6. How would the outcome have differed in the US? In the
UK?

5. What were the problems of Thailand’s old bankruptcy law? Would you change anything in the new law?

4. Why are AIG and Investor AB willing to invest in
ATEC? Returns and risks?

3. As one of ATEC’s banks, would you have voted for the its modified bankruptcy reorganization plan?

2. As one of ATEC’s banks, would you have voted for the
February 1998 out-of-court restructuring proposal?

1. How much is management to blame for ATEC’s problems? Bad management; Bad business; or Bad capital structure?

Cohort 3 – Group 5

The management have been falsified financial statements for several years, two sets of records were delivered: one for the management and …show more content…

CASE STUDY

Cohort 3 – Group 5

ƒThe shareholders do not take responsibility for the situation while the proposal undermine the creditors interests a lot. Also with a law on bankruptcy – protecting creditors interests – to be passed soon; it would be foolish to not wait for it.

ƒWe would not advise to accept this restructuring proposal.

Conclusion:

Recommandations

As one of ATEC’s banks, would you have voted for the February 1998 out-of-court restructuring proposal?

6. How would the outcome have differed in the US? In the
UK?

5. What were the problems of Thailand’s old bankruptcy law? Would you change anything in the new law?

4. Why are AIG and Investor AB willing to invest in
ATEC? Returns and risks?

3. As one of ATEC’s banks, would you have voted for the its modified bankruptcy reorganization plan?

2. As one of ATEC’s banks, would you have voted for the
February 1998 out-of-court restructuring proposal?

1. How much is management to blame for ATEC’s problems? Bad management; Bad business; or Bad capital structure?

WEAKNESSES

ƒ AHC would own 99.9% of ASP, 51M of ATES and
100% of ATS

ƒ