GT Argues Inability to Disclose Bankruptcy Details, Citing Confidentiality Agreements

[Hrothgar]

If GT missed the deadline by only a few weeks, how was Apple able to get adequate supplies of Corning glass seemingly on a moments notice?

Because Apple was never planning to use GT's sapphire on the iPhone 6, and neither Apple nor GT ever announced that it was?

 

[Naimfan]

A friend of mine who does corporate bankruptcy work said it's unlikely GT will get to seal just about everything. Trade secrets, etc., sure, but the underlying reason for the filing? Unlikely.

 

[MEMSMaster]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/09/us-gt-advanced-bankruptcy-hearing-idINKCN0HY16X20141009
Ann Marie Dirsa, a lawyer from the Office of the U.S. Trustee, criticized the lack of disclosure by GT Advanced.

“The record is insufficient for the court to find what the court needs to find.”

By early afternoon, it was unclear what action Boroff had taken on the sealing motion, which GT Advanced said was needed due to a confidentiality agreement with unidentified party. GT Advanced acknowledged the request might be unprecedented but said it risked damages of $50 million per violation of the agreement.

A successful argument that the very basis of the bankruptcy filing is a trade secret that must be kept from the eyes of the creditors and stockholders would be one of the most amazing feats of lawyering in 30,000 years of human history. I suppose that argument would preclude any shareholder suits for malfeasance as well? Can't have a lawsuit without standing; can't have standing if all the documents are secret. Hey, it works for the NSA in FISA court so why not?

 

[tbrinkma]

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.

Then it's a case of poor reporting, which made it sound like they didn't want to tell the *judge*.

 

[Hitch08]

Then it's a case of poor reporting, which made it sound like they didn't want to tell the *judge*.

Makes the report/article much more interesting.

Pursuant to the Judge's order, GTAT filed the motion to seal on the docket. In that motion, GTAT basically argued the documents should be publicly filed.

 

[SamEllens]

Who at Apple has been talking up "best product pipeline in 25 years besides Cook?"

...

Now click into Cook's shares. He's been selling off shares regularly for the last few weeks. Key word "disposition" (look it up if you need to). At the same time, he's been touting "best product pipeline ever". Why is he selling off shares?

Cook isn't the one who has been saying that.

From my perspective, it looks like a small company got throughly locked into a corner by a big company. For whatever reason, the latter decided not to pay some money that small company expected. The small company was completely locked up in terms of exclusivity so if their ONE client did not pay, they could not make up for the lack of payment by selling to anyone else. Thus, boom.

Ugh. No. The exclusivity agreement is with consumer electronics. Apple required GTAT to be able to provide a certain amount of sapphire and required GTAT to sell Apple as much of that sapphire as Apple wanted. If Apple did not want to purchase all the sapphire GTAT made they were free to sell the remainder for any non-consumer electronic use.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Cook isn't the one who has been saying that.

The one that has been saying that has apparently sold ALL of his Apple shares. The point though wasn't really about whether that's good or bad. The point was that finding fault with this GT CEO selling shares to imply "shyster" vs. Apple execs selling shares while touting such spin. In other words, I can't automatically convict the GT CEO because he turned shares he owned into cash- just like these Apple Execs have been doing.

But as soon as the scenario is flipped- as soon as one proves that Apple's execs are regularly selling Apple shares- many jump to the defense to spin that as "normal"- which it is- but it's just as "normal" for other company execs to sell shares too.

Cook isn't the one who has been saying that.

Ugh. No. The exclusivity agreement is with consumer electronics. Apple required GTAT to be able to provide a certain amount of sapphire and required GTAT to sell Apple as much of that sapphire as Apple wanted. If Apple did not want to purchase all the sapphire GTAT made they were free to sell the remainder for any non-consumer electronic use.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen the agreement. Have you? Please post it if you have it.

Otherwise, I speculate on cause and effect. Apparently, Apple withholds an expected $13X million. A few days later, the recipient that expected that money files bankruptcy. I'll grant it could be coincidence because I am not inside either company (are you?), nor have I seen the agreement (have you?). However, if you are also in the dark about the agreement and are not inside Apple or GT, then you should grant that any other speculation is at least as good as your own.

And if the engagement is as you described and GT did make a bunch of panes at 4.7" and/or 5.5", to whom could they quickly sell those panes to make up for that $13X million loss of cash? OR, if they owned a bunch of machines built to make panes of 4.7" and/or 5.5" Sapphire, the "anybody else" would need to want panes of Sapphire at those exact sizes & specs. Else, GT might need another investment of money to retool machines to make Sapphire for these "other customers".

Again, it's speculation. I don't know. But I doubt you know anything more either, nor does all the other people speculating in this thread.

 

[itjw]

It sort of is. Apple agreed to finance a bunch of equipment for GTAT with the understanding that Apple would then buy all the products made by the machinery. When Apple withheld the payment GTAT couldnt pay their creditors (e.g. the people who sold the machinery) so they got screwed.

I asked a colleague of mine and you are MOSTLY correct.

It depends on how the confidentiality agreement was worded though, and chances are it had provisions in it specifically for the event of a Bankruptcy.

The Judge can likely break it, but public disclosure may still be bound by the agreement even if the judge knows.

It happens with pharma a lot, when proprietary medicines are potentially at risk for outright theft if the record isn't sealed, even in BK. Same thing with intellectual property. It's hardly unprecedented though...