- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
How much does the recently completed expansion of DBCT capacity expand the free cash flow for that operation? Is the added revenue already being realized now?
BBI - Babcock & Brown Infrastructure
- Thread starter roland
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 March 2009
- Posts
- 189
- Reactions
- 0
I would believe that the extra revenues from the DBCT expansion would be realised from this financial year. I doubt that it will figure very much into last year's figures, although there may have been a slight bump from it.
I have not checked where the project was financed from. If it was via loan then this would need to be paid back, which would hurt operating profit. If it was from cash reserves, then theoretically yes, it would improve free cashflow, resulting in higher profits and more income for BBI.
I have not checked where the project was financed from. If it was via loan then this would need to be paid back, which would hurt operating profit. If it was from cash reserves, then theoretically yes, it would improve free cashflow, resulting in higher profits and more income for BBI.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
The events of the last few months almost make me believe in conspiracy theories. For all of the bad news about PD Ports, Euroports, and the timing of the closure of the DBCT sale to come altogether at the same moment gives the buyers of these assets a lot more negotiating room.
One thing I worry about: could the buyers of each asset be deliberately stalling their purchases, hoping to push BBI into receivership? The buyers have to know that the banks would probably conduct fire sales and give them better terms, so you cannot rule this motive out. And we do indeed see press releases delaying Euroports more than once.
I want to see if I understand these three situations a bit better.
PD Ports
--------
Is it correct there is no imminent buyer for this asset?
As I understand it, Corus may pull out from its Teeside plant, and this in turn could reduce EBITDA by 25%. BB pointed out earlier that a 25% fall in EBITDA could trigger a debt covenant on the $75M of corporate debt that is committed to PD Ports. That in turn could force BBI into receivership.
On the other side of this coin: the Tesco facility at PD Ports will open and this will add to EBITDA. But on what date does it open and do they have customers committed to start using it? When does it start generating cash flow?
Does anyone know the particulars of the PD Ports debt covenants and what the EBITDA coverage for interest currently is, and what it would need to stay above to avoid triggering a covenant?
Let's assume that everything goes wrong here - We lose Corus, and Tesco is delayed - and that the corporate debt covenant is triggered. In this case do others think that the banks holding the corporate debt would push BBI to make a fire sale of PD Ports to cover that debt? And given the reduced EBITDA would the sale cover the debt? Or would the banks be more likely to push BBI itself into receivership?
An important question here: does the corporate debt committed to PD Ports take precedence over the non recourse debt used for PD Ports?
Euroports
---------
BBI has a bidder that made a Euro 35M deposit, and apparently some condition to close the sale is not met. Does anyone know what that missing condition is, and how easy will it be to satisfy it?
There is the additional problem of the $200M put option of some minority holder for Euroports. This one is not very clear for me. If we sell Euroports, do we clear both the debt on Euroports and this $200M put option from the proceeds?
If we don't sell Euroports, and if the banks refuse to let us use the proceeds of DBCT sale to clear the Euroports debt, then what happens?
First, is there any corporate debt committed to Euroports? I guess that a DBCT sale will have its proceeds clear Euroports and PD Ports corporate debt first, to take pressure off those situations. But if we cannot pay back the deposit or the put option, will the debt holders on Euroports be able to foreclose on it? That would all be non recourse debt? How much book value would we lose on that if it becomes a bankruptcy and fire sale?
DBCT
-----
I don't understand why BBI keeps talking about a 49% sale. The way things are going even if they sell 100% they still have problems.
Let me make sure I get the numbers here. We are expecting a sale for between $2.5B and $2.8B, which clears about $1.8B of debt (non recourse as well as corporate) and leaves us between $700M and $1B to clear other debt. Unfortunately, we cannot count on being able to use that remainder for anything else than paying down corporate debt because of the sweep requirements imposed by the banks that hold the corporate debt.
How much of the $1.8B in debt on DBCT is corporate debt?
All-in-all, quite a mess. There is so much debt and so many different cash flows and asset sales that constructing any real understanding of it is at least a few days of work. After spending the better part of half a day trying to comprehend all of this, I'm barely skimming the surface.
BBI EPS still looks worthy of a speculation to me, but whereas before the Corus disclosure I was feeling very little chance of BBI imploding, now it feels to me like there is at least a 30% chance this all comes undone.
Our one saving grace here: DBCT is on fire, with ships backed out to sea. We have three bidders, and this could become a really competitive bid. If you run a coal company, how can you let this one get away without taking your best shot at it? We just might get a surprise on this asset's price. On the down side, the bidders may try to stall the sale, hoping to get a better price and terms in receivership.
One thing I worry about: could the buyers of each asset be deliberately stalling their purchases, hoping to push BBI into receivership? The buyers have to know that the banks would probably conduct fire sales and give them better terms, so you cannot rule this motive out. And we do indeed see press releases delaying Euroports more than once.
I want to see if I understand these three situations a bit better.
PD Ports
--------
Is it correct there is no imminent buyer for this asset?
As I understand it, Corus may pull out from its Teeside plant, and this in turn could reduce EBITDA by 25%. BB pointed out earlier that a 25% fall in EBITDA could trigger a debt covenant on the $75M of corporate debt that is committed to PD Ports. That in turn could force BBI into receivership.
On the other side of this coin: the Tesco facility at PD Ports will open and this will add to EBITDA. But on what date does it open and do they have customers committed to start using it? When does it start generating cash flow?
Does anyone know the particulars of the PD Ports debt covenants and what the EBITDA coverage for interest currently is, and what it would need to stay above to avoid triggering a covenant?
Let's assume that everything goes wrong here - We lose Corus, and Tesco is delayed - and that the corporate debt covenant is triggered. In this case do others think that the banks holding the corporate debt would push BBI to make a fire sale of PD Ports to cover that debt? And given the reduced EBITDA would the sale cover the debt? Or would the banks be more likely to push BBI itself into receivership?
An important question here: does the corporate debt committed to PD Ports take precedence over the non recourse debt used for PD Ports?
Euroports
---------
BBI has a bidder that made a Euro 35M deposit, and apparently some condition to close the sale is not met. Does anyone know what that missing condition is, and how easy will it be to satisfy it?
There is the additional problem of the $200M put option of some minority holder for Euroports. This one is not very clear for me. If we sell Euroports, do we clear both the debt on Euroports and this $200M put option from the proceeds?
If we don't sell Euroports, and if the banks refuse to let us use the proceeds of DBCT sale to clear the Euroports debt, then what happens?
First, is there any corporate debt committed to Euroports? I guess that a DBCT sale will have its proceeds clear Euroports and PD Ports corporate debt first, to take pressure off those situations. But if we cannot pay back the deposit or the put option, will the debt holders on Euroports be able to foreclose on it? That would all be non recourse debt? How much book value would we lose on that if it becomes a bankruptcy and fire sale?
DBCT
-----
I don't understand why BBI keeps talking about a 49% sale. The way things are going even if they sell 100% they still have problems.
Let me make sure I get the numbers here. We are expecting a sale for between $2.5B and $2.8B, which clears about $1.8B of debt (non recourse as well as corporate) and leaves us between $700M and $1B to clear other debt. Unfortunately, we cannot count on being able to use that remainder for anything else than paying down corporate debt because of the sweep requirements imposed by the banks that hold the corporate debt.
How much of the $1.8B in debt on DBCT is corporate debt?
All-in-all, quite a mess. There is so much debt and so many different cash flows and asset sales that constructing any real understanding of it is at least a few days of work. After spending the better part of half a day trying to comprehend all of this, I'm barely skimming the surface.
BBI EPS still looks worthy of a speculation to me, but whereas before the Corus disclosure I was feeling very little chance of BBI imploding, now it feels to me like there is at least a 30% chance this all comes undone.
Our one saving grace here: DBCT is on fire, with ships backed out to sea. We have three bidders, and this could become a really competitive bid. If you run a coal company, how can you let this one get away without taking your best shot at it? We just might get a surprise on this asset's price. On the down side, the bidders may try to stall the sale, hoping to get a better price and terms in receivership.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
I hate to hang on this issue, but I feel it is the one really important use case that no one has considered carefully enough: what happens to BBI EPS if BBI goes into receivership?
BB says in one post that he thinks BBI EPS would end up worthless. But what is the basis for that? We have a surplus equity value of $2.9B and even if all assets are sold at a discount and we lose $2.5B of equity value, BBI EPS holders still get our money back and then some. We have to lose more than $2.5B of our net equity in receivership for BBI EPS shares to be worthless? Even without converting SPARCs to BBI common, there was only about AUD $114M of the New Zealand SPARCS and $119M in New Zealand bonds to cover before BBI EPS starts to get paid?
BB also makes the point that in a receivership we would wait five years to get paid, but I have another scenario to consider. If BBI is forced into receivership, can BBI management go to the trustee and just explain that a sale of DBCT and Euroports will clear all the corporate debt, and thus put them back in business? In other words, could receivership in this case end up being a very short affair that simply extends by a few months the time that BBI has to finish the key asset sales? One unknown here is how many of the non-recourse holders would try to demand liquidations for their specific assets. And under Australian bankruptcy law, would such challenges / requests likely be accepted for non recourse debt when the company can clearly show an ability to repay that debt in normal course of business?
I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't understand Australian laws about bankruptcy. How much control will the banks have here in forcing a full liquidation versus a limited one? It seems to me that even in receivership the end goal should be to simply repay the corporate debt and not to liquidate every part of BBI and repay all debt? And this more limited liquidation scenario should be doable in less than three months.
Perhaps these are questions for a good Australian bankruptcy attorney. Does anyone here know one that they can run the facts by? Heck, given the amounts of money some of us have / will commit to this, spending three hours with such an attorney might be a good insurance policy.
The key thing to find out is what circumstances would force a full liquidation in receivership versus simply giving more time for asset sales that would clear just corporate debt. And how likely are those circumstances causing full liquidation likely to be?
BB, if you can find such an attorney, maybe contact me by private message or email to persistentone AT spamarrest.com and I'll contribute something to cost?
BB says in one post that he thinks BBI EPS would end up worthless. But what is the basis for that? We have a surplus equity value of $2.9B and even if all assets are sold at a discount and we lose $2.5B of equity value, BBI EPS holders still get our money back and then some. We have to lose more than $2.5B of our net equity in receivership for BBI EPS shares to be worthless? Even without converting SPARCs to BBI common, there was only about AUD $114M of the New Zealand SPARCS and $119M in New Zealand bonds to cover before BBI EPS starts to get paid?
BB also makes the point that in a receivership we would wait five years to get paid, but I have another scenario to consider. If BBI is forced into receivership, can BBI management go to the trustee and just explain that a sale of DBCT and Euroports will clear all the corporate debt, and thus put them back in business? In other words, could receivership in this case end up being a very short affair that simply extends by a few months the time that BBI has to finish the key asset sales? One unknown here is how many of the non-recourse holders would try to demand liquidations for their specific assets. And under Australian bankruptcy law, would such challenges / requests likely be accepted for non recourse debt when the company can clearly show an ability to repay that debt in normal course of business?
I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't understand Australian laws about bankruptcy. How much control will the banks have here in forcing a full liquidation versus a limited one? It seems to me that even in receivership the end goal should be to simply repay the corporate debt and not to liquidate every part of BBI and repay all debt? And this more limited liquidation scenario should be doable in less than three months.
Perhaps these are questions for a good Australian bankruptcy attorney. Does anyone here know one that they can run the facts by? Heck, given the amounts of money some of us have / will commit to this, spending three hours with such an attorney might be a good insurance policy.
The key thing to find out is what circumstances would force a full liquidation in receivership versus simply giving more time for asset sales that would clear just corporate debt. And how likely are those circumstances causing full liquidation likely to be?
BB, if you can find such an attorney, maybe contact me by private message or email to persistentone AT spamarrest.com and I'll contribute something to cost?
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Check the math on the post above mine and you will see that the annual return as defined by Mitsimonsta is the annualised distribution yield.There is a return on BBI and BEPPA.
The definition of "total return" is:
The return on an investment, including income from dividends and interest, as well as appreciation or depreciation in the price of the security, over a given time period, usually a year.
Total return consists of the return from income and capital. So despite the fact that the return from distributions may be nil, there is a return based upon the movement in the BBI price relative to your cost.
Cheers
The distributions however are not being paid so it's very much a case of counting chickens before they are hatched.
- Joined
- 30 December 2007
- Posts
- 591
- Reactions
- 0
That's why they are trading at 10c in the dollar. If/when BEPPA distributions are recommenced, you will not be able to buy BEPPA at 10c in the dollar.....more like 40c/50c.
The "best" investments are not necessarily the "best" companies. Off on the 11.37am to Prague from Zilina. Will arrive around 4.54pm so will try and post later tonight (Prague time).
Cheers.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
.....and if distributions are not recommenced, the only one that will have got a feed out of it will be the fox.
- Joined
- 9 March 2009
- Posts
- 94
- Reactions
- 0
Well PD Ports just got delayed for another month. Perhaps to allow time to settle DBCT matters which would give enough head room to allow BBI to retain PD Ports. That would make sense to me.....
On the other hand whilst posters are proposing capital raising etc, here is my own proposterous proposal with no knowlege of HOW their debt operates.
Here we go
1) Sell DBCT @ 100%
2) Pay off 70% of debt with proceeds of DBCT sale, THEN use remaining 30% of proceeds to buy up cheap BEPPAS off market (hence reducing their debt liability and look more attractive to banks for refinancing and extension of covenants).
3) With all the BEPPA's purchased off market they have bought back $1.20 worth of debt at a fraction of the cost. THEN they could offer a conversion to SPARCS holders to convert SPARCS to the limited number of BEPPAS available. In my mind (which is wacko at the best of times) this would reduce risk of dilution to BBI holders through switching SPARCS to BEPPA. Also it would allow SPARCS holders who do not want to convert to BBI shares to jump to a preference share instead. Swapping SPARCS for BBI vs BEPPA... I know which one I would choose.
I hope my ramblings make sense to some of you, or otherwise give you a good laugh.
VLV over and out
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
There is according to this article:
Terra Firma, the buyout firm controlled by Guy Hands, is set to bid for PD Ports this week. Rival suitors include HgCapital, CVC, Carlyle and Star Capital. Babcock & Brown Infrastructure was forced to slash its asking price after steel giant Corus decided to mothball its Teesside plant, which accounts for a quarter of turnover. If bids do not surpass the firm’s £315m debt, Babcock could postpone the auction until conditions improve.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article6639834.ece
also here:
http://www.skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=349412
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
It was Euroports that was delayed for another month. This was announced by BBI through the ASX. A reporter for the AFR (I think) erroneously stated it was PD Ports that was delayed.
When a company goes into receivership the rights and duties of the board are vested into the receiver whose primary duty is to liquidate assets in an orderly manner to met creditor claims. So in effect the RE board is powerless.
The interesting issue that your question has raised is whether or not BEPPA holders would fall within the definition of a creditor, subordinate to the senior debt holders. Were this the case then any receiver would have a duty to realise assets firstly for the benefit of senior debt holders, ie banks AND secondly for lower priority debt holders ie BEPPA.
Cheers
- Joined
- 11 May 2009
- Posts
- 16
- Reactions
- 0
Several Hybrids paying divs are currently trading well below 40c in the dollar, even investment grade hybrids are at big disc to face value. An okay outcome on DBCT, Euroports and PD ports may still see BEPPA trading around 30c. That is still a great price from here, but debt instruments will not trade near their face value for a while yet.
BB,
Thanks for the kind words. I think people are aware that you were flogging the virtues of BBI from 40c+ all the way down to 3c.
I figure your many hours of research attracted you to BBI at 40c+ but there must have been a problem with your interpretation of your own research because your beloved BBI fell all the way to 3c. And now it appears you are no longer a holder of BBI. But you did advise us all just a short few weeks ago that you re entered at 7.8c. Maybe you joined the throng of sellers that drove it to 6.5c.
Good luck and I will watch with interest.
If and when BEPPA resumes paying 'divs', circa 10 cents of outstanding distributions will be owed.
Beppa will not be 30 cents leading up to a 10 cent payment!
40/50 cent is a much more reasonable suggestion.
I would be first in line to buy a couple of hundred thousand BEPPA at 30 if i was guaranteed a 10 cent payment immediately. As for BBI to be in a position to pay BEPPA dividends, survival would be in the bag and BEPPA would simply be a waiting game to receive a $1
Of course this is all hypotheticals until the money from these hoped for assets sales lands in the bank.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
Well PD Ports just got delayed for another month. Perhaps to allow time to settle DBCT matters which would give enough head room to allow BBI to retain PD Ports. That would make sense to me.....
On the other hand whilst posters are proposing capital raising etc, here is my own proposterous proposal with no knowlege of HOW their debt operates.
Here we go
1) Sell DBCT @ 100%
2) Pay off 70% of debt with proceeds of DBCT sale, THEN use remaining 30% of proceeds to buy up cheap BEPPAS off market (hence reducing their debt liability and look more attractive to banks for refinancing and extension of covenants).
3) With all the BEPPA's purchased off market they have bought back $1.20 worth of debt at a fraction of the cost. THEN they could offer a conversion to SPARCS holders to convert SPARCS to the limited number of BEPPAS available. In my mind (which is wacko at the best of times) this would reduce risk of dilution to BBI holders through switching SPARCS to BEPPA. Also it would allow SPARCS holders who do not want to convert to BBI shares to jump to a preference share instead. Swapping SPARCS for BBI vs BEPPA... I know which one I would choose.
I hope my ramblings make sense to some of you, or otherwise give you a good laugh.
VLV over and out
As others explained it, the AUD $800M to $1B net equity we might get from a DBCT 100% sale are required to be swept over to their corporate debt. As long as that corporate debt hangs over them, they have lost control of their ability to act innovatively.
One of the questions I asked earlier was how much of that $1.8B debt on DBCT is corporate debt. It would be so nice if the DBCT sale could by itself at least wipe the corporate debt clean.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
Well PD Ports just got delayed for another month. Perhaps to allow time to settle DBCT matters which would give enough head room to allow BBI to retain PD Ports. That would make sense to me.....
On the other hand whilst posters are proposing capital raising etc, here is my own proposterous proposal with no knowlege of HOW their debt operates.
Here we go
1) Sell DBCT @ 100%
2) Pay off 70% of debt with proceeds of DBCT sale, THEN use remaining 30% of proceeds to buy up cheap BEPPAS off market (hence reducing their debt liability and look more attractive to banks for refinancing and extension of covenants).
3) With all the BEPPA's purchased off market they have bought back $1.20 worth of debt at a fraction of the cost. THEN they could offer a conversion to SPARCS holders to convert SPARCS to the limited number of BEPPAS available. In my mind (which is wacko at the best of times) this would reduce risk of dilution to BBI holders through switching SPARCS to BEPPA. Also it would allow SPARCS holders who do not want to convert to BBI shares to jump to a preference share instead. Swapping SPARCS for BBI vs BEPPA... I know which one I would choose.
I hope my ramblings make sense to some of you, or otherwise give you a good laugh.
VLV over and out
P.S., the essence of your idea isn't stupid in any way shape or form. With their corporate debt extinguished, it would be very good management for them to start buying BBI EPS and any remaining SPARCs with every dollar of EBITDA they generate until it recovers to at least 70 cents on the dollar. I'm positive the market would reward that in the BBI share price and it's just smart to buy $1 of debt for substantially less than $1. The problem is they don't get to decide how to spend their own money now because the banks have a noose around their neck and are forcing every available dollar to go into corporate debt repayment.
Is their any regulation in Australia that would prevent BBI from buying BBI EPS directly on the open market?
- Joined
- 30 December 2007
- Posts
- 591
- Reactions
- 0
There is a reason your username is "select". You selectively pick out tid bits of information and then use those as the basis for an entire story. Well "select", you would know that I indeed "dipped my toe" in the water in the 40's but as anyone with half a brain can see from my posts in November on here, I was loading all bases at prices under 5c and even snagged 800K at 2.5c. (See post in November). You see macrae/select, I stand by my research and as the price went lower, I attacked with all guns blazing. If you care to read all my posts, you would have noticed I exited ALL my BBI as soon as the Corus news came out at circa 16/17c. Now "select", how about you contribute something rather than "selectively" coming on here and bagging me.
Have you never bought a stock that dropped in price???? IMU perhaps? Good call that macca. Cheerio. I'm off to a nightclub down near Charles Bridge where the women are hot and the Czech beer is cold. Just the right combination "select". Do a bit of tarvelling select and you may just get that giant chip off your shoulder.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
When a company goes into receivership the rights and duties of the board are vested into the receiver whose primary duty is to liquidate assets in an orderly manner to met creditor claims. So in effect the RE board is powerless.
The interesting issue that your question has raised is whether or not BEPPA holders would fall within the definition of a creditor, subordinate to the senior debt holders. Were this the case then any receiver would have a duty to realise assets firstly for the benefit of senior debt holders, ie banks AND secondly for lower priority debt holders ie BEPPA.
Cheers
You got it. BEPPA was a *loan* to BBI. BEPPA holders ARE CREDITORS to BBI, standing in line unsecured at the bottom of the creditor pecking order. So I think it is really critical here to try to put some numbers on liquidation prices for assets because I really don't see how BEPPA holders wouldn't get something back.
Let's go with your statement that the company is liquidated for benefit of creditors. So BBI goes into receivership. The receiver sells DBCT, PD Ports, and Euroports, which were going to sell anyway. From those proceeds, all corporate debt is repaid in receivership. Now what?
Is there a way in receivership that BBI management can show their ability to continue as a viable entity from that point on and simply exit receivership without any additional liquidations? In the U.S. we call such situations a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
And the real question for me is in receivership would all of the non recourse lenders come out of the woods demanding liquidations of their assets? One assumes they would not if they are banks, because unlikely they would get the best prices in a fire sale, and because BBI could easily show cash flow coverage for their debt with corporate debt extinguished.
I really encourage others here to take up this theme. It looks to me like BBI is in a tough spot here and bankruptcy is a real possibility. The buyers of the DBCT, Euroports, and PD Ports may be just playing stalling games with us now hoping to get the assets cheaper in receivership. Let's start thinking about the end game and what BBI looks like in receivership, because BBI EPS might be a decent speculation even for that scenario.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
select, would you mind not nit picking every thought and action that BB takes? I read through the last six months last night and he has consistently been the highest value contributor to this thread. He does plenty of homework and shares that freely. You to contrast provide almost no value at all. If we put it up to a vote I am quite sure that this board would vote to keep him and get rid of you. Everyone can get along just fine here, but there is no value in being petty.
Everyone who participates in the stock market understands that it is impossible to call a bottom on a value investment. Intelligent Investor was recommending BBI EPS at over 60 cents. RHG which was another deep value play they recommended at a very high price, and it went to four cents and then climbed back over 50 cents. Bottoms are just tough to call and it's a fools game to try. Value investing is about articulating the basis for value, not getting caught up like a hummingbird in every twitch in stock price.
BB, the vast majority of us value your research and input. I feel there is probably a 20% to 50% chance that BBI might go into receivership at this point, and it's clearly a high risk and reward and each of us has to calculate the variables and make his own decisions. I for one would like to see you participating, particularly in helping to calculate the potential values of BBI EPS in receivership of BBI. I know select tweaks you, but I would recommend ignoring him, and the quality of the thread will improve.
- Joined
- 29 December 2008
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 0
In Australia, are you allowed to trade on the stocks of companies that are in receivership? In the U.S., it is quite common to see a company declare a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and have the stock get a new symbol immediately, but continue to trade for weeks or months.
What I want to know is if BBI put itself into receivership, and the price of the BBI EPS shares started to crash, would we even get a chance to buy them? Or would the shares of both BBI and BBI EPS be immediately pulled from the market and no trading would be allowed?
What I want to know is if BBI put itself into receivership, and the price of the BBI EPS shares started to crash, would we even get a chance to buy them? Or would the shares of both BBI and BBI EPS be immediately pulled from the market and no trading would be allowed?
