/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55329429
>they think shareholders can't be screwed because they "have to" keep at least 50% shareholder ownership to retain NOLs,
Um fuck, oh fuck. The idiots might be right on this one. The part immediately following the last highlight seems to suggest the 50% shareholder + qualified creditor equity is extremely restrictive on "qualified creditors", to the point that a creditor basically doesn't count towards that 50% if they take more than 5% of the company. Sounds like 10 creditors taking 5% each might be good enough to screw shareholders but a single large shareholder like >>55333326
>Sixth street
can't just take the whole thing and fuck shareholders without giving up the NOLs.