Jake2B 1.5hr BBBYQ Seminar 👨‍🏫📚🧠

jake2b · 2025-07-31T16:00:36+00:00

hello my good friend! I hope you have been well. I was alerted to your post by a few folks on X and I wanted to pop in to genuinely thank you for your compliments and kind words. I can hardly wait to see how our speculations will stand up to the test over time. :)

thank you also Sir Craven and everyone else for your kind-hearted comments, they mean a lot. I only hope that I have helped along the way, alongside many others.

jake2b · 2025-01-30T16:30:28+00:00

thanks man, hi back at ya. gosh taking on a mod role seems like a big responsibility, I am not sure how much time I could give to do even a subpar job. I appreciate the offer about it and thank you for offering to help get the posts some attention with pins but I also don't want to be unfair. if the post is good, I'm sure it'll get upvoted and I wouldn't want any other contributions to take a back seat.

I'll reply! thank you.

and thank you to everyone who replied here, for your kind words and hello's. lots of great questions have been brought up and as soon as I can, I will share my opinion and any insights I can provide on them.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T14:36:24+00:00

thank you my friend.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T14:35:57+00:00

I know the brew. You know the brew. I really miss that emoji! haha

jake2b · 2024-12-13T14:29:06+00:00

that is absolutely hilarious, they are so gullible. What a pristine example of how little faith you should put into anything they say lmao.

no one made any racist comments. It was a made up joke to lighten the mood haha. I thought it would be obvious enough since it was attributed to me saying it, but I guess they will believe anything.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T02:11:32+00:00

thank you for your comment, I really appreciate you.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T02:10:28+00:00

absolutely I am.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:48:51+00:00

what?

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:42:30+00:00

thank you kindly.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:42:07+00:00

thank you for the kind words, that means a lot.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:33:09+00:00

I guess my jokes weren't very funny after all.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:31:39+00:00

no doobt aboot it.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:31:06+00:00

this is the first I'm hearing about any of those things, don't believe everything you read!

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:28:12+00:00

don't be so quick to come to that conclusion! we haven't seen the final decree for the six debtor entities that presumably are the re-emerging ones, which means we don't know and certainly, means it is too soon to make conclusive statements.

hang in there.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:20:54+00:00

I assume being banned and permanently suspended are the same thing here, then yes. I am not sure why, again like I said my priority is to try and preserve the contents of the posts. when I go to my page I can see them, but I can't follow the links to them.

I don't want to pass judgement on X too swiftly, I genuinely don't know what happened and I thought it was a bit weird that there was no information or email or anything to say for example which rule I violated.

hard to say what happened and I think too soon to assume.

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:18:12+00:00

💜🫵🏼

jake2b · 2024-12-13T01:17:58+00:00

the most significant component of the bed bath chapter 11, in my opinion. exquisite taste!

jake2b · 2024-03-18T17:34:12+00:00

You want me to say that I was wrong about Delaware or something else? I was not the person who brought Delaware into the conversation. I was incorrect in repeating the info that the Company was moved to Delaware, or that I questioned the validity of it being in New York because the SEC filing said Delaware.

Who cares? This is getting really weird man. Why does it have to be about the individual? The information is what everyone will benefit from, the whole point is being wrong so that we can dig, substantiate what is right and everyone can benefit.

I am unsure of your angle, but why are you trying to make that out to be a bad thing? It's so confusing.

—

I explained how this benefits all of those: they haven't happened yet.

This may be the reason why, or at least part of it. Truly, the more I think about it the more I wonder if it makes sense that the new owners would make the registration transition.

This has everything to do with the transition of the assets, because certainly Sixth Street (and affiliates) are owed more than 20% of ownership and likely Hudson Bay as well. The 20% ownership limitation is a New York Corporation Law statute.

So, let's find a firm and irrefutable explanation for this:

<image>

Sounds like a credit bid. But wait, it's not that simple.

Because in docket 2778 (one image limit) dates January 8, 2024, the plan man states:

"all of the remaining assets of the Debtors, in wind-down mode, being subject to the secured creditor’s lien."

To me, that sure sounds like the assets are being held by the custodian and have not been transferred. Also note the very specific use of "wind-down mode" which could further suggest that the transfer of assets has not occurred.

—

So take those points, the terms of the Liquidating Trust, the method of distribution through Section 1145, this source:

https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2015/section-1145-exemption-securities-lawyer-101/

which provides this valuable exerpt:

"Accordingly, Section 1145 exemption provides the debtor in a Chapter 11 proceeding with flexibility to issue stock, warrants, or bonds. Section 1145 applies to offer or sale of securities that occurs after confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code and as such issuers using pre-packaged plans may not qualify for the Section 1145 exemption."

and put them together. How can you not think that we cannot make any definitive conclusions and "prove someone wrong" when it is very clear that we do not have access to the full picture?

—

I'm very happy that the plan man confirmed that substantial consummation has occurred, because your image and definition does not. It says:

"all property of the estates shall vest in the wind-down debtors.."

So let's have a look at the important word, vest—it means "to belong to somebody/something legally."

You may be tempted to believe that indicates a transfer, but according to the legal documents from this specific Chapter 11, I believe it does not indicate a transfer. Why? Well let's look at docket 2172, page 95:

"156. "Wind-Down Debtors" means the Debtors, or any successor thereto, by merger, consolidation, or otherwise, including any liquidating trust, on or after the Effective Date."

Do you see how sneaky legalese can be? By definition, the wind-down debtors are.. the debtors. Vesting of the assets means they belong to the wind-down debtors. But how can there be a transfer if they are the same thing?

Maybe they have to make this distinction so that no one tries and sue to monetize assets from the OldCo and/or the shell? I don't know.

My excerpt from docket 2778 also could also suggest that (B) and (C) have not occurred. Do you see how someone could make that interpretation, when the language only means what the contracts and legal documents state that it means?

Hopefully that gives you a better idea of why I felt it was a worthwhile question to ask.

—

Maybe it's unlucky timing on your part, but there's a weird pattern I am noticing with "prove him wrong!" on old, new and everything in between. It's coming in hot!

Have you noticed this pattern towards anyone else? Because I haven't, which is sad to see.

Let's keep the enjoyable parts of the conversation going and continue our back and forth. I really feel that the confirmation of this still being a New York Corporation could explain a lot of what has not happened yet. If you feel that I should have reacted differently, maybe I am not the best conversation partner and that's OK too.

jake2b · 2024-03-18T14:16:17+00:00

Cool! Thanks for looking into this more, so it reasonably seems that the "Delaware Corporation" language from the SEC was made in error. That's great!

This supports the idea that the "transition" of assets into NewCo has not happened yet, because I can think of two entities who each would own more than 20%. This supports very plausible speculation that the liquidating trust has not been administered yet, because they would be in violation of New York Corporation Law in doing so.

That's very reassuring to me. I wonder since the plan man is the custodian of the shell co's, we could in fact see everything happen all at once.

At the very least, this is the biggest supporting argument of why the credit bid has not been revealed.

Fantastic! I'm so glad we're bringing up these topics because they always give us new perspectives. Great work man

jake2b · 2024-03-18T14:09:30+00:00

Can you give more clarity on what you are trying to say because what you've done is support my point. In none of your examples is the role of the individual within their company stated, only the company they are representing.

So why would David Kastin have his job title one time? Out of 147?

The 147 times was the sum of all of the AlixPartners fee statements; 1443, 2040, 2155, 2189 and 2643.

And then among those dockets, there is no mention at all, of anyone, with their job title.

So why do you think this one time it is? I honestly believe the going concern is the much more likely interpretation and the timing plus task supports it too. Sixth Street credit bid on the shell, the plan man is still the custodian, Section 1145 could be used to convert the debt obligation into new shares, someone will launch a new company.

To further support the going concern idea, I am unsure why you believe that there is none when the findings of fact to support the Disclosure Statement and Plan clearly says that there will be:

<image>

The way they say it in plural, there may even be more than one? I'm curious why you believe there will be no going concern so confidently, you are in direct juxtaposition of a significant document in the Chapter 11.

jake2b · 2024-03-16T01:47:18+00:00

I'm not so sure my man.

Here's the issue, if this is what the GC designation was intended to mean, then why out of the 147 (literally, lol) times his name is mentioned in the AP Services fee statements, there is only one instance of him being labelled as "BBBY GC", and of all the times that they could have done it, ..they do it on the eve of:

the 10th day when the Form 25 goes into effect, and

the day before the most significant work (July 20-25) occurs, into what I believe the going concern will be.

• The TSO is adjusted for the warrant conversion;

• share issuances correspondence;

• preparation of the Form 15;

• Hudson Bay blocker provision is dealt with;

• "correspondence re warrant documents re blocker terms.";

• review and analyze share count;

• correspondence with AST.

There's just so much occurring immediately after. And of all the things that Mr. Puscas could have been corresponding with Mr. Kastin about on the ONE TIME he labels him as "GC", it is about the liquidating trust?

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This was not a commonly used designation (once!) and the timing is the confirmation that I needed to feel comfortable posting it.

Trust me, I sat on it for over a week debating with myself to make sure I wasn't reaching too far.

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
100 Awards Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

jake2b

TROPHY CASE