require equityholders to purchase New Calpine common stock. Such a result is not indicative of fairness in the determination of the distributions under the Sixth Amended Plan. Instead, this overt conflict of interest negates the alleged good faith of Plan as proposed, and precludes confirmation thereof pursuant to Section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. See generally In re Bush Indus., Inc., 315 B.R. at 292.

- 21 -

17584073\V-9

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Objecting Shareholders respectfully request, for any and all reasons stated herein, that the Court vacate the Second Modification and Confirmation Orders and set an appropriate objection deadline to permit the Objecting Shareholders to contest confirmation of the Sixth Amended Plan.

Dated: December 31, 2007

New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP

By: /s/ Peter D. Wolfson

Peter D. Wolfson (PDW-5956)

Carole Neville (CN-5733)

Matthew B. Stein (MBS-0062)

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Compania Internacional

Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities

Fund, Standard Bank of London and

Leonardo Capital Fund SPC

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.746 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 13:12:20

..einen Plan in letzter Minute zu Ungunsten der SH abzuändern ohne den Shareholdern Zeit zu geben um ihre Einwände zu platzieren - und das definitve Resultat auszuhandeln - das ist eine bodenlose Frechheit

Das SHC soll asap abtreten, die vertreten uns nicht angemessen!!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.799 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 13:19:26

..dies sagt alles

"Plan confirmation is the culminating point in a Chapter 11 proceeding. In substituting what is effectively a new plan, in literally the eleventh hour, without providing notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, the Debtors violated the Bankruptcy Code and the Objecting Shareholders’ due process rights. The rush to emerge from bankruptcy is no substitute for Constitutional mandate."

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.799 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 13:19:26

..dieser Part ist wirklich super formuliert, das kann man nicht besser machen

Lenkt der Richter nicht ein gibt es Knatsch, dann wird mit scharfer Munition geschossen, schlussendlich gibt es ca. 2'500 Shareholder die gegen 480 Mio Aktien halten die sich nicht durch einen 6. POR der an einem Tag zu Lasten der Shareholders durchgedrückt wurde schrauben lassen....

"The Debtors took over 18 months to file their plan of reorganization, and then amended that plan on numerous occasions over the next 6 months, culminating in the Sixth Amended Plan
-- filed on the day of the confirmation hearing . Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) and due process require that equityholders have the opportunity to review a disclosure statement that actually describes the plan being confirmed, and an opportunity to object thereto. For good reason, the same notice period is required for a confirmation hearing, in order to allow interested parties, including all creditors and shareholders, to object. Plan confirmation is the key event in a Chapter 11 case. By substituting a materially new plan at the very last minute, without notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, the Debtors violated the Bankruptcy Code and the Objecting Shareholders’ due process rights. The rush to emerge from bankruptcy is no substitute
for the Constitutional mandate of due process or the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code."

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.872 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 13:29:12

....mit den Anwälten von SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP ist bereits ein Hearing betr. ihrer eingereichten Motion angesagt

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712310000000…

[Charly_2]

..da wurde genau am letzten Tag ein POR zusammengeschustert ohne die Shareholder adäquat zu berücksichtigen und gepfuscht noch und noch

1 'the Debtors set an artificially low enterprise valuation for the reorganized Debtors (the “New Calpine”), without any indicia of support offered for the valuation.

2 Debtors violated the Bankruptcy Code and the Objecting Shareholders’ due process rights.

3 Court (Lifland) problem -
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) requires 25-days notice of a hearing on a disclosure statement and a hearing on confirmation, permitting equityholders and creditors time to object for good reason.

4 Despite that the ex parte motion to shorten time recites that the modifications to the plan were structural and “central to proceeding with the confirmation hearing,” and that the Second Modification Motion was listed on the agenda of the hearing as a contested motion, no notice was provided to shareholders. The lack of notice deprived shareholders of a meaningful opportunity, or even any opportunity, to object despite the clear fact that their rights were dramatically affected by the modifications.

...und der 6. POR verletzt viele Bancruptcy-Regeln

The plan as confirmed violates at least Section 1129(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as applicable non-bankruptcy law, as discussed more extensively in the memorandum of law being submitted herewith.

...da werden sich viele Anwälte, Richter inklusive die Augen reiben

...es ist tatsählich zum wenn nicht grundlegend stümperhaft was da geboten wurde....

...und wieso sollen Insider mit über 3% der Aktien abgegolten werden - dies erst noch auf Kosten der Aktionäre??

[Charly_2]

=> Calpine Corp. Started at 'Overweight' by Lehman Bros

Dieser "Club" hat vor einem Monat alle CPNLQ-Aktien geschmissen die sie hielten, das waren nicht wenige...

Na ja, ist ja nicht verboten gescheiter zu werden

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.908.746 von Charly_2 am 01.01.08 13:12:20

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP beschäftigt weltweit 700 Anwälte

Yomi Rodrig soll der Initiant der eingegebenen Motion sein, na ja 25 Mio Aktien zu $10 ergibt bekanntlich $250 Mio

Compañia internacional financiera, SA
Hello!

For everybody that ask who is this CALPINE investor (very knew in Spain) Compañia Internacional Financiera, SA who is property of turkish Yomi Rodrig:

"11:59 SEDA BARCELONA [ SEDA BARCELONA ]
INSIDERS - ENTRADA DE NUEVOS INVERSORES

El fondo Coudree Capital ha entrado en el capital de La Seda de Barcelona (SED -1,16% 2,56 EUR) con el 1,08% del capital. Además, Compañía Internacional Financiera SA, el vehículo inversor fundado y controlado por Yomi Rodrig, ha comunicado la posesión del 2,399% del capital."

The Fund Coudree Capital has entered the capital of "La Seda de Barcelona"(BE-1,16 % 2,56 EUR) with 1,08 % of the capital. In addition, Compañia Internacional Financiera SA, the investing vehicle founded and controlled by Yomi Rodrig, as communicated the possession of 2,399 % of the capital.

[Charly_2]

[multimediaperle]

[Charly_2]

So, nun wird das Game gekehrt

Neues, mögliches Senario, minimum:
1)Executive Bonus anstelle Aktien wird ersetzt durch Warrants Ablauf innert 5 Jahren.

Die 3% bekommen die Shareholders in Aktien plus 10% in Warrants, Ablauf innert 5 Jahren.

2)3% Bonus Package is 500 Mio Shares x $23.07 per share x 3% dividiert durch 480 Mio Shares = $.72 pro Share.

3)Warrants zu $23.07 ausübbar für 5 years, Wert = ?

4)Wert der Aktien: $.72 + ? = ?

Kursziel: Minimum $0.72

...oder sonstwas

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.915.397 von Charly_2 am 02.01.08 15:06:21

Kursziel $25, keine S.. weiss was die meinen

09:51 CPNLQ Calpine initiated with an Overweight at Lehman, before the open (0.32 +0.06)

Before the open, CPNLQ was initiated with an Overweight and $25 target. Positioned in some of the country's tightest markets and on the right side of the equity market's "green preference" CPNLQ is firm's preferred choice of spark spread uplift stories. Firm notes key selling points for CPNLQ are: 1) Top assets in the right markets; 2) Free cash generation ramping to $0.8 in 2009 and $1.4B In 2012; 3) Largest geothermal producer and beneficiary of CO2 mandates and 4) Upside potential on 5 GW under-utilized capacity in the Southeast

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.916.333 von Charly_2 am 02.01.08 16:25:50

Coverage Initiated Sort Alphabetically | Sort by Broker
Company Ticker Brokerage Firm Ratings Change Price Target
Calpine Corp CPNLQ Lehman Brothers Overweight $25
Och-Ziff Capital OZM Lehman Brothers Overweight $34
Cytori Therapeutics CYTX Rodman & Renshaw Mkt Outperform $8
Data Domain DDUP Needham & Co Buy $32
Virtual Radiologic VRAD William Blair Outperform
Aetrium ATRM JP Morgan Overweight
Zhongpin HOGS Brean Murray Buy $18
Icagen ICGN Rodman & Renshaw Mkt Outperform $4
Cougar Biotechnology CGRB Rodman & Renshaw Mkt Outperform $36

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.916.365 von Charly_2 am 02.01.08 16:27:53

3,6 Mio Aktien in 1 Stunde gehandelt....der Gaul geht durch solange der Jokey nicht vom Pferd fällt

[JosedelaVega]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.916.215 von Charly_2 am 02.01.08 16:18:49

aus einer heutigen Reuters-Meldung
On Dec. 19, a U.S. bankruptcy court confirmed Calpine's reorganization plan, setting an enterprise value of $18.95 billion for the company. Enterprise value is a company's market capitalization plus debt and preferred stock, but excluding its cash.
Calpine sought Chapter 11 protection in December 2005, burdened by more than $22 billion in debt and court battles with creditors on how to use its cash.

das macht doch einen neagativen Liquid.-Wert für die Aktionäre oder wie kommst du auf 0,72 US je Aktie?!!?

außerdem sehen die Lehman Jungs dieses Kursziel doch vom emerging value !?!?
"We see 48 percent stock upside potential to our $25 target from the emerging value of $16.90," said Lehman in a research note

José

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.918.861 von JosedelaVega am 02.01.08 20:10:16

...zu Reuters-Meldungen sag ich hier nix mehr

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.915.474 von Charly_2 am 02.01.08 15:15:10

...die stecken auch in hohen Buchverlusten, da muss man was unternehmen

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712310000000…

[Charly_2]

Hierhin haben wir es zumindest auch geschafft - Dow Jones Newswires

by Christopher Witkowsky
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

A group of Calpine Corp. (CPNLQ) shareholders has asked a federal judge to reconsider his approval of the company's bankruptcy plan, saying the power company set an "artificially" low postbankruptcy value and gave shareholders no time to argue against the estimate.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, the shareholder group said Calpine at the last minute cut its estimated postbankruptcy value to $18.95 billion and changed its plan to give shareholders warrants to buy new shares in the reorganized company.

Under earlier versions of the plan, the shareholders were to receive any shares in the reorganized company left after Calpine paid off its creditors.

"To materially change the plan without affording adequate notice as well as an opportunity to object to the new valuation and structure constitutes ... a manifest injustice," the shareholders said.

Calpine spokesman Mel Scott said the company won't comment on pending litigation. The company says it remains on track to exit bankruptcy protection by Feb. 7, the deadline to close on its $7.6 billion bankruptcy-exit financing.

The shareholders, Standard Bank Plc., Compania Internacional Financiera S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC Limited, say they hold more than 25 million shares of Calpine's common stock. They've asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland to reconsider the plan at a Jan. 11 hearing.

(This article also appears in Daily Bankruptcy Review, a publication from Dow Jones & Co.)

Lifland on Dec. 19 confirmed Calpine's bankruptcy plan, which pegs the company's postbankruptcy value at $18.95 billion.

Calpine and the committees representing its unsecured creditors and
shareholders were at odds over the value of the reorganized company but reached a deal on the eve of the confirmation hearing to avoid a battle that could have delayed the power company's exit from bankruptcy.

The official committee representing the shareholders agreed to the lower valuation and the award to shareholders of warrants to buy up to 10% of the reorganized company's stock.

The shareholder group, however, said Calpine didn't give them enough time to consider the changes. The company, they said, changed the plan numerous times and filed the final version - with the new valuation estimate - on the day of the confirmation hearing.

"The objecting shareholders were not served with notice of the modifications and only learned of them after the order had been entered," the shareholders said.

Calpine, based in San Jose, supplies electricity to 24 million U.S.
households using a fleet of low-carbon, natural-gas-fired power plants. The company sought Chapter 11 protection two years ago.

-Christopher Witkowsky, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4296;
[e-mail]

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

01-02-08 1520ET

Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
15:20 010208

[Charly_2]

....gut, alles verstehe ich da nicht, aber da ist scharfes Geschütz aufgefahren worden

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712310000000…

Ich sehe da knapp schwarz wenn sich diese Bude samt Richter nicht in die richtige Richtung bewegt dann ist die 7,6 Mrd. DIP und auch der Bonus für das CPN-Pack futsch und dann kann man gleich den ganzen Krempel meisstbietend am Markt verkaufen und die Shareholder damit gebührend abgelten

[corepaloma]

Was denkt ihr wie sich der Kurs entwickeln wird?

[Charly_2]

...die Story hats bis nach Bulgarien geschafft

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=calpine&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ta…

http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view…

Calpine Shareholders Say Not So Fast ... 'Main Street' Once Again Has Milk Swiped from Coffee PDF Print E-mail
In what only can be described as a flurry of often conflicting information broadcast by bankrupt power producer, Calpine of San Jose, CA, some shareholders are saying slow down and let's have another look.

In Chapter 11, Case No 05-60200 (BRL) now being heard in United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District in New York, shareholders fear their investment in the huge power infrastructure giant will be wiped out over simple errors in math.

One shareholder, Elias Fellus of Centerport, NY has motioned the court for a time out.

"It seems the court in its haste to bring Calpine out of bankruptcy so the company can take advantage of an attractive financing package with time limitations, may be doing so at the expense of shareholders," said Mr Felluss.

"All we want them to do is take a closer forensic look at the calculations to make absolutely sure," he continues. "There may have been ministerial errors leaving shareholders empty handed."

"Before many shareholders who invested in this company are cast aside in favor of the hedge funds such as Harbinger who stand ready to take the helm," Felluss has asked the court for a review of the numbers.

Calpine Shareholders Committee is a group of some 115 individual small shareholders who have banned together utilizing the venue of the www.investorvillage.com. Share ownership is the only membership requirement.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.920.935 von corepaloma am 02.01.08 22:43:18

..bis zum Hearing - soeben festgelegt auf den 15.01.2008 - wird sich der Kurs wohl unter $0.41 halten.....oder auch darüber...

...das ist übrigens der obere Rand der im vorletzten, dem 5. POR pro Aktie angeboten wurde...der untere liegt bei 0.00

[Ayrton1]

Hallo an alle....! Frohes neues Jahr und viel Gesundheit und steigende Aktien

Calpine ist zum hat jemand Neuigkeiten?

Ist hier noch jemand?
Gruß Ayrton

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend.

Mal sehen, ob das alles nur ein Strohfeuer, oder der Sturm im Wasserglas war.
Die Anwälte die sich zu Wort gemeldet haben, wussten natürlich auch, dass sie mit ihren Äußerungen den Kurs massiv zu ihren Gunsten bewegen konnten.
Gut wenn sie vorher welche hatten

Ansonsten bleibt abzuwarten, ob sich ein amerikanisches Gericht die Blöße geben wird und diese begangenen "Fehlschritte" als solche zugibt und es daraus zu Nachverhandlungen kommen wird.
Ich habe da meine Zweifel!
Abwarten was der 18.01. bringen wird.

Bis dahin wird natürlich weiterhin der Kurs massiven Beeinflussungen ausgesetzt sein - ich halte aber weiterhin.

Der Montag ist geschafft

Gruß in die Nacht des Wochenbeginns hinaus - Dosto

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.971.971 von Dostojewski am 07.01.08 20:16:49

Korrektur: Was der 15.01. bringen wird?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.972.020 von Dostojewski am 07.01.08 20:20:12

...was der bringen wird?

Da bin ich auch gespannt, aber ich bin da vorerst eher pessimistisch.....auf Anhieb wird hier die Attacke nicht gelingen, da brauchts schone eine Sammelklage von Aktionären umd denen Beine zu machen

Die Anwälte der Aktionärsgruppe die beim Gericht eine Motion einreichten, hat beim Gericht die Herausgabe von vertraulichen, unveröffentlichten Dokumenten verlangt, welche nachweisen welche Angebote bereits für Calpine eingegangen sind und was dazu entschieden wurde. Der CPN CEO wird da sicher mauern, wenn er die herausrückt ist er erledigt, denn da liegen sicher mehrere Angebote vor, hätte er eines angenommen wäre die Bude von Angeboten überfahren worden und er selber hätte wohl asap den Platz räumen müssen...

Dazu gilt als sicher, dass Harbert für Calpine eine Angebot platziert hat das gegen $4/ Aktie beinhaltete. Der CEO May hat dies damals abgelehnt, das war im Juli 07, als der Kurs kurz bei $4 stand....man müsste sich angesichts des derzeitigen Kurses ohrfeigen, da hätte man schmeissen müssen

Zu Harbert: Die sind nach meiner Ansicht immer noch am einsammeln von Aktien um eine Mehrheit an Calpine zu erlangen, das könnte dann ex-Bk irgendwann der Fall sein, und dann werden sie ihre eigene Crew installieren:

http://www.harbert.net/independent-power/investment-team/#wa…

[Dostojewski]

Hätte... und 4 US-Dollar... ich möchte gar nicht darüber nachdenken.

Charly, glaubst Du, dass es zu einer Sammelklage kommen wird?
Eine Offenlegung der Unterlagen würde zu einem Eklat führen... bin gespannt, wie sie das erzwingen wollen.

Einer muss hängen. Bislang hängen aber nur in Massen die Alt- und Kleinaktionäre.

Gruß - Dosto

[boom2]

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080108/cpnlq.pk8-k.html

Form 8-K for CALPINE CORP

-------------------------

8-Jan-2008

[boom2]

Court approves Calpine's $7.6 bln exit financing

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKWNAS590220080…

[Ayrton1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.981.332 von boom2 am 08.01.08 16:21:01

Guten Abend,
kann mir jemand vielleicht die "Reuters News" übersetzen?

Ayrton

[salvanation]

ich würde auch noch gerne was wissen..
calpine geht doch wahrscheinlich ende jänner aus dem chapter 11 oder?
werden dann alle aktien wertlos oder wie ist das?
es gibt ja unter der nummer US1313471062
verschiedene kürzel
Deutsche Börse = CJ3
NYSE = CPN
Nasdaq = CPNLQ

wird da nur die CPNLQ wertlos oder warum gibt es da noch CPN?
ist CPN und cj3 schon die neue aktie???

gruss daniel

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.984.758 von Ayrton1 am 08.01.08 20:18:47

Das Gericht in New York hat die 7,6 Mrd. Finanzierung von Goldman Sachs genehmigt. Diese Finanzierung sichert Calpine zu guten Bedingungen das Verlassen des Bankrotts...in den nächsten Wochen...

...allerdings ist noch eine Anhörung einer Aktionärsgruppe vor Gericht am 15.01.08 ausstehend....die die Bedingungen für die Shareholder nicht akzeptiert

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.985.290 von salvanation am 08.01.08 20:53:41

CJ3 ist die Aktie die in Deuschland jetzt gehandelt wird

CPN ist die neue Aktie die ab ca. 7.02.08 in den USA anstelle CPNLQ gehandelt wird, wenn Calpine den Bankrott verlassen hat...

CPNLQ ist die Aktie die in USA nach Verlassen des Bankrotts nicht mehr gehandelt werden wird, sondern die bisherigen Aktionäre werden pro 10 Altaktien automatisch je 1 Warrant eingebucht erhalten, der sie berechtigt an der US-Börse eine Aktie zu $23,88 zu kaufen oder den Warrant zu verkaufen und dafür den gehandelten Gegenwert - derzeit nicht bekannt da 1:1 vom Aktienkurs und der Volatilität und anderen Warrants-Parametern abhängig....die Warrants haben eine Laufzeit die bereits am 25.08.2008 abläuft :O

Ob in Deutschland auch Warrants ausgegeben werden anstelle CJ3 ist mir NICHT klar, da muss man asap die Bank oder den Broker anfragen ...um selber Klarheit zu erhalten wenn man aktuell die CJ3-Aktie hält....

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.987.293 von Charly_2 am 08.01.08 23:09:04

...allerding hat der Zins um 0.5% angezogen, das kostet Calpine $38 Mio mehr Zinsen pro Jahr

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.971.971 von Dostojewski am 07.01.08 20:16:49

...das Hearing am 15.01. vor dem Gericht wird jedenfalls interessant werden, denn die Anwälte von Sonnenschein & Co werden sicher nicht zum Händchen halten dort vortreten...

...sondern da geht es um viel Kohle und die werden sich vom Richter nicht an die Wand spielen lassen. Wer die Eingaben dieser Anwälte studiert hat hat wohl selber festgestellt dass diese sich bis ins Detail mit diesem Fall befasst haben, die werden die richtigen Fragen zu stellen wissen und auch nachhaken, wenn's nicht so läuft wie erhofft auch nach dem Hearing auf anderem Wege

Zudem wurde auch unser Aktionärsvertreter eingeladen, der eine eigene Motion eingereicht hat und der weiss sich auch zu artikulieren....

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801020000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.972.854 von Charly_2 am 07.01.08 21:26:53

Vertrauliche Calpine-Dokumente müssen bis 11.01. 4:00 rausgerückt werden, sonst wird's ungemütlich

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801030000000…

[Charly_2]

Dollar ist auch abgesoffen :O

[Charly_2]

...wer weiss was da abgeht

Nachbörslicher Handel
t 0.275 70000 OTO 16:09:44
t 0.275 16500 OTO 16:08:33
t 0.275 3200 OTO 16:06:06
t 0.275 90000 OTO 16:05:57
t 0.275 30000 OTO 16:03:32
t 0.275 30000 OTO 16:02:18
t 0.275 5000 OTO 16:02:02
t 0.275 5000 OTO 16:01:02
t 0.275 5000 OTO 16:00:43
t 0.275 5000 OTO 16:00:37
t 0.275 20000 OTO 16:00:28
t 0.27 4500 OTO 16:00:27
t 0.27 100 OTO 16:00:07
t 0.27 5000 OTO 16:00:03
0.27 210000 OTO 16:00:00

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.013.899 von Charly_2 am 10.01.08 23:02:02

Konkurrent Dynegy wurde aufgestuft - sonst nix in Sicht

Dynegy initiated with a Buy at Merrill- tgt $9.50 (7.06 )

[Charly_2]

Unser Hero hat heute nochmals nachgelegt

Memo filed......
This was filked today at 1:49pm EST....for better or for worse....good luck........


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Elias A Felluss, Shareholder

Pro Se

United States if America
___________________________

)

In re: )

)

Calpine Corporation, et al )

)

Debtors )

) Chapter 11

) Case No. 05-60200 (BRL)

) Jointly Administered

___________________________)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CALPINE CONFIRMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Petitioner, Elias A Felluss, pro se, brings this memorandum before the court in the matter of the Calpine bankruptcy, Case No 05-60200 upon which this court ruled to confirm its plan of reorganization on December, 19, 2007. This Memorandum of Law is presented in support of the petitioner's motion filed on December 28, 2007, Docket 7322.

As a shareholder, the Petitioner is convinced he is being discriminated against by virtue of the court's strict adherence to the principles of the juris doctrine of "The Public Trust Fund" and in its execution overlooks ministerial oversights which suffer material damages to the Petitioner. In Mirant, Judge Lynn in the Mirant case got it right, valuations of this type amount to "crystal ball gazing.

The magnitude of injustice this shareholder is blinding. "The law does not pretend to correct everything that is unfair, that would tend to slow things down" to paraphrase Clarence Darrow. And the Petitioner would add to proceed cautiously lest the baby get tossed with the bath water.

If it were not for investors who put their money at risk to create the infrastructure creditors can extend funds to and people can light their homes with, there would not be electricity to power a Christmas tree or a computer. There would also be no light to read by or electronic filing.

The obvious desire by the Debtor Management to retain the Calpine generation fleet intact is being done at the expense of shareholders. The presumptions made in the DCF projections and TEV valuations are erroneous and can be crafted to any desired result. In addition, certain calculations made by the debtor management throughout the course of this proceeding and their projections have all contributed to undermining the solvency of Calpine to the detriment of all shareholders.

After August 2006 it seemed that electricity for sale was not a priority at Calpine. Electricity and steam revenue for 3rd quarter 2006 was $1.842575 billion dollars and 3rd quarter 2007 was $1.690000. billion dollars down 8.26% percent. In 4th quarter 2005 Calpine wrote down property plant and equipment $4.423,708 billion dollars and they plan to write up property plant and equipment $6.724 billion dollars on their 12/31/2007 pro forma balance sheet alluding to concealed equity.

Also in 4th quarter 2005 liabilities were increased by $2.822426 billion dollars. Then in 3rd quarter 2007 reversed the entry and wrote down liabilities by $2.837 billion dollars. Again alluding to equity.

This means that $7.260,708 was concealed from equity during the 1st the 2nd the 3rd the 4th the 5th and the 6th negotiation of the POR. The $7.262708 billion dollars was concealed from equity during the TEV debate.

In accounting to overstate expenses is to understate earnings. Equity is the accumulation of earnings. I also related unsecured creditors to common shareholders.

Unsecured creditors were selling to Calpine for a profit. Calpine took no advantage of them and they could stop trading with Calpine anytime.

TEV is common equity at market value plus debt plus preferred equity at market price minus cash or cash equivalents.

Using the 12/31/2007 pro forma balance sheet Calpine provides, TEV is $22.214 billion dollars.

Companies trade at a multiple of equity (book value) using Lehman's projection of a 48% percent increase in share price.

Why should unsecured creditors that were selling Calpine for a profit receive 100% percent of the equity. In reality it will be the hedge funds that own the unsecured debt they bought for pennies on the dollar.

Faulty and unreasonable projections accrue to the detriment of shareholders.

Those projections coupled with the rush to secure the Goldman Sachs financing package combined to form a rush to judgment that did not favor equity.

The court's own appointed appraisal expert failed to provide an estimate or valuation. In testimony and in the Bridges Executive Summary, Bridges made this admission. They also relied on projections prepared by a "third party" because of the haste to come to judgment forced on the court to meet the financing deadline.

Now it turns out the financing package has been reduced to $7.6 Billion, date extended and the terms are not as favorable as they once were. The new terms now will cost Calpine an additional $38 Million per annum. Yes credit markets are in turmoil, but that is true only for those who are not credit worthy. So what is the rush? As interest rates are expected to fall, Calpine should not be penalized for the failures of banks to prudently manage risks in mortgage markets."

The result has been:

Due process has been denied.

Procedural Justice has been denied.

Economics have been denied.

The Petitioner does not mean to challenge the Court's integrity, nor presume to instruct, but there are other notions and many outcomes here and fairness should override any other consideration as other views of juris could also apply.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The recitation of the details of the valuations may not be necessary for the purposes of the supporting the Petitioner's motion.

In the petitioners view the use of TEV combined with DCF modeling is wrong headed approach to arriving at valuation. I do not know anyone who would sell their home on this valuation model. But I do know a lot of real estate developers and investors who favor this approach when trying to negotiate someone else's property as these numbers can report just about any outcome those steering the numbers would like to see projected.

Even PA Consulting boasts on their website of their resolve to find "creative" solutions to their client's needs. All valuating constituencies relied on the "third party" projections as their disclaimers pronounce.

MOREOVER, any benefit of the on going litigation will not accrue to shareholders, namely, in a positive outcome, if any, of the Rosetta proceeding.

The DCF model ignores the intrinsic value of the Geysers as an example which is carried on the Calpines books at $288 Million, but yet secured a $4 Billion DIP finance package.

The ministerial errors are founded on the errors in internal projections based in the PA Consulting and on the calculations Calpine uses which are less than transparent and seem to change with every passing day.

PA Consulting according to the Miller Buckfire Exhibit 21 calculates revenue growth at 1.75 to 2.25%% per annum, while industry reports are modestly projecting 12% and as much as 200% by 2012.

This erroneous assumption has the effect of directly enriching creditors beyond the contractual monies they are owed. The market will confirm this reality shortly with respect to Calpine, and has already done so to some extent through Lehman Brother's recent analysis.

There is only one possible motive for undervaluing Calpine assets, and that motive does not suggest "good faith" in any capacity nor does it suggest a fiduciary that may still be owed shareholders.

How the Debtor management can award themselves 3% of the New Calpine shares while telling shareholders to "go fish" with under water warrants staggers the imagination…smacks of blind pigs at the trough.

Calpine projects the following table:

Investment Activities/Capital Expenditures
Year 2007 $569 Million
Year 2008 $631 Million
Year 2009 $423 Million
Year 2010 $215 Million
Year 2011 $201 Million
Year 2012 $180 Million.

In all that increase in capital spending, there has been no increase in revenue. Doesn't that beat all? It is also calculated that in order to sustain operations, all that is really needed in 2008 is $180 Million. It has the odor of conspiring to defraud investors, and the Petitioner does not say that lightly.

The Market is the true arbiter of value. Describing the attributes of a sack of potatoes will never tell you its true value until it is weighed and priced per pound. Until a scale is produced, all we have is a lot of very expensive chin scratching. Removing the realistic opportunity for shareholders to receive its pound price arises when mathematical formulae take the place of common sense.

As many of the documents related to this hearing are under seal, there have been reports that offers for the company which would have delivered up to $5.00 per old share were refused by the Debtor management. As the market is the true final determiner of value, it baffles logic why such an offer was refused.

In addition, the petitioner read articles describing a potential rights offering that was being negotiated between the Equity Committee and the debtor. I can tell you the petitioner was encouraged and fully prepared to participate in this undertaking which would have established a market value that paid creditors in full and provided a substantial recovery to shareholders.

Shareholders feel deprived and this is not a tortured view.

In May 3, 1999, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, __ U.S. __ (1999), which was widely expected to resolve a split among circuit courts of appeal regarding the viability of the Chapter 11 plan confirmation principle now commonly known as the "new value exception" or "new value corollary" to the Bankruptcy Code's "absolute priority rule." 11 U.S.C. ' 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). While the LaSalle decision confirmed that the "new value corollary" may exist, it appears likely to generate even further debate as to its implementation.

In order to understand the significance of the new value doctrine, it is useful to understand the basic mechanics of a debtor's exclusive right to propose a Chapter 11 plan, as well as the more complex mechanics of the plan confirmation process. The Bankruptcy Code currently provides a debtor with the exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan for 120 days after the commencement of the case, subject to reduction or extension under certain compelling circumstances. Debtors are routinely granted extensions of "exclusivity," while terminations of exclusivity are less liberally granted. In general, the debtor's exclusive right to file a plan is significant because it effectively affords the debtor a preferential opportunity to steer the plan negotiation process and potentially set the terms of the reorganization. As long as the debtor remains under the control of existing equity holders, this exclusive right may enable the debtor to devise a plan that treats existing equity holders more favorably than some other would-be plan proponents might.

Equity holders have a right to equity and the creditors have the rights implied in their contract.

While the plan confirmation process is intended to ensure that the plan does not favor existing equity holders over creditors, the rules historically have been applied with sufficient flexibility to undermine the creditor protections. Consequently, although valid reasons exist for providing a debtor the first opportunity to propose a plan, this opportunity carries with it a risk of abuse at the expense of creditors. This opportunity carries with it a risk of abuse at the expense of creditors, and even more likely Calpine's shareholders.

The general creditor acceptance requirement established in ' 1129(a), the Bankruptcy Code's plan confirmation statute, is subject to the so-called "cram down" exception contained in ' 1129(b). Section 1129(b) provides an alternative plan confirmation procedure in the event a class of creditors objects to a proposed plan. Primary among the conditions for cramdown is the requirement that a plan be "fair and equitable" with respect to all objecting classes.

The Petitioner would proffer that the observance of a "fair and equitable" plan, how can 1 + 1 = 1 and then be considered fair and reasonable?

Under the Code, a plan is not considered fair and equitable with respect to any objecting class of creditors if it violates the "absolute priority rule" by enabling a junior class of creditors or interests to "receive or retain . . . on account of such junior claim . . . any property." 11 U.S.C. ' 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). And the Petitioner makes no assertion otherwise….just a fair accounting with reasonable projections.

In essence, the absolute priority rule prohibits any class from receiving anything of value under a proposed plan unless and until all senior classes of claims and interests have been paid in full and nothing more.

This prohibition has been applied in certain jurisdictions to preclude a debtor's former equity holders from retaining any equity interest the reorganized entity through a proposed plan which does not first pay all senior creditors in full, notwithstanding a proposed capital contribution by those equity holders.

With regard to Calpine, a rush to judgment and faulty numerology results in a severe reversal for the most junior classes and in the Petitioner's recovery, and will have afforded the creditors more than what their contracts require them to receive.

"Conventional wisdom teaches that, when a firm is solvent, corporate directors have no fiduciary obligations to corporate creditors. Directors manage the firm for the benefit of the firm's residual claimants who, on a standard model of priority, will be the common shareholders. When the corporation encounters financial trouble, however, courts frequently say-although rarely hold-that directors owe fiduciary duties of some sort to or for the benefit of corporate creditors. (This is commonly accepted principle of law)."

The duty of management lies with the shareholders. Under a reasonable market valuation creditors will be paid in full, hence value should not be transferred to creditors. Having creditors, the debtor, and an inadequate independent analysis, does not a market make. Mark Twain once wrote, "The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might." Having three "mighty hands" raised in unison cannot be the basis to effectively wipe out shareholders.

Directors' duties to creditors present at least two puzzles. First, courts that talk about them make a strong, if problematic, link between duty and priority in right of payment, suggesting that directors should treat creditors as if they were shareholders, at least for certain purposes.(Jonathan Lipson, Directors Duties to Creditors.50 UCLA L. REV 1189 [2003]).

"By definition," Vice Chancellor Leo Strine observed in the recent and important decision in Production Resources, "the fact of insolvency places the creditors in the shoes normally occupied

by the shareholders-that of residual risk bearers.. (Prod Res Group, LLC v. NCT Group, Inc. 863 A.2d 772, 791 [Del Ch 2004]).

This link between priority and duty sounds good because it captures a strong intuition we have about the "absolute" nature of priority: creditors first, then shareholders. (Louisville, New Albany & Chi Ry Co, 174 U.S. 674, 684 [1899]).

While it may make theoretical sense to say that directors owe duties to residual claimants when a firm is solvent, there is no apparent reason why this logic applies to most creditors. After all, creditors are usually protected by legal rights-contract, for example-in ways that shareholders are not.

Yet the Debtor Management at Calpine aligned with the Board of Directors has seen fit to abandon shareholders and the fiduciary they are owed, favoring the interests of creditors. The basis for which is exclusively based on assertions the company is insolvent and therefore shareholders are no longer owed a fiduciary. In so doing, they have replaced residual claimants with Creditors and relegating shareholders to the lowest priority claim.

The correction of the ministerial errors will show that Calpine was never insolvent, and in fact, would demonstrate that equity exists for the shareholders after which all contractual claims by creditors have been satisfied.

RELIEF REQUESTED

The Petitioner firstly, requests mandamus relief in this court so the ministerial errors can be corrected by a forensic review by an impartial accountancy. If any equity can be found for old shareholders, they could be compensated by "rights" to buy new Calpine shares "in the money" to the extent that equity, if any, has been found.

Second. Petitioner asks that the duration of warrants the Debtor has offered be extended to 5 years and listed on the same exchange as of the New Calpine shares contemplate being traded. An exchange listing and a 5 year time period would allow the warrants to reach fair value escaping the influence of dark forces.

Third, It would be fair to ask this court to set the value of the Calpine Company in unequivocal terms.

Fourth and alternatively, combine the debtors and shareholders total compensation and redistribute to each as a 50/50 split and share equally.
_________________________________

Elias A Felluss, Pro Se
January 10, 2007, NY 11721

[boom2]

Calpine Dahlman Rose initiates Buy. Target $26. Dahlman Rose initiates CPN new common stock with a Buy and a $26 tgt saying CPN intends to complete its exit financing on January 31 and to emerge from bankruptcy before February 7, 2008. The firm notes on Tuesday Calpine had an information conference call (for debt holders) regarding modification of the $5 bln existing senior secured exit financing, that together with additional exit financing will constitute Calpine's $7.6 bln New Exit Facility. The firm says over the longer term, Calpine expects to benefit from potential capacity revenues in California, higher prices derived from tightening supply in Texas, California and even in the Southeast, and forthcoming CO2 regulation. In addition, the co will be completing three new plants over the next three years and plans on expanding its geothermal output. The firm says Calpine is probably the best positioned I.P.P in terms of long term industry trends (rising gas at the margin), scale, location (Sunbelt where gas is at the margin 90% of the time, and where demand growth is twice the average U.S. rate). The firm also notes the recommendation contained in this report refers to Calpine Corporation new common stock, to be traded on the NYSE under the symbol CPN. The stock currently trades in "when issued" status on the over-the-counter market under the symbol CPNZV. Separately, they maintain a Hold recommendation on CPNLQ, Calpine's common stock until emergence. These shares are to cease trading and be converted into warrants upon emergence.


Briefing.com is the leading Internet provider of live market analysis for U.S. Stock, U.S. Bond, and world FX market participants.



http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.as…

[boom2]

AP
Calpine Objects to Delaying Ch 11 Exit
Friday January 11, 5:16 pm ET
By Christopher Witkowsky
Calpine Asks Judge to Reject Dissident Shareholders' Bid to Delay Exit From Chapter 11

NEW YORK (AP) -- Calpine Corp., backed by hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, has asked a judge to reject a bid by a group of dissident shareholders to delay the energy company's exit from bankruptcy.
The shareholders, Standard Bank PLC, Compania Internacional Financiera SA, Coudree Global Equities Fund and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC Limited, have argued in court papers that Calpine set an "artificially low" post-bankruptcy value in its Chapter 11 plan and gave shareholders no time to challenge the estimate.

The shareholders last week asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland to reconsider his decision confirming Calpine's Chapter 11 plan. Calpine has said it risks losing a $7.6 billion financing package if it doesn't exit bankruptcy by Feb. 7.

Lifland is scheduled to consider the dissident shareholders' request at a hearing Tuesday.

In documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan Thursday, Calpine said the shareholders opted to do nothing when they had an opportunity to object to the plan. Accordingly, the company said, the "train has left the station" so far as Calpine's Chapter 11 confirmation is concerned.

"The objecting shareholders are not long-holding, 'mom and pop shareholders,'" Calpine said. "Rather, they are opportunistic, sophisticated, distressed investors" who bought Calpine's stock when Calpine was still in the "early stages" of developing its Chapter 11 plan.

"Despite the size of their investments, level of sophistication, and notice of the confirmation hearing and all other applicable deadlines, the objecting shareholders chose not to participate in the confirmation process, not to monitor the Chapter 11 cases, and not even to be put on the electronic service list," the company said.

Calpine and its official shareholders and creditors committees were at odds over the value of the reorganized company but reached an agreement on the eve of the confirmation hearing last month to avoid a court battle that could have delayed the company's exit from bankruptcy.

Calpine set its post-bankruptcy valuation at $18.95 billion. The shareholders committee agreed to that valuation and the award to shareholders of warrants to buy up to 10 percent of the reorganized company's stock.

After Lifland approved Calpine's Chapter 11 plan, Compania Internacional Financiera and other dissident shareholders objected to the valuation. They said they found out about the valuation only after the plan had been confirmed.

Harbinger, Calpine's biggest creditor, joined Calpine in asking Lifland to reject the dissident shareholders' request. So did Calpine's creditors committee, which called the request "a thinly veiled attempt to reopen the confirmation process because the objecting Shareholders are unhappy with the settlement" Calpine reached with its creditors and shareholders committees.

Calpine, based in San Jose, Calif., supplies electricity using a fleet of natural-gas-fired power plants.


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080111/calpine_bankruptcy.html?.v=1&…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080111/calpine_bankruptcy.html?.v=1&…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.027.544 von boom2 am 12.01.08 02:01:06

Anscheinend hatten die Aktionäre gar keine Chance, weil die Auswahl der Anwaltskanzlei Fried Frank ein absoluter Flop war, die hatten gar kein Interesse daran dass die Shareholder was erhalten...

...Interessenkonflikte, das hätte eigentlich vermieden werden können....

Looks like we never had a chance.........

Mr. Kaplan has also represented a variety of significant creditors and third-party acquirers in restructuring situations, including:

AmSouth Capital Corp.
Magten Asset Management Corp.
WR Huff Asset Management Co.
Vornado Realty Trust
The CIT Group, Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc.
National Food Manufacturers Credit Association Co.
Lloyds of London
Wellspring Capital Management, LLC

Fried Frank...some case histories......
Defense of Goldman, Sachs & Co. in a shareholder class action pending in California state court alleging that Goldman aided and abetted the former management of National Golf Properties in breaching their fiduciary duties to National Golf's public shareholders resulting in dismissal

Defense of and precedent setting favorable settlement for three Managing Directors of Goldman Sachs Group who were sued for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with business relations in connection with their service on the board of directors of Clearwire Technologies, Inc. a supplier of broadband wireless technology in which Goldman Sachs had a substantial investment

[topperle]

Charly, du bist doch bei InvestorVillage aktiv, oder?

Steht Elias A Felluss eigentlich in Kontakt mit SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP, um das Vorgehen bzw. die öffentlichen Aussagen abzustimmen?
Weisst du da vielleicht näheres zu?


Ansonsten denke ich, dass die Anwälte von SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP nicht zum Spaß anreisen und irgendeine Klitsche von Anwaltskanzlei ist das auch nicht.
Und wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe, dann wurden die von dem türkischen Shareholder ins Rennen geschickt, welcher wohl alleine einen Anteil im Wert von ca. 250 Mio. Dollar hält. Also die Anhörung am 15.01. findet nicht nur wegen ein paar kleinen Shareholdern statt.

Ich kann mir aber ehrlich gesagt beim besten Willen nicht vorstellen, dass ein amerikanisches Gericht allen Ernstes einen Fehler zugeben wird.

Auf jeden Fall werden die nächsten Tage weiterhin spannend. Denn falls doch das Unmögliche möglich wird und das Urteil revidiert wird, dann bleiben nur knapp 2 Wochen bis zum Exit.
Dann muss langsam mal etwas Geld seitens Calpine geboten werden, so dass eine Einigung mit den Shareholdern erfolgt

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.028.875 von topperle am 12.01.08 13:38:21

Nochmal was zu SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP:
Ich hab einfach mal auf der Seite von denen (http://www.sonnenschein.com/) nach Calpine gesucht.
Demnach wurde wohl eine Mrs. Holly Falkowitz mit dem Fall beauftragt bzw. begleitet Sie den Fall.

http://www.sonnenschein.com/attorneys/index.aspx?aid=0003067
http://www.sonnenschein.com/attorneys/print_bio_pdf.aspx?aid…

Leider steht nicht bei, wielange Sie den Fall schon bearbeitet.
Es ist ja auch eine E-Mail-Adresse angegeben und ich würde Sie auch liebend gerne antexten, um einfach ein paar Infos zum aktuellen Stand und den Aussichten zu erhalten. Aber mit meinem geringen Börsenwissen weiß ich aber ehrlich gesagt nicht so recht, was ich Sie genau fragen soll.

Aber vielleicht traut sich ja jemand von euch ran - na Charly du alter Womanizer?

[XIO]

Calpine Corp to be rated 'B' upon upcoming bankruptcy exit - S&P
January 09, 2008: 12:16 PM EST
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-001…


MUMBAI, Jan. 9, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Standard & Poor's (NYSE:MHP) Ratings Services said it expects to assign a 'B' corporate credit rating to Calpine Corp when the company emerges from bankruptcy protection, which is expected to occur by the end of January 2008.

S&P also expects to assign its 'B+' rating and '2' recovery rating to Calpine's 6.6 bln usd first-lien term loan.

The ratings agency said the '2' recovery rating indicates expectation of substantial recovery (70-90 pct) in event of a payment default.

It expects the outlook to be stable.

S&P said its 'expected' ratings are based on the capital structure and other terms and conditions of Calpine's plan of reorganization, as confirmed by the bankruptcy court, and are subject to the company substantially consummating the plan at emergence.

Any material changes in the plan or significant delays in the emergence process could result in different ratings, S&P noted.

Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved.

The copying, republication or redistribution of Thomson Financial News Content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Financial News.

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend.

Das Gericht wird sich nicht selbst als unfähig dastellen. Das SHC hat dem Deal zugestimmt und fertig - das wird deren Begründung sein! Alles andere wäre utopisch.

Und dann gibt es den freien Fall.

Ein letzter Hoffnungsschimmer ist, dass der türkische Investor noch einmal ein paar Millionen hinterher schießt und die Staranwälte alle Register ihres Könnens ziehen. Mal sehen ob der eine Klage einreicht?

Können Calpine und die Gläubiger bei Einreichung einer Klage weiter fortfahren als ob nichts geschehen sei? Oder liegt bis dahin das weitere Vorgehen auf Eis?

Der Montag ist geschafft und wir sind nicht Tod! Es besteht immer noch Hoffnung!

Einen grenzenlosen Gruß durch diese kalte Montag Nacht hinaus um den Globus - Dosto

PS. War das ein sch... Weihanchtsfest!

[Charly_2]

Programm heute - Fellus hat viel gearbeitet, Punkt 10
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801140000000…

Dockets findet man hier:
http://www.kccllc.net/calpine/

Zeile: Court Documents

[Charly_2]

...die reden hier von Redisign des Business, dabei hat der CEO May keine Ahnung vom Geschäft.....

...das ist nichts anderes als Verarsche... :O

Calpine looking to grow after emerging from bankruptcy
January 11, 2008 4:33 PM ET
By Jay Hodgkins
Investor Presentation (IP)
Calpine Corp.
1/8/2008

In a presentation to investors Jan. 8, Calpine Corp. outlined how it has redesigned the business and what it has accomplished during its Chapter 11 restructuring process to emerge as a top merchant generator and avoid the pitfalls that led it to bankruptcy the first time around.

The company said its overarching goal to succeed after its emergence is to rely on its foundation of 23,851 MW of highly valued and fuel-efficient generation assets, maximize the value of its existing power plant portfolio and identify and pursue new growth opportunities.

However, Calpine will not be looking to greatly grow through capital expenditures on new plants, as the company said it projects lower load growth due to the higher costs of new build. In lieu of building new plants, the company said it would sit back and enjoy the higher gas and power prices due to decreasing capacity reserve margins.

As a crucial restructuring step before looking to expand the business and improve its assets post-bankruptcy, the company said it has stabilized and streamlined its business, strengthened its organization and management team, and improved results and capital structure while going through the bankruptcy process since December 2005.

In stabilizing and streamlining the business, Calpine said it has reoriented its operations to focus on core operations by divesting nine plants or businesses with sales of the Hillabee and Fremont plants in progress, openly marketing the Texas City and Clear Lake plants, reducing project debt by $684 million and reducing lease obligations.

The stabilization and streamlining process has also included contract restructuring and cost management, which has reduced overhead costs by $180 million annually, reduced the work force by more than 1,000 employees and closed 19 noncore office locations.

To strengthen the organization, Calpine said it simplified its corporate structure and organized around seven functional groups; improved its monitoring, reporting and risk management; and enhanced its governance platform.

The company said it has improved results and capital structure by lowering operating and overhead costs through restructuring, reducing interest expense, improving hedging programs, maintaining strong liquidity by raising proceeds through noncore asset sales and putting together a plan to reduce debt by $7 billion.

When Calpine emerges from bankruptcy sometime before Feb. 7, it will have a court-set total enterprise value of $18.95 billion with total funded debt of $10.7 billion, including its critical $7.6 billion bankruptcy exit facility. The company's stock will also be relisted on the New York Stock Exchange.

Calpine said that after emerging, its power operations business will manage the company's plants on a day-to-day basis to enhance gross margins across the fleet with multiple operational optimization plans designed to enhance the efficiency of the company's plants, reduce heat rates and increase the power output of its natural gas-fired turbines.

The company said risk management for its fleet has been changed by forging new power purchase agreements and setting hedging targets for a three-year period. Hedging targets for 2008 have been reached and 2009 is on target, the company said.

The company's presentation oozed confidence for Calpine's future, forecasting improved financial performance through 2013 due to the estimates of diminishing reserve margins across the United States, benefits the company will receive from being a clean power producer when seemingly inevitable federal CO2 restrictions are passed, and upward pressure on gas prices.

The company expects its primary growth drivers in the coming years to come from fundamental market growth in all its operating regions, cost-cutting initiatives and major future contribution to earnings from new projects.

[Charly_2]

..der ganze Wasserfall Plan nach dem der Wert von Calpine berechnet wurde, entwickelte sich für die Shareholders zu einem Niagara Fall, indem der Wert in den letzten 2 Monaten um ganze 1,3 Mrd. US$ reduziert wurde um die Shareholder zu schruaben, und sie mit wertlosen Warrants abzuspeisen!!

Die Festlegung erfolgte erst noch in einer Nacht und Nebel Aktion, und erst noch vor Gericht....nur um den Deal möglichst schnell unter Dach und Fach zu bringen....um die 7,6 Mrd. DIP nicht zu gefährden....dies ist UNZULÄSSIG !!

Dass Harbinger mit Calpine unter einer Decke steckt kann man hier wohl laut sagen, zudem ist Harbinger in einige chapter 11 Fällen "tätig" und macht damit auf Kosten der Shareholder dieser Firmen anscheinend beste Geschäfte, von den Anwälten die abkassieren gar nicht zu reden...US-Bankruptcy lässt grüssen

Fellus macht dies zum Thema in seiner Stellungnahme zu einem Brief von Calpine
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801140000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.051.070 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 11:51:37

..bleibt noch anzumerken, dass für die Shareholders durchaus Aktien ausgegeben werden könnten, denn es werden ja nur 500 Mio ausgegeben...autorisiert sind aber 1,5 Mrd. ....

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.028.875 von topperle am 12.01.08 13:38:21

Nein, die fahren eine eigene Schiene...die vertreten auch nur ihre Mandanten, sonst gar nix !!

Viel bla bla...ob's was nützt ist fraglich
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801140000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.052.509 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 13:33:31

..der Brief von Sonnenschein an den Richter ist aber lesenswert, Seite 96-98...

...die Shareholders wurden überrumpelt, und konnten zu nix mehr Stellung nehmen...

...da besteht durchaus noch eine Chance

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.052.850 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 13:58:24

..eigentlich ist das totaler Diebstahl an den Aktionären was da abläuft

Based upon the analysis of Perella Weinberg Partners L.P., the Equity Committee calculated the total distributable value at between $24.8 billion and $26.9 billion with a midpoint value of $25.8 billion, a value which would provide shareholders approximately 37% of the New Calpine common stock.

...In particular, the Dahlman and Lehman Reports both reflect values far higher than set in the Sixth Amended Plan, and have targeted the New Calpine common stock at $26 and $25 per share, respectively, within twelve months post-emergence, which reflects a substantial increase (over 45%) above the valuation assumed
(approximately $16.90) for purposes of distributions under the Sixth Amended Plan.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.050.735 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 11:23:34

Heute heisst es anschnallen, im Gericht wird es turbulent zu und her gehen

[Charly_2]

$220M Verlust im November 07

Mehr Lügen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.054.003 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 15:17:34

Der Fall liegt klar, die CPN-Gurkentruppe will dass es so düster wie möglich ausschaut....

...allein $144 million of reorganization items in einem Monat, die schieben der Anwaltshorde das Geld in den A....

[Charly_2]

[Charly_2]

...Calpine ist anscheinend ein dickes Geschäft für diese Art von Leuten

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712210000000…

[boom2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.055.606 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 16:38:33

Calpine says to emerge from bankruptcy prior to Feb 7

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:59am EST
Jan 15 (Reuters) -

Power company Calpine Corp (CPNLQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) said it expects to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy prior to Feb. 7

The common stock to be issued by the company will begin "when issued" trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Jan. 16, the company said. (Reporting by Swagata Gupta in Bangalore; Editing by Deepak Kannan)


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKWNAS652720080…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.056.300 von boom2 am 15.01.08 17:12:23

...Aktie wird ja bereits gehandelt mit CPNZV = Calpine Zero Value ...aber an der OTC

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.056.300 von boom2 am 15.01.08 17:12:23

<<said it expects to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy prior to Feb. 7

Schaun wer mal ob das so kommt, die bluffen

[Charly_2]

Aus dem Gericht:

2. Debtors’ Motion for an Order to Approve a Stipulation and Agreed Order Resolving Claims between Calpine Energy Services, LP and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP [Docket No. 7188].

=> Wurde abgelehnt

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.052.509 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 13:33:31

Ich kenn mich da jetzt nicht so aus, aber falls durch die Sonnenschein-Truppe doch irgendwie ein positives Urteil (in welcher Form auch immer) erzielt wird, dann ist das doch für alle Shareholder gültig, oder?
Oder kann es passieren, dass die Mandanten von denen was erhalten und der Rest der Shareholder nicht?

Alle oder keiner, oder?


P.S. Alles viel wenn-und-aber, aber interessiert mich mal generell

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.057.868 von topperle am 15.01.08 18:50:32

Jetzt wurde ja nur eine Motion (Eingabe ans Gericht) behandelt, ist Sonnenschein & Co nicht einverstanden damit, können Sie noch innert 10 Tagen einen Appeal beim Gericht einreichen, dies kann das Gericht umgehend ablehnen (bei den vorgebrachten Anschuldigungen geht das eher schlecht) oder annehmen und dann geht's weiter, in welcher Form auch immer....

...eigentlich hat Wolfson genug Argumente zusammengetragen, dass der ganze Schmierenskandal (Umgehung der Informationspflicht gegenüber Shareholdern, Wasserfallplan mit Pseudozahlen, POR in letzter Minute ohne Einhaltung der Frist für Stellungnahmen geändert, etc, ect) der hier ablief ausgeräumt werden kann...

...das würde voraussichtlich sogar für schwedische Gardinen für Calpos CEO May reichen

Kommt drauf an ob es weitergeht, dies wird Sonnenschein mit seinen Mandanten klären müssen und die Aussicht auf Erfolg abschätzen müssen...

PS: Es ist auch noch ein nighttime deal innert Tagen möglich, um allen Prozessen aus dem Weg zu gehen, wenn sie nicht in einer akzeptablen Form einlenken wird das Calpine in den nächsten Jahren hunderte von $Mio kosten für Anwälte, die reiben sich darob vielleicht schon die Hände

[Charly_2]

Appeal kommt

Author: goldgrl

Recs: 0 Court
Hello everyone. Just left Whose and Oleguy from the court and lunch. They actually did take our phones away and camera.

Anyway, the appeal was denied to both Whose and Wolfson. The good news is that Wolfson told the court they need time to file for the appeal with their bond. That is BIG! as the bond will cost mucho dinero...much more than we could have come up with.

Court time did not take long. Wolfson presented their case as to why shareholders should get more than these warrants. Then Whose presented his case regarding mostly the warrants being out of the money and only 6 months.

The Judge basically had already made up his mind that no motion was to be granted either to extend the time of the warrants or to give shareholders anything else. BAsic reason...nobody presented their case prior to this time. Bottom line was

Kinda a two sided sword. SHC was representing us and they decided the agreement was fair.??????!!!
If they (us) did not think it was fair, we should have said something a long time ago. Didn't matter they decided over the weekend cause they were representing us. Bottom line, we agreed on today, we were sold out by the SHC.

The Judge had his opinion written out ahead of time and read it after hearing from Wolfson/Whose. He gave everyone few minutes to argue their case and then basically said, "ya, ya, I have read what you all have to say and so sit down and shutup. I have heard you, read you, you should have come forth well ahead of now, you were represented by the SHC who had long extended negotiations, they agreed to this waterfall payoff venture, and it is over."

All said and done with his smerky smile until Wolfson said they would appeal it and then not so smirky smile from the Judge.

[macsoja]

Naja was überraschendes lese ich jetzt noch nicht.

Ist irgendwie wie Schach, wo jeder den Zug des anderen kennt, habe ich das Gefühl.

Kann noch nix positive rauslesen.

Einige sagen, sie seien nicht einverstanden und das Gericht sagt: Euer SHC war es aber.
Darum hören wir Euch gern an, aber ändern wird das nix.

Also wenn die nicht noch irgendwas zwingendes haben, dann ist das auch eher eine Art Schaulaufen oder übersehe ich da was?

fragend
mac

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.059.777 von macsoja am 15.01.08 20:56:04

Gute Frage...

Es ändert sich schon was, wenn der Appeal erfolgt geht dies an das Bezirksgericht für Appeals, was bedeutet dass der Richter Lifland ausgeträumt hat...er spielt keine Rolle mehr...

...aber es kann sehr wohl noch auf ihn zurückfallen

Lifland dachte wohl nach dem heutigen Tag werde sich alles in Luft auflösen, jetzt wird aber der Einsatz von Sonnenschein & Co erhöht, und das scheint wohl ziemlich überraschend zu sein...

Sonnenschein hat wohl schon viel in diesen Fall investiert, da spielen einige Tausender mehr keine Rolle mehr...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.060.888 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 22:19:26

...und damit dürfte der 7. Februar 07 für ex-Bk wohl auch vom Tisch sein.....und damit auch die 7,6 Mrd. DIP von Goldman Sucks....

...oder die verlängern weiter

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.060.888 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 22:19:26

..ich denke man muss hier nur die

Frontlinie Harbinger - May and Lifland

durchbrechen und schon knallt's gewaltig

Dies ist mit dem neuen Gericht gegeben!

[Charly_2]

..noch vergessen:

Ein Appeal kann auch ein Chapter 11 Bude dazu zwingen, wieder zu verhandeln...

Calpos Mgmt und deren Sprecher haben sich ja schon aus der heiklen Diskussion verabschiedet und verkündeten schon total abgehoben, der Zug hat den Bahnhof verlassen und damit seien alle Einwände Schnee von gestern...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.059.571 von Charly_2 am 15.01.08 20:39:22

...sogar vom SEC war wer im Court anwesend, Mr. Fellus hat dort auf den Fall aufmerksam gemacht

Author: goldgrl

Court

Okay, here goes.

Start with good news. Wolfson asked the court for enough time for them to file an appeal. This means they will post a bond worth a lot more than we could have ever gotten together with our penny a share!

Also, a rep from the SEC was there and talked with us. She did not talk with Wolfson. And so, when we got together with Wolfson after the hearing in the hallway and told them the SEC had talked with us, they were very impressed and wanted to know our information.

Seems as though there is a possibility that SEC could, I repeat could, get together with everyone to file the appeal.

Lifland so had his mind made up ahead of time as to what was going to happen. He had his decision already written and just proceeded to read it after everyone had their say. Didn't pay any attention to what Whose or Wolfson had to say. I will post this and then proceed

[Dostojewski]

und abwarten.

Eine gute Nacht wünscht - Dosto

[Charly_2]

..aus dem Gericht:
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=17695&pt=…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.061.894 von Dostojewski am 16.01.08 00:23:23

Wolfson scheint Erfahrungen mit solchen Fällen zu haben
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IYbmC-v1WIAJ:www.sonnen…

[Charly_2]

...zu Harbinger noch dies

Hedge-Fonds-Manager streichen Milliarden ein

Rang 2: Mehr als eine Milliarde abgesahnt
Auf Platz zwei landete Fondsmanager Philip Falcone, der mit seiner Gesellschaft Harbinger Capital Partners 1,3 Milliarden US-Dollar einstrich.

http://onkarriere.t-online.de/c/13/87/59/00/13875900.html

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.065.396 von Charly_2 am 16.01.08 11:49:56

Fondsmanager: 10 Millionen Dollar am Tag

(DAS INVESTMENT) Während weltweit die Banken aufgrund der US-Immobilien-Krise täglich Milliarden-Verluste einfahren, verdienen amerikanische Hedge-Fondsmanager mindestens genauso viel an den Turbulenzen. Das geht aus einem Ranking von Bloomberg und Hedge Fund Research hervor.Demnach verdienen die erfolgreichsten Manager rund 10 Millionen US-Dollar an einem einzigen Tag. An der Spitze der Liste stehen John Paulson und sein Partner Paolo Pellegrini. Von Januar bis September 2007 verdienten sie insgesamt rund 2,7 Milliarden US-Dollar. Philip Falcone von Harbinger Capital Partners landete mit 1,3 Milliarden US-Dollar auf dem zweiten Platz. Jim Simons, der sonst die Riege der am besten verdienenden Hedge-Fondsmanager anführt, errang mit einer Milliarde diesmal nur den dritten Platz.

http://www.4free-ag.de/news/artikel_632.html

[macsoja]

Heute passiert, was ich mir schon fast dachte:

Alle Langfristanleger steigen normal in die Aktie ein, bei 18,5$ und gucken die sich in 5 Jahren wieder an.

Alle "Opti(on)misten" und Zocker schauen zu und weinen den Kursen bei 4$ nach.

[Charly_2]

Distribution angesagt, written by Mr. Felluss - er ist Schriftsteller und schreibt an einem Buch mit dem Titel
'Lions at the Gate' womit wohl das Hedgderpack gemeint ist das am Tor steht und die Shareholders abzockt

Judge Says "Absolutely NOT"...Shareholders told to "GO FISH!"

(NEW YORK-LYONNES NEWS AGENCY)Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland, US Bankruptcy Court Southern District in lower Manhattan tells shareholders to "get lost," effectively denying dissident shareholders of Calpine Corporation any relief in their request for reconsideration of the plan confirmation the judge approved December 19, 2007 allowing the company to emerge from bankruptcy.

In a hearing on January 15, 2008, Judge Lifland read from a prepared statement, his Order of Denial after hearing oral arguments from both the dissenting shareholders and the objecting creditors and debtor, Calpine.

Dissenting shareholders included four (4) hedge funds and one shareholder: Compania Internacional Financiera, Coudree Global Equities Fund, Standard Bank of London, Leonardo Capital Fund and shareholder, Elias Felluss.

The shareholders contended in court they were relying on the official equity holders' committee to present their valuation estimates, but apparently the equity committee reported on Monday, December 17, 2007 they had capitulated during secret Sunday negotiations yielding to demands made from the bench.

"The Judge explained 'in his denial order, shareholders had every right to object if they knew of the secret deal,' is a laughable ruling, something Judge Yogi Berra would have found," says shareholder Lowell Thomas of Newburyport, MA.

An appeal is likely and imminent reported Ms Carole Neville, an attorney with SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL, the lead attorneys in petitions to reconsider.

As the Calpine Company executives and management award themselves 3% of the new company, they tell shareholders "to go fish, like blind pigs at the trough they cannot see the devastation they administer," says Felluss, "and may be met with 'Lions at the Gate'."

"This Calpine bankruptcy has been nothing more than a refinancing scheme where old contracts and unproductive assets are jettisoned. A forensic examination will prove the Calpine management and Creditors have taken a solvent company and through bankruptcy gave the appearance of insolvency. Meanwhile, shareholders have their equity stake eviscerated by hedge fund Harbinger, the objector who joined Calpine's objection to bar the shareholders motion to reconsider," said Elias Felluss, a dissenting shareholder of Centerport, NY.

This has all been an elaborate variant of 'the reverse ponzi' " where you are guaranteed to get less than you invested. " said shareholder Felluss, who is also the spokesperson for the Calpine Shareholder's Committee, representing some 200 shareholders.

"It does seem odd to me," said Felluss, "that a shareholder's plea for fairness should be met by an "objection" from the very company in which he has shares. It certainly sounds like the mailman is biting the dog…and biting hard."

Examination of the public record suggests there is every appearance some creditors, together with the debtors conspired to defraud shareholders.

On occasion, there have been times when individuals go to great lengths to defend a particular position in which they believe. If the clients of Sonnenshein and Mr Felluss, feel they have been wronged, the return on investment will no longer be the overriding issue.

It will now be one of seeing justice served.

It is an affront to juris for Judge Lifland to assign responsibility to Congress for his failure to find justice and the timetable set by creditors should make subservient the desire for fairness.

It boggles the mind, as the US Presidential campaign gets underway, neither Democrat nor Republican candidates have addressed the issue of Wall Street's disembowelment of "Main Street" investors.

With memories of the Enron, Kmart, Worldcom debacles fresh in many memories, the court enabled foreclosure of investors' equity moves along at full speed.

As candidates discuss amendments to the constitution, which voted for what, tax reductions, Wall Street unimpeded routinely swipes the milk from investors' coffee, and occasionally, the entire cup. The promises for the future dashed, only to find new cars in the driveways of their bankers.

###

[Charly_2]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb634691.htm

[Charly_2]

hehe, die Gurkentruppe kriegt aber "Lack ab"
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801160000000…

[Charly_2]

...so - noch was posten

Der Appeal ist sicher

von Felluss:
i recall wolfson said he would file in a few days...(that maybe where the 2 days eminates from)...he technically has 10 days...when he asked for two days, he was referring to the bond....and referencing the stay...we have 3 things here...
1. The Stay
2. The bond to affect the stay
3. The Appeal upon which to post the bond to affect the stay.

Technically if no bond where necessary to stay distribution, wolfson has 10 days to file an appeal....but if he wants a stay of the confirmatuion in its entirety, the other lawyers gave him 2 days to file his appeal and post the bond.

He may not be interested in staying the entire confirmation.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.436 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 22:34:12

..ein Appeal soll Mio US$ kosten

3 Richter werden sich mit dem Fall befassen müssen...bleibt zu hoffen dass der nicht gleich abgelehnt wird

Im letzten Dokument waren genug Argumente gegen das Pack

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801140000000…

..aber wer weiss schon was da gespielt wird

[Charly_2]

Sogar in San Jose - am Hauptsitz von Calpine wird im Mercury die Story platziert

http://forums.mercurynews.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=mn-biz…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.480 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 22:41:58

Auf Google-Map kann man verfolgen wieviel mal der publizierter Bericht gelesen wurde, mit grafischer Darstellung je Kontinent

Aktuell:
Access Method Volume %
Details of Full Page Reads
Release was Read 1167 99.1%
Printer Friendly Version 8 0.7%
PDF Download 3 0.3%
Total 1178 100%
Details of Headline Impressions
Headline Displayed thru RSS, XML or other syndication 22301 63.3%
Headline Displayed on a PRWeb Site 12286 34.8%
Headline Requested by Pheedo Network 671 1.9%
Total 35258 100%

[Charly_2]

..hier als PDF...mit Statistik

http://www.edisonhydro.com/report.pdf

[Charly_2]

Appeal Filed....excerpt


SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP

Peter D. Wolfson (PDW-5956)

Carole Neville (CN-5733)

Matthew B. Stein (MBS-0062)

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Compania Internacional

Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities

Fund, Standard Bank of London, and

Leonardo Capital Fund SPC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re:

CALPINE CORPORATION, et al.

Debtors.

Chapter: 11

Related Dkt. Nos. 7253, 7256, 7404

Case No.: 05-60200 (BRL)

Jointly Administered

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund and Standard

Bank of London, whose investments are each managed by Yomi Rodrik (collectively, the

“Rodrik Group”), and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC, whose investments are managed by Leo

Fund Managers, Ltd. (the “Leo Group”, and collectively with the Rodrik Group, the “Objecting

Shareholders”), holders of Calpine Corporation common stock, by and through their counsel,

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, hereby appeal to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure 8001(a) and 8002(a), from the following orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Southern District of New York:

1. Order Approving Motion Seeking Approval of Immaterial

Modifications to the Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization

Without the Need for Further Solicitation of Votes (Dkt. No.

7253);

- 2 -

17585135\V-6

2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming

Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Dkt. No. 7256); and

3. Minute Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Confirmation

Order and Second Modification Order (Dkt. No. 7404).1

The parties to the orders appealed from, as well as the names, addresses and phone

numbers of their respective counsel, to the extent known, are as follows:

Parties Counsel

Elias A Felluss Elias A Felluss, Pro Se

71 Centershore Road

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.537 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 22:52:08

..zu den 25 Mio Aktien die die Mandanten von Sonnenschein halten kommen nochmals 6 Mio Aktien die wir im IV-Board zusammengetrommelt haben ...

...somit 31 Mio Aktien

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.563 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 22:56:39

..sogar Calpine-Angestellte sind darunter...die sind stinkesauer !

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.537 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 22:52:08

Die Geschichte beginnt jetzt erst

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.580 von Charly_2 am 18.01.08 23:00:06

..sich in die richtige Richtung zu bewegen...das passt nicht allen Parteien

[Dostojewski]

Es wäre prima, wenn wir den Hauptteil der Geschichte überspringen und gleich zum Ende kommen könnten.

Bis wann können wir mit einer Entscheidung rechnen?
Die Zusage des DIPs dürfte doch bald platzen.

Es ist Freitag Nacht ... der schönste Teil der Woche

Einen Gruß durch dieselbige stürmische und verregnete Nacht - Dosto

[topperle]

Aus dem InvestorVillage-Forum (http://www.investorvillage.com/iv1/smbd.asp?mb=260&pt=m&d=-1…):

Wolfson's intent....

it is being said that Wolfson's efforts will only benefit his clients....
I disagree adamantly....
It is impossible for Wolfson to say he represents all shareholders...he does not...he represents those shareholders who have paid for his counsel.

It is equally impossible that any consideration he gets for his clients be divorced from the rest of the shareholders.

We all win and creating discension between shareholders and Wolfson's clients serves no "useful" purpose....they are the only actionable hope we have.

Das war ja mal meine Frage, ob ein Urteil für alle Shareholder gültig ist oder es da Unterschiede gibt.
Demnach profitieren alle Shareholder von den aktuellen Ereignissen und nicht nur die Clients von Sonnenscheint - na wengistens etwas

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.102.671 von Dostojewski am 18.01.08 23:16:48

Innert 10 Tagen sollte entscheiden werden

300 Mio Shares für Shareholders sind beantragt

LIMITED STAY PENDING APPEAL OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER AND
SECOND MODIFICATION ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL

RELIEF REQUESTED

The Objecting Shareholders seek entry of an order imposing a limited stay upon the effectiveness of the Confirmation Order to the extent that it provides for the distribution of New
Calpine Warrants as well as the issuance and reservation of shares sufficient to cover the New Calpine Warrants plus an additional 300,000,000 shares7 of authorized New Calpine Common Stock, pending resolution of the Objecting Shareholders’ appeal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

[Charly_2]

Lifland darf doch noch einmal in den Apfel beissen

Lifland gets one more bite at the apple...

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 24, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. (EST), Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund and Standard Bank of London, whose investments are each managed by Yomi Rodrik (collectively, the “Rodrik Group”), and
Leonardo Capital Fund SPC, whose investments are managed by Leo Fund Managers, Ltd. (the “Leo Group” and collectively with the Rodrik Group, the “Objecting Shareholders”), by their undersigned counsel, shall appear before The Honorable Burton R. Lifland, at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Alexander Hamilton Custom House, Room 623, One Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004-1408, or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, to present their Motion for a Limited Stay Pending Appeal of the Confirmation Order and Second Modification Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005 (the “Motion”).

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.105.678 von Charly_2 am 19.01.08 18:15:08

Sonnenschein/Wolfson will Aktien und nicht Warrants, er wird nicht aufgeben bevor dies für die Shareholders erkämpft ist

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.105.764 von Charly_2 am 19.01.08 18:35:24

...0.75 Aktien für jede CPNLQ - tönt super

[Charly_2]

...ist nicht schwierig zu verstehen

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Objecting Shareholders are appealing the Confirmation Order and the Second Modification Order to address the Debtors’ enterprise valuation and the lack of adequate notice procedures with respect to modifications to the Sixth Amended Plan, as they affect the Objecting Shareholders. By this motion, the Objecting Shareholders seek a limited stay of the Confirmation Order to the extent necessary to ensure an appropriate and available remedy if they are successful on appeal. Specifically, the Objecting Shareholders seek (a) a stay of the distribution of the New Calpine Warrants to existing shareholders and (b) the issuance and reservation of: (i) sufficient shares to cover any shares that must be issued assuming all of the New Calpine Warrants are ultimately exercised, plus (ii) an additional three hundred million shares from the one billion five hundred million shares authorized under the Sixth Amended Plan for the benefit of existing shareholders pending the outcome of the appeal and further order of the District Court.

[Charly_2]

publiziert
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801180000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.105.979 von Charly_2 am 19.01.08 19:26:45

...da wird klar aufgedeckt was am letzten Hearing abging...und wer mit wem dealte

Confirmation of the Plan
11. On December 19, 2007, the Court held a hearing on a number of matters including confirmation of the Sixth Amended Plan, which lasted less than an hour and a half. At the hearing, Debtors’ counsel circulated “for the record” copies of the Second Modification Motion filed the evening before with a cumulative backline comparing the Sixth Amended Plan to the plan that was sent out in the solicitation package. See Transcript of Confirmation Hearing, p. 18, ll. 18-23. Debtors’ counsel also circulated for the first time the most current version of the plan that had been modified, yet again, even since the blacklined plan had been filed with the Second Modification Motion the evening before. Strikingly, the discussion of cram down -- confirmation over the rejection of the shareholders -- consisted of essentially an irrelevant single
conclusory sentence to the effect that no junior class of holders received or retained property under the plan and that creditors were not receiving more than payment in full. Id. at 31, ll. 18-

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.105.979 von Charly_2 am 19.01.08 19:26:45

Auszüge aus dem Brief

"the Second Modification Order and consequently, the Confirmation Order, were granted without the required notice. For similar reasons, the Reconsideration Order was improperly denied."

" Consequently, the Confirmation Order was erroneously granted because the Objecting Shareholders .... "

" The Confirmation Order also is reversible on appeal because the Sixth Amended Plan violated Sections 1129(a)(3), 1129(a)(7) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code."

" Finally, the Reconsideration Motion was improperly denied for its failure to reconsider the Second Modification Order and the Confirmation Order on the grounds set forth above."

" The Second Modification Order was wrongly decided, as a matter of law, because the modifications that were approved on the date of the confirmation hearing"

Und im Brief ist klar der Vorwurf herauszulesen, dass der Valuation Prozess illegal war und dem ist auch so

[Charly_2]

If the stay is granted, old shareholders will not receive warrants at the outset and will not receive anything until a proper valuation process is completed; remember, the motion essentially claims the valuation process was illegal. The motion claims that the BK will proceed in every other respect, with the exit financing closing as scheduled and creditors being paid per the POR. If, after the new valuation, old shareholders are entitled to something other than the warrants approved by Lifland, Wolfson says that the old common shareholders can then receive what is properly owed to them; that is why Wolfson has requested a reservation of 300 million New Common shares.

If I am correct, old shareholders would seem to slip into some kind of never-never land where they own a contingent right to something (or nothing), depending on the outcome of the new valuation. Calpine would exit BK with equity owned by the creditors, but subject to a possible issuance of New Common Shares to the old common shareholders. In that interim period between BK exit and the completion of the revaluation, the old common shareholders would, says Wolfson, be left without something to sell.

At least that is how I see it.
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=18295&pt=…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.106.342 von Charly_2 am 19.01.08 21:01:15

Anteil der Shareholder wäre dann:

300/(500+300) = 37,50%

Habe ich schon irgendwo gelesen

Equity Committee Valuation kam auf 37%...wurde abgelehnt vom Pack!!

[Charly_2]

Sagt der Richter LifLoser wieder "Antrag ist abgelehnt" für eine neue Valuation-Periode von 25 Tagen, gibt es weitere Verzögerung

..denn dann gibt es einen Appeal an ein US-Gericht wo sich 3 Richter mit dem Fall befassen müssen

..und dann dürfte die $7,6 Mrd. DIP von GS futsch sein...

Bleibt zu hoffen, dass Sonnenschein/ Wolfson nicht nur blufft

*******************************************************************
Zur aktuellen Lage - von Mr. Feelluss/ IV-Board:

Msg: 3311 of 3314 1/19/2008 10:14:50 PM

Responding to an email...
I spent a very long time returning someones private message,,,by the time i got to the end it occurred to me I ought to post it...so here it is....

Hello Zeek...
I have emails and calls into Wolfson and Stein...I don't think i know Stein unless thru an acquaintance...I do know Carole Neville...she is a good strategist and has a nose for the heart....they are all litigators.

I took it from your post they would encourage a joinder from shareholders...I make it a point not to be a nuisance so I keep contact to a minimum....having said that and reading your am note, I have mobilized a group of shareholders to contribute top a legal fund which you probably already know about.

I was asked to file the joinder but explained I am not a lawyer as everyone knows, I don't even believe I do a good job representing myself.....so at this critical juncture, best we get al the competent help we can muster.

Keep in mind I only filed because the crack lawyer I was talking to didn't think he could "stop the train" and didn't want shareholders money.....so I filed when there wasn't a hint of Wolfson and his clients....but now that the train has stopped....albeit briefly, we have a shot at taking out the elements of the confirmation that effects shareholders.

To that end, today I setup a private site for those supporting the fund. I asked folks not to send me any money as I would prefer they write checks in the name of the attorney we hire to file this joinder. That said, david who is very generous sent me $200 which I will use to purchase a sprint air card so i can transmit to the legal fund board real time accounts of the court activity....heck I might even make a business of covering court events and other real time market moving events....

I have a call into Jerry Shulman at Williams and Connelly....they know how to tear hearts out....also asked wolfson and stein if they could refer a ny attorney they think would do a great job.....have not heard back from any yet...I have Shulman's home number so called there...he may be on a weekend holiday..if not he will call me back...

Our objective is to stay the warrant distribution. As you know, once you scramble an egg, it's much harder to unscramble them. This appeal and stay does that without harming the estate or delaying exit...it does put a crimp in the new shares as you can imagine ...because calpine will have two floats...the falcone float on the NYSE and ours on the Pink Mist.....will be interesting to see how the market treats these two issues.

There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the old shares will be allowed to trade or not during this period where a new valuation is presented...I tend to believe there is no way Calpine can stop the old shares....that must be a problem for them....

There is no risk to Calpine's exit unless mr lifland denies the stay and appeal for a new valuation...then it goes to the us district court and a three judge panel and at that point the exit financing might be aty risk...wolfson's appeal to lifland is lifland's escape....if he choses to take it...if not and believes Wolfson is bluffing, well that would be another strategic error lifland has made.

The object is to find equity and have that new found equity converted into shares not warrants....that was why Wolfson asked for the 300 mil share set aside.

Our SHC should have done this but they were out gunned.

I don't believe Wolfson wants to negotiate....he is after the the truth...now if calpine said listen we'll give you $4.00 a share or a 1 for 4 reverse split most shareholders would think that was great.... I think everyone might walkaway except wolfson's clients...so i keep coming back to "no deal" Now if Calpine offered $8 a share, wolfson might back off.

As for the cost....to file a joinder....the question really is how much to tear out a heart? A lot.

Individually, the cost would be horrific...oh i am sure you can get someone of Kaplan's caliber for about $300ph for a cost of $8,000 +/-, but that wouldn't be something i would do. The group is sort of a mini class action...and the named petitioners may enjoy some damages here if the debtors and creditors are found guilty of conspiring to defraud investors....or at the very least keep them in the dark with the intent to eviscerate their stake in the company.

I think our chances are measurably better than they were on December 27, 2007 and January 15, 2008.

Before my filing there were no chances for success.

I think I'll post this on the csc board...took a long time to write...

[Dostojewski]

Bleibt zu hoffen, dass Sonnenschein/ Wolfson nicht nur blufft

Oder auch so ein Fall ist, wie der erste Anwalt.

Gruß - Dosto

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.108.384 von Dostojewski am 20.01.08 14:10:46

>> Oder auch so ein Fall ist, wie der erste Anwalt.

Du meinst Kaplan?
Nee, glaub ich nicht. Sonnenschein ist privat und unabhängig, die werden schon das beste versuchen, um die Interessen ihrer Klienten durchzusetzen.
Ebenso können die sich (und natürlich auch Wolfson) hier mal richtig profilieren. Denn wenn die wirklich noch das Ruder für ihre Mandanten rumreißen sollten, ist das schon 'ne Hausnummer, die sicherlich durch die Medien geht.

Was mich aber stutzig macht, ist das hier:
--------------------------------------------
don't believe Wolfson wants to negotiate....he is after the the truth...now if calpine said listen we'll give you $4.00 a share or a 1 for 4 reverse split most shareholders would think that was great.... I think everyone might walkaway except wolfson's clients...so i keep coming back to "no deal" Now if Calpine offered $8 a share, wolfson might back off.
--------------------------------------------

4$ bzw. 8$ wären natürlich schon ein Hammer.
Aber sollte man wirklich solche Zahlen ins Spiel bringen!?
Ich denke, wenn alles optimal laufen sollte, dann kann man mit maximal 0.75 - 1$ rechnen, oder?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.107.936 von Charly_2 am 20.01.08 12:03:05

Studien belegen dass Calpine mehr wert ist als die lausigen 18,95 Mrd.

http://www.epis.com/Support/Downloads/2006_Conference/Presen…

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.109.289 von Charly_2 am 20.01.08 18:05:59

Hi Charly,

allerdings sollten wir grundsätzlich postulieren: Der Markt hat immer Recht.
Es gibt sowohl eklatante Überbewertungen und auch Unterbewertungen.

Und je mehr Unsicherheiten und Variablen hinzukommen, desto größer ist der hebelnde subjektive Eindruck.

D.h. solange nix klarer wird, schwankt die Aktie und wenn es dann klar wird, dann macht sie eben noch einen Satz nach oben oder unten.

Hab´s ja schon geschrieben:
Alle, die langfristig aufgrund fundamentaler Faktoren das Unternehmen Calpine mögen, beginnen nun, hier Positionen aufzubauen, denn nichts ist konservativer als ein Unternehmen, daß gerade geläutert aus einem CHAPTER11 rausgekommen ist.
Ansonsten ist es eher ein unkalkulierbares Glücksspiel. Entweder Hopp oder Top bzw. 50/50.
Ich denke, fundamentale Daten können das Pendel höchstens noch in Richtung 60/40 ausschlagen lassen, aber ansonsten sind die Messen gesungen und die Konzentration liegt beim Start als normales gelistetes Unternehmen.
D.h. es kann auch passieren, daß da massiv auf Zeit gespielt wird, um in die exChapter-Phase zu kommen.


Aus meiner Sicht sollten wir mit jedem zusätzlichen Cent zufrieden sein.
Hier noch mal der derzeit maßgebliche Link, damit die halten Optionen überhaupt einen Wert haben:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=14205&pt=m…
Fakt ist ja auch:
Wenn es eine Entscheidung zugunsten der Altaktionäre gibt, dann schadet es dem Kurs der neuen Aktie und das müßte ja dann wieder der alten Aktie schaden.

Insofern mir auch nicht ganz klar, wie eine Lösung aussehen könnte, ohne das ohnehin fragile Gefüge nicht nochmal komplett neu aufzusetzen.

Gruß
mac

[Charly_2]

Schmeissen und Einsammeln halten sich die Waage

Leider sind die Aktien praktisch nix mehr wert

Date Open High Low Close Volume Adj Close*
18-Jan-08 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.27 9,579,700 0.27
17-Jan-08 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.26 4,798,600 0.26
16-Jan-08 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.26 3,942,800 0.26
15-Jan-08 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.29 7,068,100 0.29
14-Jan-08 0.27 0.33 0.27 0.31 6,354,100 0.31
11-Jan-08 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.26 7,629,000 0.26
10-Jan-08 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.27 4,678,900 0.27
9-Jan-08 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.25 4,938,800 0.25
8-Jan-08 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.28 4,804,600 0.28
7-Jan-08 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.26 5,150,100 0.26
4-Jan-08 0.37 0.37 0.29 0.32 9,020,600 0.32
3-Jan-08 0.37 0.38 0.35 0.36 9,627,600 0.36
2-Jan-08 0.30 0.40 0.29 0.35 15,612,000 0.35
31-Dec-07 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.26 7,666,600 0.26
28-Dec-07 0.20 0.28 0.20 0.27 8,198,700 0.27
27-Dec-07 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.20 8,631,100 0.20
26-Dec-07 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.19 16,506,000 0.19
24-Dec-07 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.26 4,284,000 0.26

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.109.654 von macsoja am 20.01.08 19:28:57

Ich glaube so leicht kann man es sich dann auch wieder nicht machen, indem man sagt, dass hier halt nur eine massive Unterbewertung vorliegt und es halt an der Börse passieren kann.
Wenn dort wirklich geltende Gesetze verletzt bzw. mit falschen Zahlen gerechnet wurden, so ist das halt nicht rechtens und gehört untersagt!
Ebenso wenn der "ehrenwerte" (:rolleyes Richter Lifland irgendwie der ganzen Sache nicht ganz gerecht wird und/oder Kreditgeber oder anderes Pack mit der Führungsriege unter einer Decke stecken.

Ich gebe dir aber vollkommen Recht, dass das hier doch eher mittlerweile einem Glücksspiel gleicht.
2 Wochen bis zum Exit - wir werden den weiteren Verlauf erleben.
Mal schauen was uns noch alles erwartet...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.109.654 von macsoja am 20.01.08 19:28:57

Wolfson spielt ja nicht "offiziell" auf Zeit, sondern es wird verlangt dass eine neue Valuation an die Hand genommen wird, das braucht 25 Tage Zeit
Zudem sollen 300 Mio Aktien bereitgestellt werden, welche an die Altaktionäre gehen wenn sich erweist, dass die POR-6-Valuation ein Fake war...

...während dieser Zeit kann Calpine mit den neuen Aktien starten und die alte CPNLQ läuft weiter bis zum definitiven Resultat.

...zeigt die neue Valuation dass die alte Valuation viel zu tief lag werden die 300 Mio Aktien an die Altaktionäre verteilt, zu welchen Bedingungen - keine Ahnung

Steigt der Richter nicht darauf ein, gibt's asap einen neuen Appeal der an ein 3-er Richter Gremium eines Appelationsgerichts in NY geht - dann gibt's offizielle Verzögerung...

...und dann wird sich zeigen wieviel die 7,6 Mrd. DIP Goldman Sucks und auch Calpine wert ist...

Zinsunterschied ist ca $40 Mio/ Jahr auf 5 Jahre $200 Mio, dafür kann man locker einmalig 100-200 Mio Aktien ausgeben

...natürlich alles ohne Schuldeingeständnisse

[xxt]

Findet in den USA kein handel mit der alten Aktie mehr statt?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.121.928 von xxt am 21.01.08 20:33:23

Heute kein Handel in USA - Feiertag

[boom2]

Calpine Signs Long-Term Contract With Georgia Group of Electric Cooperatives

Tuesday January 22, 12:25 pm ET

Calpine's Santa Rosa Energy Center to Supply Southeastern Electric Cooperatives with Cost-Effective Electricity


SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Calpine Corporation (Pink Sheets: CPNLQ - News) has signed a five and a half-year agreement with a group of Georgia electric cooperatives comprised of Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation, Cobb Electric Membership Corporation, Diverse Power Incorporated, Excelsior Electric Membership Corporation, Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation, Upson Electric Membership Corporation and Washington Electric Membership Corporation, to sell the full output of the company's 225-megawatt Santa Rosa Energy Center, effective July 1, 2009. Calpine had temporarily suspended operations of the Pace, Fla.-based natural gas power plant in 2005 due to challenging market conditions in the Southeast. Calpine has fully restored operations of the Santa Rosa facility to supply the company's existing five-year agreement with the seven-member electric cooperative group.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080122/aqtu183.html?.v=27

[topperle]

Mal etwas aus einem anderen Thread:
http://www.hartgeld.com/filesadmin/pdf/Art_2008-87_Finanzkri…

Ist nichts über Calpine, sondern über die aktuelle Finanzkrise allgemein.
Ich fand's sehr interessant zu lesen, aber jeder sollte natürlich seine eigene Schlüsse daraus ziehen


Zu Calpine:
Ich glaub am 24.01. war eine nächste Court-Runde angesetzt, oder?
Richtig interessant dürfte es dann nächste Woche werden, wenn der Appeal von Wolfson eingereicht wird (waren doch glaube ich 10 Tage?)

Ansonsten einen Schönen Abend Männers!

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.134.312 von boom2 am 22.01.08 19:23:11

boom2, an dieser Stelle mal ein kurzes Danke für die geposteten News der letzten Wochen/Monate

[Ayrton1]

Hallo ist nach dem Crash noch jemand da?
Wo seid ihr alle?

[Charly_2]

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.161.476 von Charly_2 am 24.01.08 21:05:38

2,2 Mio Aktien zu $0.21...das ist viel Holz

[Charly_2]

Court-Termin ist vorüber....News sind noch nicht bekannt..

[Charly_2]

hehe...gegen 100 Shareholders haben dem Gericht eine Eingabe gemacht...die sehen alle gleich aus

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
xxxxxxx, Shareholder

Pro Se

Adress

United States if America

Tel. (631)xxx.xxx
___________________________
)
In re: )
)
Calpine Corporation, et al )
)
Debtors )
) Chapter 11
) Case No. 05-60200 (BRL)
) Jointly Administered
___________________________)

SHAREHOLDER'S JOINDER TO MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL BY

COMPANIA INTERNACIONAL FINANCIERA, S.A., COUDREE GLOBAL EQUITIES FUND, STANDARD BANK OF LONDON AND LEONARDO CAPITAL FUND SPC FOR A LIMITED STAY PENDING APPEAL OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER AND STAY ON DISTRIBUTION OF WARRANTS

I, xxxx , a shareholder agree with the Objecting shareholders in the limited stay regarding the Calpine Confirmation Plan and the warrant distribution.
I join in the motion for a stay of the confirmation order that the Objecting Shareholders seek and to which the Creditors and Debtors have filed objections.

respectfully submitted, xxxx
xxxxx, Pro Se,
January 23, 2008
adress


...bleibt zu hoffen dass das Gericht micht glaubt das seien alles Hedge Funds

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.161.812 von Charly_2 am 24.01.08 21:26:55

SEC war im Court vertreten

Appeal von Sonnenschein&Co. wird innert Tagen erfolgen

Lifland wird Statist, Fall wechselt zu anderem Gericht


Aus dem Gericht:
At today's hearings were not only Pat Schrage from the SEC but Neal Jacobson from the SEC Staffing division.

He was not happy about the absence of due process and transparency.

The attorneys for Sonnenschein have said they have already started their expedited appeal to US Court of Appeals.

Lifland didn't approve the bond size...so guess we will just have to rely on the debtors suggestion of 900 million...or whatever number they come up with...with lifland's approval...but am not sure whether lifland is a player here anymore...today's hearing was just a formality.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.162.227 von Charly_2 am 24.01.08 21:55:07

...bisher lauter Betrug an den Shareholdern von Calpine, das muss jetzt asap noch korrigiert werden ob dies gelingt ist fraglich, die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt

The attorney for Wolfson said they were working on their own valuation...I said that was a tactical error...they should cross the debtor/creditor valuation and look at their revenue projections, and other numbers that effect tev...especiall their front ending of expenses...

...dass jetzt bereits ein Schattenhandel mit CPNWI an der NYSE läuft ist eine Sauerei sondergleichen

[Charly_2]

...das Joinder-Programm s. #4870 zeigt vor Gericht Wirkung, hehe...

...Sonnenschein & Co. ist nicht alleine

[Charly_2]

Seligman, Anwalt von Calpine spricht vor Gericht von irreparablem Schaden...das ist ein Krücke, an die Shareholders hat er wohl NIE gedacht sondern eher an den eigenen Profit und den für das CPN-Mgmt

Seligman...now argues irrepareparable HARM..

says there is no evidence of experts to state $18.95 Mrd. TEV isn't a correct number

[Charly_2]

Heisse Wette da meint ein Poster Calpine könne Bankrott nicht verlassen bevor alle Shorts gecovert sind....das gäbe einen schönen short squeeze

Author: Surfsup

My comment is correct. Calpine can't exit BK until all the shorts cover. If they don't voluntarily cover, they will cover for them in a flash. That's the joy of it all.

There is only one way to prove me wrong...and we find out within days.


...innnert Tagen ist wohl eher falsch, so schnell kommen die nicht aus dem angezettelten Schlamassel heraus

[Charly_2]

Sonnenschein's office informed that they are filing the appeal in the U.S. District Court (rather than the previously mentioned Bankruptcy Court).

They will file it on Monday (Jan 28th).

[topperle]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.180.327 von Charly_2 am 26.01.08 15:55:48

Das heisst wir kriegen 3 neue Richter, oder?

[boom2]

Calpine Announces Bidding Results for Sale of Partially Completed Power Plant in Fremont, Ohio

Tuesday January 29, 9:00 am ET

SAN JOSE, Calif., and HOUSTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Calpine Corporation (Pink Sheets: CPNLQ - News) and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, "Calpine") announced today that it has successfully completed a Court-approved bidding process for a partially completed power plant located in Fremont, Ohio (the Fremont Project). Pursuant to a sale auction held Jan. 28, 2008, Calpine received a high bid of $253.6 million from FirstEnergy Generation Corp.
The high bid exceeds the initially proposed sale price of $124 million as established by an Asset Purchase Agreement dated Nov. 16, 2007 between Calpine and American Municipal Power -- Ohio, Inc. Calpine will seek final approval for the sale from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 30, with closing anticipated to occur in February 2008.

"The Fremont Project was determined to be a non-strategic asset in the context of our successful Chapter 11 restructuring," according to Robert P. May, Calpine's Chief Executive Officer. "We are extremely pleased with the bidding results for the divestiture of this asset and are now looking ahead to emerging from bankruptcy in the very near future as a stronger and more competitive power company."

The Fremont Project is a partially completed natural gas-fueled power plant located in Fremont, (Sandusky County) Ohio. Fremont is a clean and highly efficient combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating 550- megawatts of baseload capacity and up to 700-megawatts of total capacity. Calpine initiated construction activities at the site in 2001 but subsequently placed the project on hold due to adverse market conditions.

Calpine Corporation is helping meet the needs of an economy that demands more and cleaner sources of electricity. Founded in 1984, Calpine is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering nearly 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable, and fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 18 states in the U.S. The company owns, leases, and operates low-carbon, natural gas-fired, and renewable geothermal power plants. Using advanced technologies, Calpine generates electricity in a reliable and environmentally responsible manner for the customers and communities it serves. Please visit http://www.calpine.com for more information.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080129/aqtu066.html?.v=31&printe…

[boom2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.201.930 von boom2 am 29.01.08 15:09:27

FirstEnergy to Buy Plant for $253.6M
Tuesday January 29, 10:32 am ET


FirstEnergy Wins $253.6 Million Bid for Calpine Corp. Power Plant in Fremont, Ohio

AKRON, Ohio (AP) -- FirstEnergy Corp. said Tuesday it has agreed to buy a partially completed power plant from a bankrupt energy producer for $253.6 million.
The electric utility won an auction for Calpine Corp.'s 707-megawatt natural-gas, combined-cycle generating plant in Fremont, Ohio. The transaction requires approval by a New York bankruptcy court before moving ahead to the next phase.

A one-megawatt plant running continuously at full capacity can power 778 households each year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Calpine has been in Chapter 11 reorganization since Dec. 2005 and expects to exit bankruptcy before Feb. 2008.

FirstEnergy Chief Operating Officer Richard Grigg said in a statement the plant has "significant value" because of its location and its low carbon-dioxide emissions. FirstEnergy serves customers in Ohio. The plant, however, is connected to two major power-grid operators: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator and PJM Interconnection.

FirstEnergy still needs to complete an engineering review to finalize the cost and the timeframe to finish construction of the facility, which began in Sept. 2001. Calpine has indicated in court documents that the plant is about 70 percent complete and could take 12 to 18 months and about $150 million to become operational.

FirstEnergy shares rose 93 cents to $70.62 in morning trading.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080129/firstenergy_generating_plant_…

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend.

Der/das Appeal wurde gestern eingereicht - stimmts?
Hat jemand eine Ahnung bis wann eine Entscheidung gefällt werden wird? Oder anders gefragt, wie lang sich das Procedere jetzt voraussichtlich hinziehen wird?

Grüße in den Dienstag Abend hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.204.238 von Dostojewski am 29.01.08 17:34:55

JA, es wurden bis gestern insgesamt 3 Appeals gefilt, 3 ist besser als 1

1 x Sonnenschein & Co.
1 x Felluss
1 x 3 Indiv. Shareholders in Vertretung von 60 Aktionären mit 3 Mio Aktien

Jeder Fall muss separat abgehandelt werden, das vewrzögert weiter, aber ob dabei was rauskommt wird sich zeigen müssen innert 10 Tagen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.207.854 von Charly_2 am 29.01.08 22:16:19

..zu Handen der 3 Indiv. Shareholders wurden $30'000 ($0,01/ Aktie) zusammengetrommelt um einen Rechtsanwalt anzuheuern der uns vor dem Gericht vertritt......Harry Gutfleish vertritt uns

Docket-Nr. der Eingabe: 7507 ...noch nicht veröffentlicht auf http://www.kccllc.net/calpine/
Court Dokuments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:10 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 05-60200-brl Notice of Appeal



***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of New York

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from Gutfleish, Harry M. entered on 1/28/2008 at 8:09 PM and filed on 1/28/2008

Case Name:
Calpine Corporation

Case Number:
05-60200-brl

Document Number: 7507

Docket Text:
Notice of Appeal (related document(s)[7256], [7253], [7445], [7404]) filed by Harry M. Gutfleish on behalf of Avram Ninyo, Merle Root, David Flair. (Gutfleish, Harry)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document
Original filename:M:\LIT\CALPINE\Notice of Appeal.pdf

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.208.068 von Charly_2 am 29.01.08 22:34:22

IV Board
Calpine Legal Committee (related stock CPNLQ)
Msg: 754 of 805 1/28/2008 8:20:21 PM

[Charly_2]

Appeal - der auch behandelt werden muss

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801310000000…

[boom2]

Calpine Emerges From Bankruptcy

Thursday January 31, 10:49 pm ET

Calpine Emerges From Chapter 11 Protection After 2 Years of Bankruptcy

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Calpine Corp. said Thursday it has emerged from Chapter 11 protection, ending a two-year bankruptcy slog in which the power producer slashed one-third of its work force and sold off a string of plants to help get its finances back in order.
Shares of the San Jose-based company are scheduled to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on or around Feb. 5 under the ticker symbol CPN.
Calpine said it will issue up to 500 million shares of common stock and use $7.3 billion in financing raised from outside sources to repay creditors and other expenses.

While the company's creditors will get most of their money back -- between 75 percent and 100 percent of allowable claims determined by the bankruptcy court -- the company's current stockholders could wind up getting stiffed.

Old Calpine shares will be canceled, and stockholders will get warrants to buy new shares at an exercise price of $23.88 per share -- a price the company's stock hasn't reached since 2001. The warrants will expire on Aug. 25.

Calpine's shares currently trade on the over-the-counter Pink Sheets, where they stood at just 19 cents Thursday, down from a peak of nearly $60 in 2001. Soaring electricity prices and sizzling investor interest fueled a boom period for the company, but it descended into bankruptcy in 2005 under the weight of a debt-laden expansion that backfired.

Calpine says it sold or turned over nine plants or business and cut its headcount by 1,096 workers. The company, which now has 2,200 workers, estimates that its remaining businesses, which include a fleet of environmentally friendly power plants, are worth $18.95 billion.

"This is a wonderful day for all of us at the new Calpine," said Robert May, Calpine's chief executive officer. "We are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish over the past two years. Calpine is now a stronger, more competitive power company poised for growth in the energy industry."

(This version CORRECTS to 'creditors' not 'debtors' in 3rd graf.)

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080131/calpine_restructuring.html?.v…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080131/calpine_restructuring.html?.v…

[Ayrton1]

Hallo Charly, kannst du mir sagen wie es weitergeht?
Soll ich schneissen?

Sei so nett und kommentiere das Geschehen.
Danke und trotzdem schöne Faschingstage.

[Dostojewski]

Geld abschreiben und weiter warten.
Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.244.094 von Ayrton1 am 01.02.08 20:31:29

Gute Frage...jetzt wurden ja noch 15 Mio Aktien dem korrupten Calpine-Managment zugesprochen, die ausgegeben werden sobald die Aktie CPN gehandelt wird.

..geht man vom 6. POR aus so ist mathematisch $11,92 Mrd./500 Mio Aktien = $23.88/Aktie der minimale Umwandlungskurs um die Warrants in Aktien zu wandeln, ob die Aktie bis am 25.08.08 diesen Kurs erreicht ist höchst fraglich....die Warrants können auch wertlos verfallen

Die aktuell bereits an der NYSE gehandelte Aktie CPN* steht aktuell bei $17.

23,88-17 = $6,88

15 Mio Aktien x $6,88 gibt ca. $100 Mio, dh bevor jeder Aktionär nur einen Penny pro Aktie erhält macht das Calpine Management $100 Mio Gewinn - das nenne ich ein korruptes US Bankrott-Gesetz - gestützt von US-Gerichten :O:O

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.250.513 von Charly_2 am 02.02.08 23:29:05

...bedingt durch die erfolgte Bereinigung der Bilanz und der Exitfinanzierung von 7,6 Mrd. rechne ich mit ca. $25/ Aktie als fairer Wert, zudem sind da noch 1,7 Mrd. an Cash vorhanden...

...also sollte es ein Feuerwerk geben wenn die neue Aktie gehandelt wird und die Warrants sind im Geld, dh. subito wandelbar in Aktien

Wieso sollten denn jetzt soviele Käufer die Aktien aufsaugen wenn dem nicht so wäre

..und die CPN* Aktie ist ein Fake, wieso die bei $17 gehandelt wird ist schleierhaft

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.250.745 von Charly_2 am 02.02.08 23:38:51

...klar, die CPN-Aktie wurde noch NIE zu fairem Kurs gehandelt, sondern IMMER zu manipuliertem Kurs...

[Charly_2]

Handel mit CPNLQ wurde abgebrochen - anscheinend wird ab morgen CPN gehandelt und Altaktionäre werden mit wertlosen Warrants abgespeist

Zudem: Das SEC scheint sich wenig um die Machenschaften von Calpine und des Richters Lifland - geht wohl in Rente zu kümmern - lauter Alibiübungen...

IV-Board:
Msg: 1068 of 1069 2/4/2008 12:56:33 PM
Author: freestone

SEC Option
Ann Sulzburg (SEC) phoned me a few minutes ago.

Spent about 10-15 minutes going over my points about the unfairness of the Lifland hearing outcome for shareholders.

In general, my points focused on 1.) the fiduciary duty of the Calpine management to protect the shareholders interest up until it was determined that there was no chance of equity (Sunday night prior to the Monday meeting). I noted that Calpine filed the names of only Harbinger-types as new directors weeks before the Sunday meeting, "knowing in advance" that there was no chance for shareholder recovery. 2.) the non-responsiveness of the SHC attorneys even when attempts to contact were tried, and 3.) the silence of the SHC in light of the overnight drastic change in equity value, certainly a substantive change in POR substance. Shareholders thought that the SHC was arguing over a $10-$12 residual valuation as opposed to a $2 projected valuation by Calpine/Harbinger. Why would we object if we believed, through public documents, that the SHC was arguing for the larger valuation? Public documents are all we had to go on.

In my previous letter to her, I mentioned the purposefull devaluing of assets, the death-spiral financing, and the lack of SHC communication.

She told me that her office had two persons at the hearing last week--which we knew from Whose--and that she continues to relay our concerns to appropriate parties within her office. Naturally, she cannot discuss...etc... In closing our conversation, I offered an affidavit concerning my attempt to contact our illustrious SHC.

If nothing else happens, least she was kind enough to respond to my letter. Given all the rainy days of the last two months, I'll savor even a solitary ray of sunshine.

[Charly_2]

Warrants werden voraussichtlich am 10. Februar ausgegeben, bis dahin befinden sich die Altaktionäre im Niemandsland

[xxt]

Weist du was zum Thema Börsenhandel der Warrants?

Gibt es eigentlich noch Hoffnung dass es für die Altaktionäre noch etwas mehr gibt, oder sind alle Einsprüche gescheitert?

[Dostojewski]

Guten Abend Charly,

es sind doch noch die drei o. vier Appeals "in der Pipeline". Besteht in diesem Fall nicht doch noch die geringe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Aktionäre an den neuen Aktien beteiligt werden?
Das ist eigentlich der einzige Strohhalm der überhaupt noch in greifbarer Nähe ist - bezüglich des SHCs braucht man keine Worte mehr zu verlieren.

Gruß an alle in den Montag Abend hinaus - Dosto

[boom2]

Calpine Provides Additional Information Regarding Distributions
Monday February 4, 3:23 pm ET
SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN-WI - News), as previously announced, has successfully emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and has begun distribution of its new common stock to holders of allowed unsecured claims. Distributions of the new common stock are ongoing. Calpine anticipates distributing approximately 423 million shares of the new common stock to holders of allowed unsecured claims in the initial phase of distributions. Calpine is providing detailed information with respect to the anticipated amount of the initial distribution to various classes of allowed unsecured claims on our website at: http://www.calpine.com/media/ExhibitA-Shares-Per-Bond.pdf
Of the 485 million shares of new common stock intended to be distributed under Calpine's Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, Calpine reserved approximately 62 million shares on account of disputed unsecured claims and general contingencies. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, with respect to each disputed unsecured claim, Calpine was required to reserve the lesser number of shares necessary to satisfy the claim based upon:


-- The asserted amount of the claim (or if the claim is contingent or
unliquidated, the amount Calpine, in consultation with the creditors'
committee, elected to reserve);
-- An amount estimated by the Bankruptcy Court; or
-- An amount agreed upon by the holder of the claim and Calpine.


Further details regarding the formula used to determine the number of shares reserved for disputed unsecured claims is contained in the Plan, which is available on Calpine's website.

Calpine Corporation is helping meet the needs of an economy that demands more and cleaner sources of electricity. Founded in 1984, Calpine is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering nearly 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable, and fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 18 states in the U.S. The company owns, leases, and operates low-carbon, natural gas-fired, and renewable geothermal power plants. Using advanced technologies, Calpine generates electricity in a reliable and environmentally responsible manner for the customers and communities it serves. Please visit http://www.calpine.com for more information.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080204/aqm162.html?.v=25

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.266.345 von xxt am 04.02.08 21:32:15

..wenn die Regeln so bleiben wie im PDF aufgeführt

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000712200000000…

können die Warrants nicht gehandelt werden, sondern nur ausgeübt werden, dafür muss aber der CPN-Kurs auf $23.88 steigen während der Handelsperiode bis zum 25.08.08, danach verfallen sie jedenfalls wertlos.

Diese Geschichte ist wirklich zum Schreien, denn Warrants von ex-BK Firmen sind den USA in der Regel 5 Jahre handelbar, nicht so bei Calpine - die designten einfach unter dem Diktat des Hedgies Harbinger die Warrants so dass praktisch keine Aussicht auf Erfolg für die Altaktionäre möglich ist...

...kann sein dass noch andere Rahmenbedingungen für die Warrants bekanntgegeben werden in den nächsten Tagen, viel Hoffnung besteht aber nicht...

...und alle Anträge wurden bisher abgelehnt, auch die letzten 2 Anhörungen vom Freitag vor Gericht brachten keine Neuigkeiten, alle Anträge abgelehnt - es wird bei Sonnenschein & Co nun noch überlegt wie man weiter vorgehen kann, aber ich sehe da eher schwarz

Kommt hinzu dass der Umwandlungskurs von $23.88 auf einem fiktiven $11.942 Mrd. of reorganized equity value festgesetzt wurde, bestimmt in einer Nacht und Nebel Aktion am 20. Dezember 07, wo echt keine Sau weiss wie der sich errechnet (viel zu tief!!!! ...und damit wurden die Altaktionäre geschraubt) und die bereits gehandelte CPN* Aktie notiert bei unter $17, da kann sich jeder selber ausrechnen dass innerhalb 180 Tagen $23.88 wohl kaum erreichbar ist, ohne dieser Wert wird noch reduziert ...denn gemeldete Assetverkäufe müssten zu einem höheren Equitywert führen was wiederum höheren Aktienkurs als $17 und tieferen Umwandlungskurs rechtfertigen würde...

...wenn nicht das Hedgerpack Harbinger hier zukünftig seine Kurs-Manipulation weiterführen würde....

...Harbinger stellt 5 Mitglieder im Directory-Board von Calpine...man müsste darob krass cholerisch werden

[Wilhelmine04]

Guten Abend, die Herren!

War schon lange nicht mehr da, weil ich mir das Elend ersparen wollte, aber als heute kein Handel war...
Macht meine Bank das mit den Warrants von selbst oder muß ich da was unternehmen?
Oder ist doch schon alles zu spät?
Ist schon traurig...

Liebe Grüße Wilhelmine

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.266.993 von Wilhelmine04 am 04.02.08 22:22:55

...was mich überrascht ist dass heute eine Meldung rauskam über die Verteilung der Aktien aber keine Zeile über die Verteilung der Warrants

Da kommt noch was, aber es bleibt zum Schreien

..die Warrants werden automatisch eingebucht von der Bank, Aktienbestand CPNLQ geteilt durch ca. 10, Anzahl abgerundet, keine Fraktionierung, kein Cash

[Wilhelmine04]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.267.092 von Charly_2 am 04.02.08 22:32:55

Also ist mein Minus garantiert. Danke für die Antwort!
Aber was geschieht mit den Aktien, wenn wir sie hergeben müssen und die sich über deren Verteilung Gedanken machen?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.266.889 von Charly_2 am 04.02.08 22:14:18

Tatsache ist, dass Calpine kriminell in letzter Minute den POR geändert hat - zu ihren eigenen Gunsten unter Mithilfe des Rentners Lifland, zudem wurde die Valuation vom Gericht entgegen den Auflagen einfach verhindert und zweifelhafte Bewertungsmethoden angewandt die eindeutig manipulativ einzustufen sind, zudem sind die Vorgänge die dazu abliefen unter Verschluss...

Dass Calpine als Schuldner dies alles diktieren konnte, ist ein Schmierentheater 1. Klasse

...ich denke dies alles hat sicher noch ein Nachspiel, sonst müsste man den Amis vorschlagen das neue Bankruptcygesetz (seit 2005, kam bei Calpine zur Anwendung) in die Mülltonne zu werfen und das BK-Gesetz der Mongolei einzusetzen

[Wilhelmine04]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.267.206 von Charly_2 am 04.02.08 22:46:42

Ich bewundere, dass Du Deinen Humor nicht verlierst...

Ich lehn mich jetzt mal zurück, trink noch einen lecker Wein und warte... warte... warte...

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.267.138 von Wilhelmine04 am 04.02.08 22:38:19

Es ist nicht nur ein Minus, es wird ein Totalverlust, sorry!

Die Verteilung ist schon in Arbeit, die Gläubiger bekommen gegen 100% ihrer Ausstände in Form von Aktien, dh. teilweise unsere Aktien....wobei wir ja auch mit $2 pro Aktie einverstanden gewesen wären, nicht mal daraus wurde was...sondern die erwarten dass wir nebst dem Totalverlust noch pro Warrant $23.88 hinblättern - hirnverbrannte Annahmen von koruptem Pack !

[xxt]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.267.268 von Charly_2 am 04.02.08 22:52:40

Hat mich trotz Teilverkauf im Sommer im Saldo rund 15000 Euro gekostet. Könnte kotzen.

[tjcc281086]

hmm nen kleiner teil meiner calpines wird also irgendwann mit null ausgebucht

ich hab mein gesamtdepot 2007 halbiert

und mit calpine aber ingesamt mehrere 100 % mit ingesamt 3 trades gemacht

verrückt ist die börse

[Dostojewski]

Wie sieht es mit einer Sammelklage aus? Das dürfte zwingend der nächste Schritt sein - oder?

Gruß - Dosto

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.266.889 von Charly_2 am 04.02.08 22:14:18

was ich noch nicht ganz verstehe: harbinger hält doch angeblich selber ca 18% der altaktien oder sind die jetzt zum schluss noch abgestoßen worden? schreiben die diese kohle in den wind bzw. war das deren einsatz, um sich den ganzen laden unter den nagel zu reissen?!

bei mir waren es zum schluss zwar nur noch 1000 eur, aber damit diese geldgeier zu mästen tut trotzdem weh.

[Charly_2]

...Mr. Strouse braucht unsere Unterstützung, denke ich

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2008/02/calp…

Calpine's back, but the protester's not gone

Standard & Poor's issued a 'B' rating to power plant operator Calpine after it emerged from bankruptcy last week, a sign that the company is getting back to business. But that doesn't mean Robert Strouse is.

CalpineProtester_SU[1].02.JPG
Staying put: Calpine shareholder Robert Strouse in front of power company's Houston offices. (Steve Ueckert / Chronicle)

Strouse is the retired commerical painter from Ohio who took a Greyhound bus to Houston a few weeks ago to protest in front of Calpine's downtown Houston office.

Strouse bought 5,000 shares of Calpine more than a year before the company went bankrupt and said an investor relations official with the company told him the company wouldn't "be like Delta" and cancel the stock of existing shareholders. That's exactly what happened, however, and Strouse is saying he was lied to -- which the company denies.

Strouse was still out in front of the Calpine offices Monday and said he plans on sticking around until he gets his money back. Calpine says it will give shareholders like him warrants -- the right to buy new Calpine stock but at a price that will likely be higher than market value it begins trading again on the NYSE this week.

Strouse says that's not good enough. He's applying for a state identification card and may register as a voter here, he said. And his room at the Downtown YMCA pretty comfortable, too, so...


Staying put: Calpine shareholder Robert Strouse in front of power company's Houston offices.

[boom2]

Calpine Closes $90 Million Senior Term Loan Refinancing for Blue Spruce Energy Center
Tuesday February 5, 1:00 pm ET


SAN JOSE, Calif. and HOUSTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN-WI - News) announced today that its indirect subsidiary Blue Spruce Energy Center, LLC (Blue Spruce LLC) has received funding for its $90 million senior term loan refinancing, maturing December 31, 2017.
Blue Spruce LLC owns the Blue Spruce Energy Center (BSEC) in Aurora, Colo. and is a stand-alone, indirect subsidiary of Calpine. BSEC currently operates under a 10-year power contract with Public Service Company of Colorado for up to 310 megawatts of the power plant's full capacity and related energy and ancillary services. Power deliveries commenced in mid-2003 and extend through April 2013.

Joint Lead Arrangers Co-Bank, ACB ("CoBank") and Siemens Financial Services, Inc. underwrote the project finance facility, and CoBank will serve as administrative agent. Net proceeds from the senior term loan will be used to refinance all outstanding indebtedness under the existing Blue Spruce LLC term loan facility, to pay fees and expenses related to the transaction and for general corporate purposes. This financing extends the tenor of the previous loan and is at a significantly lower interest rate. The benefits of the additional liquidity and lower interest expense flow through to Calpine. Calpine and other Calpine affiliates will not be responsible for the debts or other obligations of Blue Spruce LLC.

Calpine Corporation is helping meet the needs of an economy that demands more and cleaner sources of electricity. Founded in 1984, Calpine is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering nearly 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable, and fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 18 states in the U.S. The company owns, leases, and operates low-carbon, natural gas-fired, and renewable geothermal power plants. Using advanced technologies, Calpine generates electricity in a reliable and environmentally responsible manner for the customers and communities it serves. Please visit http://www.calpine.com for more information.

Forward Looking Information

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080205/aqtu143a.html?.v=2&printe…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.272.351 von federico29 am 05.02.08 15:01:10

..Harbinger kann höchstens 25 Mio Altaktien halten, das sind Peanuts im Vergleich zu den ca. 20% Aktien (100 Mio) die sie jetzt von Calpine zugeschanzt erhalten

Nach dem Lesen der gefeilten Protokolle sieht es so aus:

1 . Die Warrants wurden dem Eigenkapitalkomitee geliefert, um das Gesicht zu wahren.
2 . die Bedingungen wurden absichtlich vage gelassen, aus welchem Grund auch immer...
3 . Da nun die Finanzierung geklärt ist und sie aus BK heraus sind kann man sagen, die Schuldner und Harbinger bekamen alles was sie wollten...alle Ankädigungen von Equity-Wert für die Shareholders von CEO May von $3.05, $2.05, $1.94, $0.40 im letzten Halbjahr war alles Lug und Trug

Harbinger kann grundsätzlich den Share Preis niedrig halten und alle die Warrants aufkaufen und noch 5 % gewinnen oder sie wertlos erlöschen lassen. Harbingers Unterhändler waren in diesem Gurkendeal in der Lage, jeden letzten Tropfen Eigenkapital aus uns/ der Bude Calpine herauszuquetschen.

War eine reife Leistung unter aktiver Mithilfe des Rentners Lifland, und das CPN-Mgmt erhält erst noch 3% der Firma in Aktien und Optionen mit 10 jähriger Laufzeit...

...unsäglich was da Wallstreet durchgehen lässt..

[Charly_2]

Auf zu neuen Ufern - hoffentlich mit mehr Erfolg

Thread: DnC Multimedia, wie geht es nach dem RS weiter?

DnC Multimedia Corporation, aktuell noch zu $0.18 zu haben

Financial Statements of DnC Tech., Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.

http://tinyurl.com/24pkae

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.282.667 von Charly_2 am 06.02.08 12:59:53

hast du also calpine schon ganz abgeschrieben?

und glaubst du wirklich, dass wir mit diesem obscuren multimedialaden wirklich mehr glück haben sollten? woher dein sinneswandel, wo du doch selber erst zum verkauf geraten und wenig gutes an der aktie gelassen hast (siehe u.a. deine postings um den 15.01. im besagten thread). da kursierten die 7 mio umsatz, die jetzt veröffentlicht wurden doch auch schon, allerdings auch die vielen millionen miesen der mantelfirmen planetlink und pluginz samt ihren undurchsichtigen finanzjonglagen. drum hier der kommentar aus dem board.cash.ch, den du freundlicherweise auch schon mal in den dcnm-thread gestellt hast.

… wie das Tradervolk emotionales bungee jumping macht, von Penny-heaven zu Tode betruebt zu mad as hell… http://tinyurl.com/yr527p dabei haetten sie s hier schon seit April 07 lesen koennen – allerdings in broken teutonisch http://tinyurl.com/2apwdh

Aendern sollte der angekuendigte reverse split von 1:150 eigentlich nicht viel – trotzdem ist die Aktie eingebrochen. Ein r/s muesste doch positiv sein: einfacherer Handel, die D Boersen €, die OTC $ Kurse, die spreads leichter vestaendlich. Aber da liegt wohl der Hase: Wer will s schon einfach wenn s kompliziert besser geht? Ich nehme mal an die shorties, die Zocker, die extrem spreading, „markup“ und „markdown“ MM s freut s nicht mehr so bei 15 cents. Hunderte % gehen schlanker auf und ab bei 0,001 $.

Freude herrschte dafuer wegen der Namensaenderung DnC Multimedia. Montag ist s soweit. Quote DCNM. Nur: Die public Aktionaere kennen kaum Zahlen von diesem Laden. Da wird reverse gemerged, acquiriert, Wandelanleihen, Optionen, Aktienausgabe genehmigt (auch nach reverse split immer noch million dilution potential wenn ich s recht sehe). Von 100 M $ Umsatzzielen wird schwadroniert, von 10 M $ private equity im Januar. Aber nix Financials publiziert. Eben: Was geht das schon die Mini-Minderheits-Aktionaere an, diese Blindflieger! Eigentlich ein Skandal aber das OTC Pink Sheet macht s moeglich. Man ist auch SEC gewarnt.

Trotzdem, irgend einmal kommt man nicht drum rum die ganze chose zu konsolidieren. Man will ja eine respektable Pumpe werden. Also rapportiert man diskret, ohne PR, erst einmal die Zahlen der Pluginz an die SEC (remember: das ist die private Tochter, die die kotierte Mutter-Shell PlanetLink reverse gefressen hat). Kumuliertes Defizit 1,4 M $ im 2006 http://tinyurl.com/2f7rpn Neuere Zahlen gibt s nicht. Das verbratene Kapital kam von der Visual Media Inc. Die wiederum hatte es von Benchmark Capital und 3i. Dann ein management buyout. Oder wahrscheinlicher: ein give-away of losses. Den venture cap firms waren die numbers wohl doch zu hopeless.

Recap: Bis jetzt darf sich der neue DCNM Aktionaer auf einen 20 M $ Minusposten von der PlanteLink Bilanz sowie 1,4 M $ Verlustvortrag und etwa ½ M $ Umsatz von Pluginz freuen. Man ist gespannt was im DCNM Ei drin ist – wenn es die erhabene Konzernleitung dann einmal freundlicherweise publiziert – und wie s konsolidiert aussieht. Neues Geld wird auf jeden Fall von begeisterten neuen DCNM Aktionaeren gepumpt. Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind.... Ach ja: Sogar neue Produkte gibts. Ein aufgemotzter MP3, ein PMP soll s sein. Irre.

bye


NB: Hoffe natuerlich sincerely fuer die holders hier, dass ich total daneben bin und sie nicht baden gehen und das Ding wie wild floriert.

noch hab ich nicht viele gegenargumente gegen diese durch und durch spitze feder. die beobachtungen der letzten monate bestätigen seine aussagen momentan aber eher. das ist doch alles noch viel mehr reine lotterie als es bei calpine schon war. hab hier nämlich auch schon mein glück versucht. allein was da bisher maklermäßig abging, war eine riesenfrechheit. leicht zu kaufen zu aufgepumpten kursen, schwer bis gar nicht wieder loszukriegen, es sei denn mit einer bestens order, vor deren ausführung der makler den kurs gehörig nach unten drückt. wer da nicht schon vor dem reservesplit zu planetlinkzeiten deutlich unter 0,001 dollar reingekommen ist, riskiert hier enorm viel.
trotz zahlenalarm hat übrigens gerade der kurs einfach mal so wieder fast 17% nachgegeben. also mir ist das so viel zu heiss solange ich keine vernünftige konsolidierte bilanz 2007 zu gesicht bekomme.

[Dostojewski]

Hallo Charly,

wurde der letzte Appeal auch bereits abgelehnt?

Gruß - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.031 von Dostojewski am 06.02.08 21:02:55

Ich habe momentan keine Infos, es ist aber nur noch der Appeal von Fellus offen und die anderen 2 Parteien (Sonnenschein & Co und 3 individuelle Shareholders) wo die Anträge vom Gericht abgelehnt wurden haben noch nix verlauten lassen was sie gedenken zu tun.

Die Begründung der Ablehnung war, dass keine Fehler nachgewiesen wurden, was die Ausführungen/ Bestimmungen des Gerichts betrifft...

...dabei ist dies natürlich ohne wichtige Unterlagen - welche das Gericht auf Antrag von Sonnenschein & Co. nicht herausrückte (Antrag wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung es sei zur Unzeit und man hätte früher reagieren müssen - was wiederum nicht möglich war weil überfallmässig die POR-Regeln geändert wurden...

...wobei ein Fehler klar auf der Hand liegt, denn die Warrants liegen nicht 15% (wie angekündigt) sondern aktuell über 40% unter dem Umwandlungspreis von $23,88, was ganz klar eine Error ist - ohne der UP wird noch gesenkt

Ich denke, der Richter hatte keine Ahnung wie man die Warrants-Parameter designte und hat einfach alles entgegen den Shareholdersinteressen zu Gunsten der Creditors entschieden....ohne es zu wissen

...und die Rolle unseres SHC-Anwalts Kaplan während des ganzen Prozesses war diffus....eine Katastrophe ...deren Informationspolitik gegenüber den Shareholdern war eine Schande und die veröffentlichte SHC-Valuation ein Schuss in den Ofen !!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.227 von Charly_2 am 06.02.08 21:23:21

...die Grundsatzfrage ist nach US-Recht natürlich immer, welche Möglichkeiten dass man hat um ein solches Urteil anzufechten, nach der bekannten Statistik sind nur 10% von Appeals erfolgreich, das sind natürölich nicht gute Voraussetzungen um Kopf und Kragen zu riskieren...

...ein Calpine-Anwalt forderte vom Richter sogar dass Sonnenschein für ihre Intervention einen Bond, das sind gegen $900 Mio hinblättern müssen...was natürlich Mumpitz war...aber es wurde mit allen Mitteln versucht den Appeal zu verhindern...

...zudem hat Sonnenschein nur versucht, für seine Klienten einen Deal herauszuholen, bisher ohne Erfolg !

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.375 von Charly_2 am 06.02.08 21:35:53

..die SEC (Börsen Regulator in den USA) hat sich zu dieser Schmierenkomödie nur vage geäussert und auf die Vertretung der Shareholders - SHC - verwiesen, was natürlich auch eine Schande ist für eine solche Behörde!!

Zumindest hatte die SEC in den letzten Hearings immer 1-2 Vertreter am Gericht nachdem Fellus dort interveniert hatte...

...und wie man weiss läuft gegen Calpine aktuell seit Monaten eine Untersuchung was das Accounting betrifft, gut möglich dass aus dieser Richtung noch unverhofft was kommt....

...bisher liess sich die SEC nicht in die Karten blicken in dieser Sache

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.227 von Charly_2 am 06.02.08 21:23:21

Mmmmh, danke für die schnelle Antwort.

Ich denke hier sind noch nicht alle Messen gesungen! Da wird noch etwas in Form einer Sammelklage kommen - hoffe ich.
Das ging hier ab wie im richtigen Leben

Jetzt ist Wunden lecken angesagt und dann muss es irgendwie weitergehen.

Hätte ich Zeit und vor allem Geld würde ich mich solidarisch mit Robert Strouse und einigen anderen tausend geprellten Anlegern auf den Weg nach Houston machen und das Management von Calpine + Harbinger und Co. kurzerhand an irgendeinem Präriebaum lynchen.

Gruß in diese schwarze Nacht hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.227 von Charly_2 am 06.02.08 21:23:21

Rückblickend landete Fellus mit seiner Motion im Dezember einen Volltreffer, indem er das Argument - Administrativer Error - Falschberechnung, Falschübermittlung, Fehler in der Administration etc. argumentierte...

...aber alles wurde abgelehnt...obwohl die $11,92 Mrd. Equity doch eine willkürliche Zahl darstellt, die nicht belegbar ist sondern nur dazu diente die Shareholders ins Leere laufen zu lassen, und dies buchstäblich um 11:59:59 des letzten Verhandlungstages - ohen Ankündigung, ohne Reaktionszeit - und das SHC liess sich plattwalzen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.510 von Dostojewski am 06.02.08 21:46:26

Yea...Strouse dient den US-Medien aktuell auch nur als Aufhänger für eine Story...arme Medienlandschaft wo jeder jedem abschreibt, unterste Schublade

Nicht mal die Calpers - Personalvertretung von Calpine die viele Mio Aktien hielten, liessen sich einspannen für eine Appeal-Aktion auf Anfrage, das sagt wohl alles über deren US-Kultur

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.289.510 von Dostojewski am 06.02.08 21:46:26

Sammelklage dürfte unterwegs sein ... es kann noch etwas dauern...

...wenn ein Gericht in einem Bankrott-Fall zulässt dass der Firmenleitung 3% der Aktien zugeschanzt werden...

[Charly_2]

Fellus legte nach
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000802060000000…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.303.562 von Charly_2 am 07.02.08 23:13:14

Ministerial Error ist gegeben und damit könnte an den nächst höheren Court appelliert werden.... Seite 8-10

Warrants-Strikepreis liegt aktuell über 40% höher und nicht 15% wie im Exhibit 21 steht.....rechnen müsste man schon können, sei es als Richter oder als Rechtsanwalt..

[Ayrton1]

Hallo Charly,
ist mein Geld jetzt weg? Online ist die Aktie nicht mehr handelbar.
Etwas Geld ist aber noch im Stock!
Was kann man machen?
Ich wäre dir dankbar für eine INFO.

Was macht ihr anderen?

Gruß Ayrton

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.311.511 von Ayrton1 am 08.02.08 16:55:18

Lügnern (CEO May; $2,05/ 1,94/ 0,40...) für Shareholders) bietet man noch eine Plattform; Video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=643569764

..dem Aktienkurs hilft es jedenfalls nicht - denn die Gläubiger die die Aktien eingebucht bekommen werden reihenweise die Aktien schmeissen, gestern schmiss einer einen 1 Mio Block

Unsere Kohle ist weg, die Aktien bekam Harbinger & Co in Form unserer Aktien - da kommt nix zurück ausser die praktisch wertlosen Warrants die nächste Woche eingebucht werden....

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.313.094 von Charly_2 am 08.02.08 18:48:59

Das habe ich noch nicht kapiert, was bekommen wir denn nun gebucht und wie könnte man dann überhaupt schmeißen?

Zur Zeit sind die Dinger wertlos.

Die Aktie muß ja mind. auf 23,88 (um 44,8%) steigen, damit wir bei 0 sind, wonach es derzeit nicht aussieht.

Aber vielleicht will auch keiner die Aktien, um nicht die "Zeche der Altaktionäre" also von uns zu zahlen



tschao
mac

[Charly_2]

Mr. Strause's Protest to Calpine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk0qFfM8vMk

[Charly_2]

Harbinger hat im Januar einen Anteil an New York Times Co. zugekauft...

Falcone ist der Kopf von Harbinger, wer wissen will wie man Kohle macht der kann es hier nachlesen

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/0225/037.html

Falcone hat im Jahr 2006 als Hedge Fund Manager über $1 Mrd. eingesackt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.272.787 von Charly_2 am 05.02.08 15:30:44

Msg: 1198 of 1200 2/9/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: vw4fun

Re: Here With Mr. Strouse

I visited Mr. Strouse again today. He was very excited to receive his new sandwich signs. After a stop for a nice lunch we headed to Best Buy to purchase a new headphone set for his laptop. (the old set had bit the dust which is why I couldn't communicate on his computer phone service). After a stop at Wal-Mart for some additional items Bob spotted a Panera Bread cafe where we could access the internet. He now has a new email address. (note: we could never communicate together with his old address - my reason not to pass out his address that didn't work)

After establishing a new email account I showed him his YouTube tribute. He got a real kick out of that. Friday, Tom Fowler at the Houston Chronicle had stopped by to tell Bob he was on YouTube.

I will only post Bob's email address here on this board because I feel here is where he has received the most interest.

With Bob's permission here is his email address:

[e-mail]

Please feel free to contact him.

Thanks to all
Ray
vw4fun

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.322.892 von Charly_2 am 10.02.08 11:13:59

Hallo Charly,

hast Du etwas neues gehört - wurde das/der letzt Appeal bereits abgeschmettert?
Gibt es etwas neues über eine Sammelklage?

Grüße in diesen herrlichen sonnigen Montag hinaus - Dosto

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.331.884 von Dostojewski am 11.02.08 16:51:03

Fellus-Appeal ist als letzter Vorstoss noch pendent

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000802060000000…

Aussicht auf Erfolg erachte ich als gering, obwohl seine Argumente zu 100% stimmen !!

...denn ein einzelner Shareholder hat ohne Anwälte keine Chance was durchzudrücken, selbst Sonnenschein & Co. ist abgeblitzt

[Ayrton1]

Hallo zusammen,
nach Rücksprache mit der INGDIBA, bei der meine Anteile liegen, hat die Firma Calpine weltweit keine Börsenzulassung mehr. Kann das jemand bestätigen? Ich habe jetzt nur die Möglichkeit, zu einem Spotpreis, die Anteile im Ausland zu einem Spotpreis anzubieten. Hat irgendjemand eine IDEE?

Ich bin für jede Antwort dankbar.
Gruß Ayrton

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.344.517 von Ayrton1 am 12.02.08 17:32:33

...damit kannst Du nichts mehr anfangen, ist eben so, Harbinger meldete heute 20,6% Anteil an Calpine, das sind über 100 Mio Aktien die sie zugeschanzt bekamen und Shareholder sitzen auf wertlosen Warrants oder hier auf unhandelbaren Altaktien die wertlos ausgebucht werden

[Charly_2]

Bis Donnerstag wissen wir wie es mit dem letzte Appeal von Fellus weitergeht, dh. wann die Anhörung stattfinden wird

[munzi666]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde moderiert.

[munzi666]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde moderiert.

[munzi666]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde moderiert.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.347.763 von Charly_2 am 12.02.08 21:59:16

...es wird noch nach einem Rechtsberater gesucht, dieser kostet für diesen Fall $30-$50K wenn's vorwärts geht

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.373.119 von Charly_2 am 14.02.08 20:48:12

Kirkland notified of counsel for Felluss Appeal

Lyonnes reports Kirkland and Ellis has been notified the appeal for Elias Felluss has tentatively retained legal representation.

Barring any conflicts which have yet to be determined, the Felluss appeal will be administered by competent counsel.

Bleibt zu hoffen dass dies kein Fake ist

[Charly_2]

...die hocken auf 34,2% der Aktien und wir auf wertlosen Warrants
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/harbinger-capit…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/harbinger-capit…

[Dostojewski]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.374.983 von Charly_2 am 14.02.08 22:32:35

Ich weiß es wird einmal ein Wunder geschehn' (alter Schlager).

Hey, der zweitschönste Tag der Woche neigt sich dem Ende und wir treten in die Nacht zum Freitag ein

Ich war gerade in "John Rambo". Einfach herrlich zum Entspannnen dieser Film.

Euch allen seien - egal was das hier für ein Ende nimmt - Grüße durch die Nacht des Donnerstages hinein in den Freitag gesandt; und das wie immer über alle Grenzen hinweg.

Dosto

[Charly_2]

Calpine Corporation has added a news release to its Investor Relations website.
Title: Calpine Hosts Analyst Meeting

Date: 2/15/2008 1:38:00 PM

For a complete listing of our news releases, please click here

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=103361&p=irol-ne…

Gut möglich, dass das Ding explodiert....die fahren nun die neue Welle...während 2 Jahren abgetaucht und nun wird wie wild getrommelt

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.375.623 von Dostojewski am 14.02.08 23:22:14

hehe, die Creditors melden sich, so präzis wie eine Schweizer Uhr

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000802140000000…

Eine Frechheit, lauter Unterstellungen

Den Creditors hat man schliesslich auch nicht vorgeworfen, sie machten gemeinsame Sache mit dem Rentner-Richter

Counter-Designation Of Additional Items
To Be Included In The Record On Appeal

Mr. Felluss did not designate any items from the record in his Statement of Issues and Designation of Record on Appeal filed with the Bankruptcy Court on February 6, 2008.
However, Mr. Felluss’ appeal challenges the Bankruptcy Court Decisions, and is therefore directly related to the appeals filed by the Objecting Shareholders and the Flair Appellants.
Because Mr. Felluss’ appeal will likely be consolidated with the other two appeals referenced above, and because the parties to those appeals have already designated significant portions of
the record, the Committee hereby designates the record items already designated in the two consolidated appeals filed by the Objecting Shareholders and the Flair Appellants to avoid
unnecessary, duplicative filings.

[Charly_2]

Filing von Fellus - jedes Wort kann man darin unterstreichen - da wurde gedealt zu Lasten der Shareholders, unterstützt durch einen sen.len Richter !!

Elias A Felluss, Shareholder

Pro Se

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re: ) Chapter 11)
Calpine Corporation, et al
Debtors ) Related Docket. Nos. 7253, 7256, 7404
Case No. 05-60200 (BRL)
Jointly Administered
___________________________)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND
DESIGNATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDERS
OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Comes now Appellant Elias A Felluss, A Shareholder and movant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006, pro se, in the lower court decision to deny motion for reconsideration in the above captioned case, Calpine Corporation, Case No. 05-60200 (BRL) and as an "Objecting Shareholder" holder of Calpine Corporation common stock, PRO SE, hereby submits to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York his statement of issues on appeal and designation of the record on appeal in connection with the Notice of Appeal filed by this Objecting Shareholder on January 28. 2008, Docket No 7504 in the above-captioned proceedings.

The Petitioner Appellant has standing to file this appeal, as the appellant was a movant in the lower court rulings. (See Dockets 7322, 7323,7363.7376,7377,7380,7397,7382 and 7478. Inter alia, filed December 28, 2007 and forward).

While the Petitioner is an individual shareholder and does not have the benefit of a deep legal bench, he will endeavor to not take the courts time with extraneous matters. The only protection this Petitioner enjoys are the Bench this tribunal provides and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Designation of Items on Appeal

The following issues are on Appeal:

1. The Motion filed December 28, 2007, Docket 7322 was heard, but never ruled on. A hearing on motions by other shareholders was reference Docket No 7478. In those motions, the lower court ruled, namely, Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund, Standard Bank of London and Leonardo Capital Fund SPC. Yet DID NOT rule on this Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider, where movant motioned the court to consider the ministerial errors in the plan and which were not ruled on with prejudice. The Petitioner believes either the Motion to Reconsider is pending or is a procedural error.

2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in substantive law in confirming the Plan of Reorganization on December 19, 2008 in the cases of the Calpine Corporation, Case Number 05-60200, Dockets 7235, 7236 and 7237. What can only be viewed as highly irregular, the Court's Valuation Expert witness operated outside the normal scope reserved for a valuation expert. Then subsequently, and on the record, after the plan confirmation recanted his testimony.

3. Whether the December 19, 2007 Confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization which relied on the filing made on December 20, 2007 resulting in this Final Order of Approval, preempted the petitioners Due Process. All citizens are vested with rights afforded to them by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Those rights were super-ordinated so to favor of the Debtor's desire to acquire favorable financing terms and qualify for handsome bonus packages, Docket 7235, 7236 and 7237.

4. Whether a Writ of Mandamus to address ministerial errors which have had a material effect on the outcome for the petitioner. Reference Docket 7228, Exhibit 21, Warrant Term Sheet. There have been many, this one was incompletely filed on December 18, 2007 but correctly filed after the affirming of the confirmation ruling was rendered of December 20, 2007 while the confirmation was approved on December 19, 2007.

5. Violation of the "Trust Fund" theories. The record is replete with clear violations of the trust fund theory of absolute priority. The record, if unsealed, would show its origins together with what has been put on the record, albeit, in fragments, support the preponderance of evidence that validate this conclusion.

Preliminary Statement

Throughout the duration of these 2 years of hearings on these Calpine cases, a pattern has emerged. The Petitioner refers to it has the "Subsequent Truth" syndrome. The procedure is rather simple. Simply say one thing before a critical hearing date and subsequently correct it on a following date.

The advocates for both the creditors and the debtors have consistently misled the lower court - either by strategic design or inadvertence - in forming foundations in logic upon which findings were made, and then, at a subsequent date, revise those base assumptions therefore having a material impact on results. The Appellant believes had they been presented in their final format for the Court to review, perhaps, the Court would have found another outcome.

The record is replete with incidents where decisions are made only to find the basis of those decisions are revised following the court's order.

This record suggests a pattern of prima facie substantive errors where testimony given and accepted as a predicate for a decision is the next day altered yet never addressed by the presiding judge. It is odious and gives the appearance of a cabal to defraud the justice and shareholders.

This Appellant petitioner believes the public record supports this as evidentially true.

Judge Lifland who presided over these bankruptcy hearings is a strong proponent of the "Trust Fund" theory as it resolves priority of claims and is no doubt the reason the debtors and creditors had sought his jurisdiction to have their cases heard.

One of the very simple and uncomplicated rules of the "Trust Fund" theory is that of fiduciary and who is owed what and when. The record shows that from the outset of these lower court hearings, the only difference between the Creditor's counsel and the Debtor's counsel was the name of their law firm.

These hearings have so far been a successful effort by a clever, mean spirited team effort to defrock investors' equity.

This Appellate Court might suggest "you had your chance to speak but it is equitably moot as the distributions have been made".

If the latter is true, well then, it would be fair to proffer "Would 'justice' also say if a band of robbers distributes their loot, the robbery was equitably moot?"

The greater "public Interest" is served when juris considers the broader impact on the financial markets when hearings such as these, which impact so many and benefit so few, is served.

It is unseemly for the debtors and creditors to have collaborated as early as the Summer of 2007, amongst earlier times, in the FERC application designating new ownership of the power plant facilities of Calpine. It would seem to be a clear violation of the "Trust Fund" and Fiduciary theories that form the foundation of real property title. In other words, before an official confirmation of the disclosure statement, and any valuation had been presented to the lower court, the debtor transferred his fiduciary to the creditors.

Statements on the Issues of Appeal

1. The Motion filed December 28, 2007, Docket 7322 was heard, but never ruled on. The Petitioner has every right to expect a decision on the merits of his motion, and not be bundled in a conclusion of the interests of yet another petitioner who are also movants. This Petitioner has been unable to find any citations to support the court's failure to rule with prejudice on the motion, except in an order to remand to the lower court to rehear the motion. SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) v. BLACK DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION, INC ( Docket No. EAJ 98-1) where the appellate remanded the motion to be reheard.

A hearing on motions by other shareholders was reference in the prepared denial by Judge Lifland, Docket No 7478. In those motions, the lower court ruled, namely, on the motions of Compania Internacional Financiera, S.A., Coudree Global Equities Fund, Standard Bank of London and Leonardo Capital Fund AND did not rule on this Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider, where movant motioned the court to consider the ministerial errors in the plan and which were not ruled on with prejudice.

The Petitioner either still has a "Motion to Reconsider" pending or is a procedural error.

2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in substantive law in confirming the Plan of Reorganization on December 19, 2008 in the cases of the Calpine Corporation, Case Number 05-60200, Dockets 7235, 7236 and 7237.

What can only be viewed as highly irregular, the Court's Valuation Expert witness, Bridges Company, informed the court in open testimony on Monday, December 17, 2008 that "Under the Power of this Court" he was able to have all the parties come to an agreement. Bridges was the court appointed expert who was a hire to find a value for the company as there were very contentious views on the subject being presented by the parties in interest. In the Bridges Executive Summary, filed soon thereafter their testimony, the Bridges report stated quite plainly he "just didn't have the time to prepare own valuation and instead used what numbers he was provided by the debtors and creditors. He then stated he proceeded to enforce a settlement between creditors, debtors and the shareholders committee.

The Petitioner is not sure that was what Congress had contemplated when it wrote the statutory provision allowing latitude to the court to make such a hire.

3. Whether the rules of Due Process were observed during the December 19, 2007 Confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization which relied on the filing made on December 20, 2007 resulting in this Final Order of Approval, preempted the petitioners Due Process.

It is fair to say that shareholders should have spoken out the day the confirmation was confirmed, but only if all the facts of the confirmation were known. The rule of Laches speaks directly to this, except that the rule requires full disclosure of the facts and merits of the objection.

It cannot be that objections by opponents should be made based on subsequent filings, and in this case, made the day after the confirmed plan was approved, unless the appellate court contemplates "tea leaves" as a basis for an objection.

Because the Petitioner had no knowledge of the actual details specified in the last version of Exhibit 21 until Thursday, December 20, 2007 (See Exhibit 1 as this filing "slipped through the cracks" and does not appear on the record until late or at all).

It would have been impossible to object to the confirmation on Wednesday, December 19, 2007. When all the facts could only have been known until Thursday, December 20, 2008.

All that to say, an objection on the facts would have been impossible. The Petitioner's belief is laches does not apply.

Therefore procedurally, the Petitioner's right to due process has been violated.

All citizens whether US or not, are vested with rights afforded to them by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Those rights were super-ordinated so to favor the Debtor's desire to acquire favorable financing terms and qualify for handsome bonus packages, Docket 7235, 7236 and 7237.

It is also disingenuous to find the transcript from the December 17, 2007 hearing that was dated by the Court's stenographer January 10, 2007(?) but not posted January 17, 2008 on the KCCLCC website, and expect shareholders who are widely dispersed to have known what had transpired.

4. Whether a Writ of Mandamus to address ministerial errors which have had a material effect on the outcome for the petitioner. Reference Docket 7228, Exhibit 21, Warrant Term Sheet.

A Writ of Mandamus is a power vested in the Court of Appeals. It is an extraordinary measure and should be taken with care and not lightly. The Supreme Court, as James Wm Moore, in Moore's Federal Practice S 204.01[2][c] (3d ed 1998) cited:

Section 1651(a) applies to the Supreme Court and "all courts established by Act of Congress." Congress did not itself establish Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) in the same way it established other federal courts. Instead, since 1994, Congress has directed each circuit court to create a BAP, unless the judicial council of the circuit court finds that certain circumstances exist. And these Calpine cases may very well be ones where appellate review is necessary.

"Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 158(b)(1), the judicial council hereby establishes and continues a bankruptcy appellate panel to hear and determine appeals from judgments, orders and decrees entered by bankruptcy judges" was the enlightened view of the Ninth Circuit Amended Order Establishing and Continuing the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Congress could have been said to have established BAP's under dictionary definitions because BAP's did not exist before Congress provided authority for them in1994.

So it is with the greatest respect the Petitioner would move this court to make such a consideration.

It is not the Petitioner's intent to have the court examine each and every instance of ministerial error but only to call attention to the fact there have been errors. In a bankruptcy of this size, the rounding off of numbers can be a material difference. A .06 basis point difference in numerology can have an impact of $600,000,000. For instance, the difference "between the stipulated settlement amount and the Miller Buckfire net "TEV" valuations prior to December 17, 2007 and also prior to the lower court's intervention in the settlement discussions that took place on Sunday, December 16, 2007 was a fractional .06. The point here is not the difference between valuations which have already been stipulated to, but fractional differences between numbers equates to significant and often huge sums.

There have been many "Exhibit 21's". Each one varied fractionally. This latest version was incompletely filed on December 18, 2007 but correctly filed on December 20, 2007 after the affirming of the confirmation ruling was rendered on December 19, 2007,.

What it says is in its complete form, the actual strike price of the warrants will be 141%, not 115%. The Creditors and Debtors have led the court to believe it would have a different outcome.

The December 17, 2007 transcript states, "The exercise price of the warrants will be in an amount per share to be determined, but intended to be 115 percent of the value per
share, based on $11.942 billion in value of reorganized Calpine equity value."

For a bankruptcy court to approve a proposed reorganization plan on a consensual basis, the proponent of the plan must show that the plan satisfies the requirements of 1129(a). Section 1129(a) contains the following requirement, inter alia, " the plan has been proposed in good faith with respect to each dissenting creditor in an impaired class, and the creditor will receive or retain under the Chapter 11 plan on account of its claim, as of the effective date of the plan, an amount not less (nor more) than the amount the creditor would receive if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7".

The creditor is owed only the contract amount the debtor is obliged to pay and nothing more.

Issue at hand…If the court examines the most current version of Exhibit 21 filed on December 20, 2008, the court can observe that the "Total Net Claims" amount is $19.552 Billion.

This differs widely from the agreed on $18.95 billion agreed to in the TEV and confirmed by the court on December 19, 2008. By using the 19.552 billion number the debtors have effectively raised the reorganized equity by the $600 million. In addition the calculation of the equity strike price calculation included a 15% "appreciation" on the whole $19.552 net claims which claims contain more than 50% debt. Debt by definition has very little to do with equity and equity share price. Correctly, debt is later subtracted, but the 15% premium on the debt is incorrectly left to be included in the equity strike price. And in so doing the difference equates to an incorrect valuation for the warrants. The result of the corrections to the calculation would result in a warrant strike price close to 115% of reorganized equity per share, rather than 141% which by the definition in the December 17 Court transcript is wrong.

Taking the latest version again, the total TEV is $22.485 Billion. Subtracting out the Miller Buckfire Debt Net of Project Cash of $11.037 Billion and adding back in Corporate cash, we arrive at an equity strike price of $11.942 Billion and that divided by 500,000,000 shares comes to $23.88…HOWEVER, if the stipulated agreement calls for a TEV of $18.95 Billion, and a fractional difference of .06 or $600,000,000….or something better than $1.20 per old share.

MOREOVER, based on the new strike price the Creditors who substantially make up the new ownership of Calpine would receive some $9.7 Billion dollars through conversion of the warrants…not $11.942 Billion dollars as they are being paid.

One would believe that difference should flow to the old equity and represents in excess of $2 Billion or $4.00 per old share implementing the "waterfall" methodology.…instead, this petitioner is given a worthless warrant set to expire in 6 months and told to say thank you!

Said another way:
-On Dec 17 we thought the strike price would be 115% of the share price based on reorganized value.
-On Dec 19 the Plan was confirmed.
-On Dec 20 details of the $11.942 billion were made available.

We found the calculation used was $19.55 billion claims rather than $18.95 agreed on enterprise value. It also factored up the whole $19.55 billion by 15% and not just the equity portion.

Based on information taken from the warrant term sheet and using the $18.95 billion agreed on enterprise value the per share the equity value is approximately $16.82. The market confirms this price to be reasonable based on the when issued Calpine shares, which were trading at $16.90 on February 4, 2008.

Factoring up the $16.82 by a 15% premium would result in a $19.34 strike price. The 23.88 strike price is actually 41% over the intrinsic share price not 15%...this is a ministerial error and should be addressed by the Higher Court.

Of course, this requires taking on face value that the 115% appreciation premium is correct. Without having public disclosure and knowledge of the closed negotiations and sealed court documents, the petitioner reserves the right that the 115% appreciation may not be correct.

Without the absent calculation shareholders would not have been able to determine that the $11,942 was designed to have the warrants issued 41% out of the money rather than 15% out of the money as per the December 17, 2007 transcript and December 19, 2007 confirmation.

The result was contrary to what we thought at the time of the Confirmation Hearing that the warrants would be issued at a 15% premium and 15% did not mean 41%.

A reading of the transcript during the period which Mr Seligman spoke (Counsel for the Debtor) reads as follows:

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801180000000…

"10 This settlement is also, your Honor, conditioned
11 upon quick approval of the plan modifications that will need
12 to be put in place to embody the settlement.
13 Your Honor, the most significant terms of the
14 warrants are that the number of warrants will be equal to ten
15 percent of the total undiluted issued and outstanding equity
16 of reorganized Calpine on the effective date. The exercise
17 price of the warrants will be in an amount per share to be
18 determined, but intended to be 115 percent of the value per
19 share, based on $11.942 billion in value of reorganized
20 Calpine equity value. And the expiration date of the
21 warrants, your Honor, it will be August 25th of 2008."

What we heard on December 17, 2007 was Mr. Cieri's soliloquy regarding the warrants and their pricing which is excerpted below:

Hearing date on December 17, 2007

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801180000000…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0560200/05602000801180000000…

P R O C E E D I N G S

"THE COURT: Be seated, please. Good morning.

MR. CIERI: Good morning, your Honor. Richard Cieri of Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of the Calpine debtors. Your Honor, could I take a few minutes to apprise the court of where we stand with respect to the confirmation process?

THE COURT: You don't have to explain it to me. But you can explain it to everybody else here.

MR. CIERI: Okay, thank you very much, your Honor.

Your Honor, we are going to request an adjournment of the confirmation hearing until Wednesday. And your Honor, the reasons for that requested adjournment will be clear as I bring the court through where we stand with respect to the confirmation process and the objections that are still extant to the planned reorganization.

Your Honor, as may have been reported to you, the debtors, the creditors' committee and the equity committee tentatively reached a settlement of the valuation issues in this case. This settlement essentially provides for the following:

The stipulated value for purposes of the plan of Calpine's Total Enterprise Value, or TEV is settled at $18.95 billion under the plan. This value compares to Miller Buckfire's valuation of 19.35 billion, Lazard's valuation of 16.25 billion (1), and Perella Weinberg's valuation of 23.2 billion.

Your Honor, it is also proposed that the equity holders will also receive certain warrants under the plan that I will describe to you in a minute. Equity will receive no other consideration under the plan and any stock of the reorganization Calpine made in the claims reserve after claims are paid in full will be cancelled. This settlement is also, your Honor, conditioned upon quick approval of the plan modifications that will need to be put in place to embody the settlement. Your Honor, the most significant terms of the warrants are that the number of warrants will be equal to ten percent of the total undiluted issued and outstanding equity of reorganized Calpine on the effective date. The exercise price of the warrants will be in an amount per share to be determined, but intended to be 115 percent of the value per share, based on $11.942 billion in value of reorganized Calpine equity value. And the expiration date of the warrants, your Honor, it will be August 25th of 2008.

Your Honor, that's a report with respect to the settlement discussions that have taken place over the weekend with the equity committee and those settlement discussions were expedited by the court's appointed expert, Mr. Schnelling, along with Mr. Togut, who served as his counsel. And we are very grateful for here help.

THE COURT: Does anyone else want to be heard?"

Only with the December 20, 2008 filing was it demonstrated that that the warrants would be issued 41 % out-of the-money .

What would an intelligent person think the 115% of the value per share mean without the necessary information to know it meant something that was not apparent?

The Petitioner believes there is a good chance in their haste the $11.942 Billion strike price equity was calculated wrong and they are playing the game with a straight face.

The Petitioner would be remiss to not say after two years of following this episodic journey, he has observed the only difference between Mr. Seligman/Cieri and Mr. Stamer are the names of their respective law firms.

The only way to know what they thought the "terms sheet" meant is to ask them in a deposition.

If you say the same thing over and over, it suddenly as if by magic, seems to be the truth.

The Warrant Term Sheet and coincident pricing formula fails the test of reason and one can only conclude "the settlement" was made under duress advanced under "the power of the court" or individually by the court appointed expert on valuation, namely, Bridges.

The Warrant Term Sheet may not be wrong, but the calculations are in error, or they didn't mean what they said they meant on the record.

The record, if unsealed, would validate together with what has been put on the fragmented record and support by the preponderance of evidence this conclusion.

5. Violation of the "Trust Fund" theories. The record is replete with clear violations of the trust fund theory as it relates to absolute priority. In the Petitioner's motion, Docket 7322, Motion to Reconsider, mention is made the Debtors prematurely abandoned shareholders when it wrote down assets at the time these cases were filed sending the Calpine Estate into near insolvency, but not yet insolvent. At the time, the Board of Directors and CEO Mr. Robert May owed a fiduciary duty to shareholders, which they abandoned and wrongfully transferred that duty to the Creditors. In effect, "they threw the baby out with the bath water."

Even a conservative view of the Trust Fund Doctrine states that the fiduciary of management will stay with the Equity class until such time as it has been found to be hopelessly insolvent. The doctrine also states that all that is owed creditors is the contract amount of their debt together with any default penalties.

One of the fundamental principles that govern the "Trust Fund" doctrine implemented in bankruptcy hearings has to do with two basic principles,: 1: To Whom is owed a fiduciary duty and when (WHAT IS EXACTLY OWED THE CREDITORS)and 2. What exactly is the "Absolute Priority" distribution meant to include?

When the Debtor prematurely transferred its fiduciary duty to the Creditors from the shareholders resulted in a breach in the Trust Fund theory and In the summer of 2007, the Calpine Debtor Management co-filed for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing permit indicating a change of ownership to Harbinger. This was done prior to even the first ratification of the Disclosure Statement, much less a presentation of the "Plan for Reorganization" and makes evident what the true intentions of the Debtor Management were and is.

To make matters worse and in support of the misguidance of the Debtor Management, the Petitioner presents in evidence a copy of an email from the Debtor Management through its marketing agent, Melissa Morlan to Calpine employees. In part it states that they should not sell their shares, that they will be valued somewhere in the vicinity of $5.00. (See Exhibit 2)

The Petitioner understands no new evidence can enter an appellate hearing, however, in this case it is important for the court to know how the management deceived not only shareholders, but their very own employees. This letter was circulated at around the time the Debtor Management filed the FERC Co Application with Harbinger. And why any numbers they have represented should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

This breach of fiduciary duty is a substantive ground for re-contemplating this entire bankruptcy proceeding. The excess's of the 19th and early 20th Century have been revisited in the 21st Century.

Conclusions

As reports from Barron's and Reuter's attest, things in the green energy sector are looking up. Barron's states asset values for generators could trade up 80 per cent from present values as the need for more independent power production escalates.

There is no doubt the Creditors and Debtors will object to this appeal, but they are not Judges. One can only speculate what motivates these minions of justice to deprive so many to enrich so few.

"The Glass" which contains what has transpired here is opaque when it should have been transparent so all the layers of justice are in plain view.

Opaqueness does not serve the public interest. Citizens are asked to invest with confidence their surplus dollars in a vehicle meant to enrich our collective economy and drive the engines of industry. In the United States, we have every right to an expectation the courts will protect our rights to property.

Shareholders should be shown respect for putting it on the line even under the most dower circumstances, not the door.

Should this appeal cause some delay, well, that could be a problem, but the broader interests of the markets are better served than those of narrower interest.

It has been said these Calpine cases have been "a model of bankruptcy advocacy," the Petitioner believes it has a been a textbook example in how to eviscerate investors and their rights to real property.

Remedies

1. Remand for a complete forensic accounting by impartial accountancy before the warrant prices are struck and whatever else the Appellate court deems appropriate

2. If it is found that for some reason equity exists for the old shareholders, they ought to be given shares in the new company.

3. If warrants are found to be appropriate, they should be freely traded as are the warrants issued to management, and of the same durations, namely 120 months.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Dated: February 5, 2008
Centerport, New York
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________

Elias A Felluss, pro se
-Remainder of page left intentionally blank-

The parties to the orders appealed from, as well as the names, addresses and phone numbers of their respective counsel, to the extent known, are as follows:

Parties Counsel
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By: /s/ Peter D. Wolfson
Peter D. Wolfson (PDW-5956)
Carole Neville (CN-5733)

Matthew B. Stein (MBS-0062)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Debtors
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
David Seligman c/o
Alexandra Shaw Kelly
Richard M. Cieri
Edward Sassower
Matthew Allen Cantor
Robert G. Burns
Citigroup Center
153 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
Michael S. Stamer
Philip C. Dublin
Alexis Freeman
David M. Zensky
590 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]

TransCanada PipeLines Limited, NOVA Gas, et al
ELROD, PLLC
David W. Elrod
Craig Tadlock
500 N. Akard Street
Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]

Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd. and
Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund
L.P. (including any affiliates thereof)

KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
FRANKEL LLP
Kenneth H. Eckstein
Joshua K. Brody
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: [phone]

FORMAN HOLT ELIADES & RAVIN LLC
Harry M. Gutfleish (HMG-6483)

Joseph M. Cerra (JMC-0903)
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10106
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
80 Route 4 East, Suite 290

Paramus, NJ 07652
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Simpson Thatcher et al
Peter Panatelo
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Gary Kaplan
Fried Frank and Jacobson
1 New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004

Patricia Schrage
US Securities Exchange Commission

3 World Financial Center, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281-1022
212) 336-1100

Paul Schwartzburg
U S Trustee
33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10004

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.391.521 von Charly_2 am 16.02.08 15:40:41

Gut, gut.

Wir halten fest, daß wir die moralischen Sieger sind.
Aber was können wir uns dafür kaufen?

Und auch wenn einige in ein paar Jahren auf dem Sterbebett oder im Beichtstuhl knien und sagen: Da haben wir einige ganz schön gelinkt.
Was bringt es uns dann?

Will sagen, die Beweise zu sammeln, daß der Richter korrupt, die Gesetze zu lasch, die Kontrolle versagt haben, bringt doch nicht, außer sich den Schmerz zu versüßen.

Wie hoch sind denn die Chancen, daß wir noch was von der Kohle sehen?
-> so hoch, wie die Chancen, daß die Aktie um ca. 40% steigt.

Alles weitere ist doch Illusion.

Ganz einfach aus dem Grunde, es gibt niemanden, den man so richtig zur Kasse bitten könnte.
Es gibt keine Lösung mehr, die irgendwie funktionieren würde.

Denn die Entscheidung ist ja vertagt.

Es wurde eine Lösung gefunden, die auch den Aktionären eine Chance gibt. Wahrlich eine geringe, aber sie ist da.
Insofern kann man nur aufschreien und rufen "unfair"

Aber die Antwort ist immer die gleiche:
Besser als bankrott, besser als tausende Arbeitsplätze weg, besser als gar keine Chance und wertlose Aktien.
Denn: Wer Chapter11-Aktien hält oder kauft, kennt das Risiko.

Und darum kann man hoffen oder beten, aber helfen wird uns niemand.

Die Frage ist, ob wir noch weiter fundamental an die Aktie glauben und nicht rüber zur richtigen Aktie laufen und uns über die fundamentalen Erfolge freuen.
Dummerweise landen wir dann im Lager von denjenigen "Neuaktionären", die die Aktie jetzt kaufen und natürlich hoffen, daß die "Altaktionäre" Ruhe geben, weil jede andere Lösung zu Lasten des neuen Unternehmens und damit der neuen Aktie ginge.

Fazit:
Wir haben ein paar Anwälte, die sich im Scheinwerferlicht profilieren und uns den Abschied etwas versüßen. Aber real gesehen sollte man doch überlegen, ob man nun einsteigt, wenn man an die Aktie glaubt.

Sehe ich da was falsch?

[Charly_2]

Harbinger hält eine Stange Warrants

http://www.secinfo.com/ds2zp.t1qf.htm

Fragt sich wann diese im Geld ($23.88) landen

Antwort: Wenn Harbinger den Aktien-Preis hochtreibt

[Charly_2]

...über 50% aller CPN-Aktien auf einem Blatt

Post from DYN Board

Iman, I did some more research on who has what and here is what I found. I looked mostly at the schedule 13G's and 13D's filed with the SEC on Calpine.

2-7-08 Schedule 13G filed by Franklin Resources
62,501,385 shares of Calpine

2-11-08 Schedlue 13D filed by SPO Advisory Group
65,727,564 shares of Calpine

2-11-08 Schedule 13D filed by LS Power Entities
59,920,643 shares of Calpine or 14.17%
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916457/00009501530800…

2-12-08 Schedule 13D filed by Harbinger Capital
68,738,112 shares of Calpine

One of the forms filed also showed 103 million shares for Harbert, but this was not on a 13D or 13G. The 103 million Harbert shares appears to include the 68 million Harbinger shares.

So if you add up the shares owned by Franklin, SPO, LS Power, and Harbiner, you get more than 254 million shares, which is more than 50% of the 500 million share float. Throw in the 35 million more that Harbert has above the Harbinger shares, and you get about 290 million shares or about 58%.

Another interesting point that hit me is that LS Power, Harbinger, and SPO advisors filed 13D's, while Franklin filed only a 13G. A schedule 13D is "often a precursor to hostile takeovers, company breakups, and other unusual events." Check out this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_13d

This talks about a tender offer in relation to a 13D:

http://www.sec.gov/answers/sched13.htm

Here is what a 13G is used for:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13G.asp

Here are the SEC filings on Calpine for anyone interested:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CI…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.395.450 von Charly_2 am 17.02.08 16:21:08

..dass hier niemand auf diese Frage antwortet erstaunt mich echt

....daraus ableitbar ist doch, dass Harbinger annimmt (oder es schon weiss) dass bis zum Ablauf der Warrantsfrist ein Ereignis eintreten wird und dass die Warrants dann einen Wert erhalten werden....und Harbinger natürlich davon profitieren will....oder denkt wer dass Harbinger 2 Mio Warrants wertlos verfallen lässt

Also, nächste Frage...was passiert bis dahin?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.395.450 von Charly_2 am 17.02.08 16:21:08

...und noch Erklärungen was ein equity swap ist

...eine Option auf Aktien über Derivate womit Harbinger seinen Anteil an Aktien weiter erhöhen kann gegen eine zu entrichtende Gebühr....

http://www.hedgeweek.com/articles/detail.jsp?content_id=1291…

[Charly_2]

Klimakrise - Al Gore und Goldman Sachs...anbleitbare Auswirkungen auf Calpine's Aktienkurs

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf

[Charly_2]

In einer Woche wissen wir etwas mehr

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=103361&p=irol-ne…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.405.142 von Charly_2 am 18.02.08 20:22:29

Calpine wird in den nächsten Monaten fusioniert mit einem US-Energieversorger mit Kohleschleudern (Duke Energy, Mirant, Dynegy, ...) und Harbinger macht dann das grosse Geschäft

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.405.142 von Charly_2 am 18.02.08 20:22:29

hallo charly,

du hast doch selber geschrieben, dass das für harbinger peanuts waren im gegensatz zu der tatsache, dass sie so die shareholder schrauben und sich den ganzen laden unter den nagel reissen konnten.

wenn noch was geht, freuts mich, falls nicht, ist die kohle halt futsch. finds aber klasse, dass du weiter mut und zuversicht verbreitest und am ball bleibst. weiter so.

[Wilhelmine04]

Hallo Ihr Lieben!
Die Calpine New ist doch nun da. In NY wird sie auch gehandelt, wann in Germany? Meine Bank hat auch noch nichts um- oder eingebucht?!

LG

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.413.672 von Wilhelmine04 am 19.02.08 17:28:40

Calpine wird nur noch in den USA gehandelt werden, leider

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.413.672 von Wilhelmine04 am 19.02.08 17:28:40

Warrants wurden noch keine eingebucht.....ich denke es wird erst eingebucht, wenn der Appeal von Felluss behandelt und entschieden wurde, das kann noch 2 Wochen dauern .

[Wilhelmine04]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.415.144 von Charly_2 am 19.02.08 19:43:39

Danke Charly! Und dann? Was ist mit denen in Germany? Kann ich die dann trotzdem loswerden, um nicht ganz im Minus zu versinken?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.416.366 von Wilhelmine04 am 19.02.08 21:20:46

Dazu kann ich nichts sagen, frag doch bitte deine Bank

[Jacksen1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.415.054 von Charly_2 am 19.02.08 19:35:23

Hallo zusammen
wenn Calpine bei uns nicht mehr gehandelt werden wie kann ich sie dann Verkaufen
Gruß Jack

[Jacksen1]

Hallo zusammen
wie kann ich meine Calpine Verkaufen wenn sie bei uns nicht mehr gehandelt werden?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.418.895 von Jacksen1 am 20.02.08 07:58:54

Leider kannst Du sie gar nicht mehr verkaufen, sondern diese Altaktien aller Aktionäre sind wertlos geworden weil vom Gericht keine Umwandlung in neue Aktien erlaubt wurde, dh. alle Aktien (500 Mio) sind von Calpine an die ehemaligen Gläubiger ausgegeben worden um damit die Schulden zu tilgen.

[Charly_2]

Hier noch einige Angaben - der Handel der alten Aktie CPNLQ wurde am 31.01.08 eingestellt - kein Eintausch gegen neue CPN-Aktie möglich, sondern es wird automatisch pro 10 Aktien 1 Warrant eingebucht, allerdings nur dann wenn man die Aktie in den USA gekauft hat.....

* New Calpine stock began trading on Feb. 7th under the symbol
CPN.

* Old Calpine stock (CPNLQ) was cancelled as of January 31st,
which was the date of Calpine's emergence from Chapter 11.

* There is no difference between the original stock purchased
before the bankruptcy filing and the CPNLQ stock - all of it has been cancelled.

* Persons that held Calpine stock as of January 31st will receive
Warrants. There is no exchange of new stock for old stock.

* Recipients will receive one Warrant for every 10 shares of old
Calpine stock.

* Each Warrant is a right to purchase one new share of CPN at a
strike price of $23.88 (i.e., it is the right to buy a new share of
Calpine stock at a discount if the market price of CPN rises above
$23.88).

* Warrants should be distributed in the very near future and will
be sent to holders of the old stock certificates.

* Warrants expire on August 25, 2008"

[Charly_2]

Vom Känguruh Court in N.Y. - so wird es in den US-Boards genannt
..wohl weil keine Sau drauskommt was da vorging und wie sich das SHC über den Tisch ziehen liess!!

vom 6.02.08 - Warrants sind immer noch nicht verteilt

MS. KELLY: Yes, it's a relieved burden on
2 all of us. So, beginning on Friday, we started to initiate
3 distributions to holders of allowed claims under the plan
4 and began to work to effectuate the share distribution. I
5 believe as of yesterday the distributions to holders of
6 claims was substantially complete, although we continue to
7 work with the depository trust company to ensure that those
8 shares are getting down to the participant level, and
9 that's continuing.
10 We are also working with the DTC to get the
11 warrants out to holders of allowed interests, and we expect
12 that to happen, I believe, within the next 24 to 48 hours.
13 With respect to trading. Today the shares in the
14 reorganized Calpine are still trading on a one issue basis,
15 but I just heard a couple of minutes ago that the New York
16 Stock Exchange has approved trading on a regular basis
17 starting tomorrow morning, so I think we're on our way.

[xxt]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.429.668 von Charly_2 am 20.02.08 21:56:34

WAS? Das heisst ich bekomme noch nicht einmal diese Warrants, da ich meine Aktien ja nicht in den USA sondern in Deutschland gekauft habe? Wie ist das zu rechtfertigen?

[Jacksen1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.429.668 von Charly_2 am 20.02.08 21:56:34

So ein mist ich habe am 1.02.2008 10500 stück gekauft das war ja dann woll ein volltreffer.

[Charly_2]

Warrants sind ausgegeben, CPNCW - Kurs aktuell bei $0.50

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.460.052 von Charly_2 am 24.02.08 14:17:50

hallo charly,

habe immer noch nicht verstanden, warum nur für die in den usa gekaufte aktien warrants ausgegeben werden.

Persons that held Calpine stock as of January 31st will receive
Warrants. There is no exchange of new stock for old stock.

ich hatte am 31.01. noch welche und es muss doch scheissegal sein, wo ich die gekauft habe, zumal sie in d sogar am 01.02. noch gehandelt wurden (230.000 stück, also gut 25.000 eur). das wäre doch ein witz, wenn hier noch verkauft werden darf, obwohl die dinger definitiv nix mehr wert sind?!

kannst du das nochmals erläutern bzw. die entsprechenden quellen nochmals reinstellen. vielen dank

federico

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.468.782 von federico29 am 25.02.08 16:29:01

Quellen kann ich keine nennen, bevor ich hier dazu weitere Angaben mache kontaktiere bitte deine Bank und stelle das Resultat hier rein

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.469.446 von Charly_2 am 25.02.08 17:22:35

anfrage ist unterwegs, dachte halt, du weisst bereits näheres.

falls harbinger an den gehaltenen warrants tatsächlich noch geld verdienen will und den kurs nach oben treibt, könnte sich ja ein einstieg in die neue aktie lohnen, vielleicht kommen wir ja auch so wieder zu einem teil der verbrannten kohle. neue cpn wird übrigens wohl doch auch in frankfurt gehandelt, wenn ich das hier bei wo richtig gesehen habe.

[macsoja]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.471.911 von federico29 am 25.02.08 20:56:12

Ich hoffe doch, daß die deutschen "Altaktionäre" auch was abbekommen vom Altpapier.

Wenigstens die im letzten Jahr gekauften und gehaltenen Aktien müssen doch getauscht werden, oder?

Doof wäre natürlich, wenn die Dinger erst im September eingebucht werden würden

Bei mir ist noch nix passiert

[macsoja]

Wollte nur melden, daß der A0SKRH bei mir eingebucht wurde und die Aktien raus.

Bei der DAB läuft es unter Optionsscheine.
Und in den USA wird daß Ding ja auch gehandelt, wie wir sehen...

[paul_stanley]

hallo zusammen,
hab heute auch mal in mein depot geschaut, da ich auch noch calpine aktien besitze. seit heute steht "1,4849" drin. was hat das zu bedeuten ?

gruss martin

[Wilhelmine04]

...es scheint sich doch etwas zu tun...

Guten Abend erst einmal zusammen!

Seit heute sind von meiner Bank (Diba) die Altaktien ausgebucht. Habe nun nur noch 1/10, nennt sich CALPINE CORP. WTS08 zu 0,83USD. Hatte in Frankfurt gekauft (in € und hab nun USD). Ist schon sehr schmerzlich, was da als Endsumme steht...
Beneide alle, die die "guten" Warrants bekommen haben.

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.484.567 von Wilhelmine04 am 26.02.08 22:02:59

...na dann gratuliere ich

Aber bitte aufpassen, die Warrants verlieren gemäss Optionstheorie an Zeitwert und somit auch an Kurswert, je näher der 25.08.08 (Ablaufdatum) näher rückt, legt der CPN-Kurs nicht überproportional zu wird der Warrant dann wertlos verfallen

[Charly_2]

Fellus ist noch aktiv - er sucht noch Geldgeber, allerdings ist die Aussicht auf Erfolg aus meiner Sicht gleich null...aber die Hoffnung stirbt bekanntlich zuletzt

http://www.randpatent.com/fellussengagement.pdf

[Charly_2]

..ob das Calpine weiterhilft

Climate-Change Rules May Hurt Utilities
Recs: 2 Moodys: Climate-Change Rules May Hurt Utilities
DJ UPDATE: Moodys: Climate-Change Rules May Hurt Utilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Real-Time News for InvestorsSM
1:39 p.m. 02/26/2008

(Updates with details from the Moody's report, background)

By Matthew Dalton
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--New global warming regulations could pose a major threat to the credit quality of many U.S. electric utilities, according to a new report from credit-rating agency Moody's Investors Service.

At the top of this list are companies with large fleets of coal-burning power plants, such as American Electric Power Co. (AEP), Southern Co. (SO) and Duke Energy (DUK), the report said. With Congress expected to create an emissions trading market for carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, by the end of the decade, these companies will be forced to buy hundreds of millions of tradable allowances annually to offset the emissions from their coal-burning power plants.

"Moody's has not lowered any utility company ratings due solely to the sizable capital expenditures needed to reduce emission levels," the report said."That could change."

Southern, AEP and Duke all operate in states with regulated electricity markets. State regulators usually allow their power companies to pass through environmental compliance costs to their customers. And utilities are often allowed to earn a rate of return on environmental upgrades to their plants.

But this process may not go smoothly when it comes to carbon dioxide costs, according to the Moody's report. Regulators have allowed companies to raise rates to pay for tens of billions of dollars in spending on new electrical infrastructure over the last few years.

As the rate increases pile up, regulatory commissions may increasingly oppose the healthy returns on investment sought by utilities.

"While Moody's believes that most commissions are likely to grant timely recovery of prudently incurred mandated environmental costs, the resulting increase in electricity prices may make recovery of other operating costs and capital investments more challenging," according to the report. "Such a scenario could cause negative rating actions within the sector."

Southern, the Atlanta-based utility giant, emits 172 million tons of carbon dioxide from its plants in the U.S. each year, making it the country's biggest carbon dioxide emitter and the sixth biggest in the global power sector, according to a database run by the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank. American Electric Power is the second biggest U.S. emitter, with annual emissions of 169 million tons.

Duke, based in Charlotte, N.C., is the third largest U.S. carbon dioxide producer, with annual emissions of 108 million tons. Arlington, Va,.-based AES Corp. (AES) also emits 108 million tons annually, but much of these emissions occur at plants owned outside the U.S.

Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL), Progress Energy (PGN), Dominion Resources (D) and Ameren Corp. (AEE) each emits more than60 millions tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the database.

The impact of climate change laws to the power sector will largely be determined by how many allowances they'll be forced to buy, an issue that is a topic of fierce debate in Congress. The federal government can either give some of these allowances to the industry for free or require all of them to purchased, at large cost to the industry.

Equity investors are also worried about backlash from regulators, particularly as the economy slows and ratepayers become pressed to shoulder rising electricity bills. At $10 a ton - significantly less than the price of carbon dioxide allowances in Europe - the cost of purchasing allowances would be over $1 billion annually for Southern, AEP and Duke at their current emissions levels.

That's a major burden, one that investors fear might have to be shared by companies and their customers.

Companies in certain deregulated electricity markets could face even bigger challenges than their brethren in regulated markets. These companies, such as Energy Future Holdings - formerly TXU Corp. - NRG Energy Inc. (NRG), Mirant Corp. (MIR) and Reliant Energy Inc. (RRI), usually can't pass through all their compliance costs to electricity consumers.

That means they have to spend their free cash buying allowances. Each of those companies emits more than 48 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the Center for Global Development, with NRG emitting the most, 70.9 million tons annually. Some of this emissions allowance cost will be recovered through higher electricity prices - but some will be paid for investors.

Energy Future Holdings, now owned by the private equity firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG, may face the most acute difficulties dealing with new global warming regulations. As part of their buyout, KKR and TPG loaded $40 billion of debt onto the company. Its annual interest expense "and related charges" is now $3.6 billion, according to a regulatory filing in October.

In the Texas market, where Energy Future Holdings generates power, natural gas-burning power plants usually determine the price of electricity received for all generators. But these plants produce less carbon dioxide than the coal-burning plants owned by Energy Future Holdings. That means electricity prices won't rise enough to cover the cost of buying allowances for its coal-burning plants - and Energy Future Holdings will have less cash to serve that big pile of debt.

-By Matthew Dalton; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; [e-mail]

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.469.446 von Charly_2 am 25.02.08 17:22:35

optionsscheine sind jetzt auch bei mir eingebucht, sogar 2(!!!) zuviel, ich werd noch richtig reich mit calpine...

[Jacksen1]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.491.639 von federico29 am 27.02.08 15:07:39

Hallo eine frage hat die Bank von sich aus etwas umgebucht oder muss mann nachfragen?

[paul_stanley]

hallo zusammen,
bei mir sind nun unter der nr. XF0000L58995 capline im depot. hatte noch nie optionsscheine und weis somit leider nicht was ich damit machen muss. steht da automatisch eine verkaufsorder dahinter ? falls ja, wo kann ich den wert von der verkaufsorder einsehen ?
ausserdem stehen unter der alten nr. US1313471062 die aktien auch noch im depot. bin nun doch etwas verwirrt.

vielen dank im voraus.

gruss martin

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.492.509 von Jacksen1 am 27.02.08 15:58:07

bei mir ist erst auf anfrage was passiert, bei anderen schien es automatisch geklappt zu haben. die deutschen banken buchen wohl erst mit verzögerung. eine rückmeldung auf meine anfrage, warum, wieso erst jetzt etc. habe ich nicht bekommen, die einbuchung erfolgte kommentarlos. ist ja auch müßig. also ne kurze mail kann nicht schaden, ist ja kein aufwand.

jetzt können wir nur hoffen, dass wir die scheinchen noch halbwegs ordentlich loskriegen. viel hoffnung hab ich aber nicht. da sitzen ein paar andere einfach am längeren hebel.

[paul_stanley]

..ich habe gerade meine post geöffnet und habe von meiner bank ein schreiben erhalten:

"Im Rahmen einer Reorganisation werden ihre Aktien im Verhältnis 9,882777 : 1 in neue Optionsscheine (US1313471146) umgetauscht.
Die Optionsscheine berechtigen bis zum 25.8.08 zum Erwerb von neuen Aktien). Die weiteren Optionsbedingungen sind noch nicht bekannt."

kann mir das bitte jemand genauer erklären ?
muss ich da dann nochmals geld für neue aktien bezahlen oder wie läuft das ?

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.494.355 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 17:48:38

Der Warrant ist ein Anrecht für den Kauf von CPN Aktien.

Du kannst pro Warrant eine Aktie zu $23.88 kaufen, oder dann deine Warrants verkaufen, aktuell bekommt man dafür $0.90/ Warrant.

Diese Aktion (mehr ist es wohl nicht) läuft bis am 25.08.08, die Warrants sind nach diesem Datum wertlos und werden, wenn man sie nicht verkauft oder in Aktien wandelt wertlos ausgebucht aus dem Depot!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.493.873 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 17:16:11

<<ausserdem stehen unter der alten nr. US1313471062 die aktien auch noch im depot.

Die kannst Du aber nicht mehr verkaufen...die Bank wird diese ausbuchen, sie sind ja ersetzt durch die Warrants im Verhältnis ~10:1

[paul_stanley]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.495.814 von Charly_2 am 27.02.08 19:44:14

danke für die antworten.
wo kann man denn den kursverlauf der warrants sehen?

[paul_stanley]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.495.873 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 19:48:39

..mein durchschnittlicher einkaufspreis war 0,25 euro. was würdet ihr denn empfehlen ???

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.495.957 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 19:55:34

..der Warrant müsste auf $2.50 steigen wenn man $ zu € 1:1 einsetzt.

Dies ist wohl unwahrscheinlich dass der Warrant so hoch steigt, ohne eine Übernahme kommt zu sagen wir mal $30 in den nächsten 2 Monaten zustande, dann würde der Warrant vielleicht $3 wert sein

Wichtig: Der Warrant wird an Zeitwert verlieren => #4969 lesen

Warrants sind eine Wette auf Zeit, steigt der Basiswert = CPN stark nimmt der Wert des Warrants überproportional zu, geht die Aktie seitwärts so verliert der Warrant täglich mehr an Wert je näher das Ablaufdatum rückt!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.495.873 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 19:48:39

http://www.otcvillage.com/?sel=company_page&search=1&qm_page…

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.495.957 von paul_stanley am 27.02.08 19:55:34

..die nächsten Wochen abwarten und wenn der Warrant dann auf $2 steigt schmeissen und sonst auch schmeissen weil der Zeitwertanteil den Wert des Warrants gegen 0 (NULL) tendieren lässt

PS: 40 Mio Warrants sind ausgegeben, und alle Halter müssen spekulieren, schwieriger Job den richtigen Zeitpunkt zu erwischen

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.496.379 von Charly_2 am 27.02.08 20:31:53

sollte heissen: 50 Mio Warrants

[Charly_2]

Auszug des abgelaufenen Schmierentheaters

Re: Update_AM_February 27, 2008....Shareholder notes...

My feeling, on the face (of what I saw, knew), that before declaring bankruptcy, calpine was being told they could not use natural gas (in storage, underground). This for me was a breaker, why or how would this possible legal arrainge-net/met allow for business to progress. I had thought logically calpine would have won this case, brought on by wiliminton trust ( for Aig, banks,etc...). This would be death-spiral, give you money, you can not use gas.

This is not k-mart, or e-nron. If calpine has (in 2003) 100-200 plants, with nearly 100 operational.( i felt there was defined fair value equity).

the new york observer(nbc) (cramer, hello I have to tell if i own this because of me?, I want to help you and charity. contra - indications. (hedger King/and queen(wifee)). He was saying sell.

MAY, on the way back down was saying, 1.95, and 2.05, then the wizard (lifland) mailed our disc's to vote, which last minute changed to .41. Then late sunday nite at t-diiddys party in hampton, we got warrants, with a pre-package statement from Lifland essential saying stuff/cram you/me. If fordaham was catholic, just another great example of plausable denability. The last indignity was nol transfer, zero asset value/

mainly the first two points

[Charly_2]

bisher gehandelt
Price Size Exch Time
0.87 133 OTO 14:01:38
0.91 133 OTO 14:01:37
0.95 100 OTO 14:00:40
0.91 218 OTO 13:55:01
0.87 273 OTO 13:55:01
0.91 100 OTO 13:24:14
0.90 1000 OTO 12:48:01
0.95 1000 OTO 12:48:01
0.90 200 OTO 12:43:03
0.95 200 OTO 12:43:03
0.87 172 OTO 12:40:04
0.90 328 OTO 12:40:04
0.95 500 OTO 12:40:04
0.89 101 OTO 12:27:01
0.87 101 OTO 12:27:01
0.87 101 OTO 12:26:15
0.95 2500 OTO 12:26:07
0.90 525 OTO 12:26:07
0.90 1190 OTO 12:26:07
0.90 101 OTO 12:26:07
0.89 684 OTO 12:26:07
0.87 333 OTO 12:23:04
0.95 304 OTO 12:19:00
0.87 1011 OTO 12:16:09
0.89 1011 OTO 12:16:09
0.87 203 OTO 12:15:46
0.89 126 OTO 12:15:46
0.88 800 OTO 12:07:55
0.95 800 OTO 12:07:55
0.89 202 OTO 12:03:39

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.496.379 von Charly_2 am 27.02.08 20:31:53

ich fürchte, harbinger wird auch hier die spielregeln bestimmen. die wissen, dass uns die zeit davonläuft. warum sollten die dann nicht den kurs untenhalten, bis möglichst viele schmeissen und dann kurz vor schluss noch hochziehen, um auch mit den warrants noch eine gute schnitte zu machen. darauf zu spekulieren könnte aber definitiv ins auge gehen. drum werde ich wohl tatsächlich etwas zuwarten, obs noch ein wenig höher geht und dann die dinger raushauen. ein paar espressos mit dolce werden schon noch rausspringen.

[macsoja]

D.h. die alten Aktien sind nun also noch 0,09$ = 6 ct wert

Die Frage ist doch aber:
Wenn man daran glaubt, daß die Dinger irgendwann wertvoll werden (d.h. wenn die Aktie extrem an Wert steigt 30%)
-> dann kann man die Dinger auch jetzt verkaufen und richtige Aktien = US1313473043 kaufen, oder nicht?

Da realisiert man jetzt noch einen hübschen Verlust (wenn im 1 Jahr) und hat dann Aktien, die ja auch hochgeprügelt werden müssen, wenn die Warants wirklich noch was bringen sollen.

Damit profitiert man auch
-> langfristig
-> sicher
Und man schläft besser

tschao
mac

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.505.994 von macsoja am 28.02.08 17:33:07

Stimmt!

Aber Warrants hebeln krass, legt die Aktie 5% zu dann hebelt der Warrant 10% oder auch mehr, dies ist ein Warrant mit kurzer Laufzeit und der Zeitwertverlust wird erst ca. 2 Monate vor Ablauf krass zuschlagen, dann muss man die Dinger raushauen oder spekulieren, das führt dann meisstens zu einem Totalverlust

[federico29]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.509.127 von Charly_2 am 28.02.08 21:22:50

das sieht man gerade schön: der kurs steigt um 2%, die warrants legen 20% zu. nur blöd, dass wir pro warrant das zehnfache gezahlt haben, zumindest diejenigen mit einem durchschnittlichen ek von 0,9$ pro altaktie, bei manchen wirds noch deutlich mehr gewesen sein. bei mir müssten die warrants auf 5 eur steigen, damit ich null auf null raus bin, das wird wohl nie der fall sein, es sei denn die aktie marschiert tatsächlich in der kurzen zeit richtung 30 eur
wer nerven hat, zieht sich noch ein paar warrants an land, aber wie charly schon sagt: unbedingt wieder rechtzeitig wegschmeissen. mir ist das zu heiss.

[Charly_2]

Blöd, wenn jeder in die andere Richtung zieht

This smells as off market shorting of CPN(LQ) by Deutsche against Harbinger

Recs: 0 This smells as simple off market shorting of CPN(LQ) by Deutsche against Harbinger.

At one point in time Harbinger bet Deutsche that price of approx 6,000,000 CPN(LQ) was going to rise above say 3.00 average price.

So if price goes to say 5.00 Deutsche pays Harbinger end of the month 12,000,000. buckazoids in cache.

If price goes down to 2.00 Harbinger pays Deutsche 12,000.000. buckazoids in cache.

1 This could be illegal shorting by Deutsche of CPN common stock hidden/unreported to common investors. Surely by some SEC rules common investors are entitled to know these things and they should be reported especially by Harbinger as a major common shareholder?

2 This could possibly be a disguised payment for services rendered by Falcone to Deutsche impossible to invoice but owed for some shady deal. Nobody can believe Harbinger would bet on long CPN(LQ) positions knowing what we know today.

So all in all Falcone will have paid Deutsche when warrants expire through this possibly illegal off market shorting deal some 20,000.000 dollars .......... I am lazy to type it into a spreadsheet for exact numbers.

BIG QUESTION FOR SOMEBODY IN THE KNOW ABOUT SEC AND SECURITIES ACT(S) is are these deals legal or are they intended to DEFRAUD and keep small shareholder uninformed and in the dark?

Somebody please forward this question to SEC or somebody with securities trading knowledge?

http://www.secinfo.com/ds2zp.t1qd.htm

1. The Special Fund has entered into equity swap agreements with Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche") under which Deutsche agreed to pay the Special Fund an amount equal to any increase, and the Special Fund agreed to pay Deutsche an amount equal to any decrease, in the official market price of an aggregate of 135,000 shares, 894,440 shares, 2,529,000 shares, 858,325 shares, 190,000 shares, 62,500 shares, 687,500 shares and 750,000 shares, respectively, above or below an initial reference price of US$1.52650 per share, US$3.51200 per share, US$3.98860 per share, US$3.79420 per share, US$3.25890 per share, US$3.270000 per share, US$3.308500 per share and US$3.373500 per share respectively, on June 30, 2008.
2. The equity swap agreement contemplates monthly interim payments of appreciation or depreciation of the shares, as the case may be, and a finance fee between the parties during the term it is outstanding. Deutsche will pay to the Special Fund an amount equal to any dividends paid on the shares during the term of the equity swap agreement.
3. Effective January 31, 2008, the shares of common stock of the issuer which served as the reference security for these equity swap agreements were cancelled, and each holder of such cancelled shares received warrants to purchase new shares of the reorganized issuer in an amount equal to approximately 1/10 of the number of such cancelled shares, at an exercise price $23.88 per new share and with an expiration date of August 25, 2008. Such warrants now serve as the reference security for these equity swap agreements. All balances will be cash settled, and neither party acquires any voting or similar rights, or dispositive power over the shares. Subject to certain conditions, the equity swap agreement may be terminated by either party in whole or in part.
4. These securities are owned by Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (the "Special Situations Fund").
5. These securities may be deemed to be beneficially owned by Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations GP, LLC ("HCPSS"), HMC-New York, Inc. ("HMCNY"), HMC, Philip Falcone, Raymond J. Harbert and Michael Luce. HCPSS is the general partner of the Special Situations Fund. HMCNY is the managing member of HCPSS. HMC wholly owns HMCNY. Philip Falcone is the portfolio manager of the Special Situations Fund and is a shareholder of HMC. Raymond J. Harbert and Michael D. Luce are shareholders of HMC. Each such Reporting Person disclaims beneficial ownership of the reported securities except to the extent of his or its pecuniary interest therein, and this report shall not be deemed an admission that such Reporting Person is the beneficial owner of the securities for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or for any other purpose.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=260&mn=20159&pt=m…

[Charly_2]

Equity Swap - wenn wer draus kommt bitte hier posten

http://www.bus.lsu.edu/academics/finance/research/working%20…

[Charly_2]

Eine Sauerei was da ablief

Calpine Reports 2007

The power producer reported a profit of $2.69 billion, or $5.62 per share, compared with a loss of $1.78 billion, or $3.68 per share, a year earlier.

Revenue for 2007 rose 15 percent to $7.97 billion from $6.94 billion in the prior year.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080229/earns_calpine.html?.v=1
=============================================================================

Looky Looky!

Valuation Data Input

2007 Revenue $6.988 Billion

2008 Revenue $7.708 Billion

They beat 2008 this past year by $260 million!

Low Revenue into valuation model lower equity!

Crooks at their best!

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.520.217 von Charly_2 am 29.02.08 19:44:51

$25 coming soon

[Charly_2]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.520.259 von Charly_2 am 29.02.08 19:48:14

Korrektur:

Mit diesem Report 2007 und konservativem P/E von 10 müsste CPN am Montag bei $50+ eröffnen