You misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I'm in the boat that this was GTAT's fault for putting all their eggs in one basket and betting big that it could produce what they promised to Apple. Ultimately when Apple realized that they would not get the sapphire screens they needed, they withheld payment and that is what screwed GTAT.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GT Argues Inability to Disclose Bankruptcy Details, Citing Confidentiality Agreements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I'm in the boat that this was GTAT's fault for putting all their eggs in one basket and betting big that it could produce what they promised to Apple. Ultimately when Apple realized that they would not get the sapphire screens they needed, they withheld payment and that is what screwed GTAT.
This is a very good point and why the Bankruptcy Court is going to bust open like a piñata this Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Once again, that is Apple's surprise. They're not going to be able to keep all this secret now.
I'm buying stock in popcorn!
One would think if it was just a matter of a few weeks more, and everything would roll without issue like production is now (ok, there always seems to be *some* issue, but you get what I mean I think), then I don't know that'd we'd be here and it would seem "petty" of Apple. Without further details, we won't know how it all went down. Perhaps GT had indicated "only a few weeks" a number of times and Apple felt they could just no longer delay the new phone launch. I imagine it's frustrating for both GT and Apple. GT obviously wants to meet the obligation and get the big payout and continue to work with Apple in the future (I imagine this is a huge boost to their company's bottom line and a massive influx of business). Apple wants to be able to tout the new (and hopefully unmatchable) feature on their new phones. Both sides lose.
It seems to me if Apple really wanted to own the sapphire production, they would have just bought GT (assuming they were willing to sell) beforehand. My guess, they don't want to be in that business and would rather just purchase what they need. That way, if Corning or someone else comes up with a better product they want to switch to in the future, they can much more easily/cheaply. What fab or component production do they do themselves now? I can't think of any. They design the SoCs, but farm it out to be produced. They don't do the assembly, they farm it out to others (even purchasing equipment, to be used exclusively for Apple-related work).
Hopefully GT was on the right path and just fell a bit short for Apple's needs and they'll be able to work through this and everyone can win when it's used in the next round of phones.
----------
Ok, I misunderstood. I was even going to say originally that much of what I was saying wasn't truly directed at you (as your statement seemed softer than others on placing the blame on Apple). Sorry!
Last edited:
My ex is of that same opinion about honoring agreements! And the worst part is that courts are often clueless!
If the court gives them the protection they're asking for from their creditors, that could buy them time to work out whatever production/yield issues they're having. If they get that on track their stock could rise again. On the other hand, they may not get bankruptcy protection or they may not be able to fix their issues and they'll eventually dissolve. It'll be interesting.
If he had $500 million on stock, that isn't that suspicious. If he had $12 million, it is.
I haven't cared to do the research to find out.
If he had $500 million on stock, that isn't that suspicious. If he had $12 million, it is.
I haven't cared to do the research to find out.
According to their last proxy, the CEO had about 840,000 options in the Company. So at the Company's 52 week high ($20.54), he had about $17.2M lockedup in the Company.
Yes, he had to file earlier (many cases 90-180 days out), but he did this knowing that his company would go under in LONGER than 90-180 days.
He knew he could make 10 million bucks.
I wonder sometimes if some people find a piece of lint in their bellybutton and immediately whip out their magnifying glass, going into full Sherlock Holmes mode, to discover who placed it there and why. The game is constantly afoot!
That's assuming that the plan was, in fact to use sapphire. That was only ever speculation, and not well-supported speculation at that. It was mainly trumpeted by WSJ, if I remember correctly, and that's not a publication that has a great track record in this area. Especially since coming under Murdoch's control.
I think Apple was easily able to get supplies because that was in fact the plan all along.
----------
I haven't seen the plan, but reports have said that the plan did not include specific sale dates. That is surprising to me.
The ones that Apple execs file (Cook, Cue, etc) have specify exactly how many shares will be sold and on what date. No wriggle-room. And I think they're filed at least six month in advance, i.e. file one on 30 September for sales March - September of the following year.
There is court presidence where the Search and Discovery process can invalidate a confidentiality agreement. If the company is going into bankruptcy already, exposure of confidential items is just part of the corporate triage to find out what happened to settle the case.
My guess is the confidentiality agreements will be voided by the court with no party liable. While any request can be made in a courtroom, the judge does not have to grant it.
Either way, it's not automatically suspicious. CEOs are expected to hold shares of their company, but they are not expected to never sell them. Sometimes, they actually want to turn them into cold, hard cash. You can't pay a Ferrari or a house at the beach by saying "I got stock options that are going to skyrocket soon!"
If there is some evidence that he knew that his company would not be able to deliver as promised, then it will be investigated, and he will go to jail. But a Macrumors forum full of people who think they are smarter than the SEC despite not having access to any internal evidence is ridiculous.
Engineers at Apple are not retarded. They had inside access to the company and obviously thought until quite recently that they would be able to get a sufficient supply of sapphire displays.
I'll just put this out there:
1) The CEO's stock sale isn't suspicious, it was planned and submitted to the SEC in compliance with the law.
2) The timing of the bankruptcy announcement (just *after* that stock sale), however, *is* suspicious.
3) The attempt to keep from telling the bankruptcy court *how* they plan to reorganize and stay in business is *extremely* suspicious.
4) The constant attempts to paint the behavior of GT as being *Apple's* fault is asinine.
1) The CEO's stock sale isn't suspicious, it was planned and submitted to the SEC in compliance with the law.
2) The timing of the bankruptcy announcement (just *after* that stock sale), however, *is* suspicious.
3) The attempt to keep from telling the bankruptcy court *how* they plan to reorganize and stay in business is *extremely* suspicious.
4) The constant attempts to paint the behavior of GT as being *Apple's* fault is asinine.
Honest question. Let's say GTAT is at $1.00. What are the primary reasons you should drop, say $500 on their stock right now? I think I'm mostly wondering what all does Chapter 11 mean for a company and its stockholders. If they will continue operating under Chapter 11, could one make a bet that they would eventually turn things around with sapphire for theWatch and maybe future iPhones or iPads? If that is the case, their stock could jump back up to $10 turning your $500 into $5,000.
Is that a dumb bet to make in and of itself, or does bankruptcy also do other things that you have to factor into the company's future and its stock?
I'm not looking to invest anything, but I was looking for a discussion. I know this is a tech forum, but some of the folks posting in this particular bankruptcy story on a tech rumor website seemed knowledgeable enough.I'm pretty sure getting stock advice from a tech forum would be considered a dumb bet.
Seriously, you're much better off with professional financial advice.
I just found what I was looking for though, which is some insight into what you might expect for shares in a Chapter 11 company. It sounds like the answer could end up being $0, so it's not worth buying even if shares are a buck. http://seekingalpha.com/article/2547995-gt-advanced-technologies-will-be-a-zero
Paul Hastings knows the law
Paul Hastings is a prominent firm well versed in Bankruptcy law.
Paul Hastings is a prominent firm well versed in Bankruptcy law.
If I recall correctly, when Steve returned to Apple and became CEO, he was paid $1/year salary. He was also paid stock bonuses based on profits. If this agreement continued, he had to continually sell stock in order to live.
The documents that GT seeks to have filed under seal must be provided to the Court in unredacted form. The request to seal, if granted, would not apply to the Judge. That's the whole point. You want the Judge to see the unredacted documents and not the general public.
Yes, that's the normal way of doing things, but that doesn't cover parts of what has been reported.
Sounds like Apple doesn't want there name mentioned as part of the reason for the bankruptcy. Hope the courts open this big can of worms to see if apple did screw this little company or did GT do it to themselves. These little private deals should be thrown out the window when it gets into court, and all documentation be displayed to the courts and the people. What is apple afraid of if this goes public? Sounds like some shady dealings going on and apple is about to get wacked. If all this goes private, my guess the judge got one hell of a payoff!
I don't think I understand what you mean by "that doesn't cover parts of what has been reported."
They prepared a Supplemental Declaration, which the motion claims includes information regarding "...circumstances leading to these chapter 11 cases..."
https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916141009000000000012
They also want to file a motion to reject under seal.
They want to provide the Court with unredacted versions of these documents/information.
Last edited: