vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default.  Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the ""full faith and credit"" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value."
"Generally ""default"" means that the company cannot pay off their debts, and since debt holders get paid before equity holders, their equity would be effectively worthless. That said, companies can emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) and retain equity value, but it is rare. Most times, stocks are de-listed or frozen on stock exchanges, and company's reorganization plan will cancel all existing equity shares, instead focusing all of their attention on paying back as much debt as possible. If the company issues new equity after reorganizing, it might provide a way for holders of the original equity to exchange their shares for the new equity, but it is rare, and the value is usually significantly less that the value of the original equity."
"When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: ""Q"" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter ""Q""   is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most   cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan   will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be   worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt   company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of   reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy   proceedings on securities, please read our online publication,   Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer   electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in   a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the   symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and   jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators   halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the   average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out."
IIRC, the rationale was so that the stronger private banks would be sufficiently capitalized to purchase the failing ones.  Many banks were failing at the time, and allowing consolidation in the industry was viewed as preferable to outright nationalization.  It had little to do with freeing up the credit markets.
I don't know what you're talking about. If anything bankruptcy has become more creditor friendly over the years, which is only logical because business debtors don't really lobby for friendlier bankruptcy rules when they're not planning on being bankrupt. The only difference is that debt is more readily available and a bigger part of doing business today, so you'll naturally see more reorganizations.
I upvoted you as I think your story is important to tell. However, commodities and futures accounts have never been protected under SIPC. The use of your money to pay debts sounds illegal or perhaps it was legal under a document you signed when you opened your account. Bankruptcy was not a way to screw you over.  The bigger point is that bankruptcy is a way to restructure debts and is beneficial in the long run to the benefits of society. While we often look at people or corporations who have to file bankruptcy as being irresponsible (and what I am about to say may reflect negatively on you, for that I apologize) the people or corporations who lent to a bankrupt entity should be scorned just as much.  Right now, the EU is going through a period where we are hoping bankruptcy is off the table. Increasingly though, the only way to do that is to try and paper over debts that will never be repaid for a long enough time period for growth to resume. But the question remains, what if growth never comes back. This is why restructuring and bankruptcy is the only option for Greece and likely Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland.
Not surprised.  This is on the back of several news stories of UK Businesses' complaints about the company. The now infamous stories of how a business was overwhelmed by customers, how the deal was poorly structured, and the most damage revelation that there is rarely an increase in business post-deal.
I know folks who have had two personal (chap. 7 both times) bankruptcies in the U.S.,  including one after the bankruptcy reforms of a few years ago.  I did have the 10-year thing wrong, though. It's once every eight years for a chap. 7 liquidation, and once every six years for Chap. 13 restructuring.
You bet if it was so simple. This is when financial acumen comes into its true form. The bank would never ever want to go insolvent. What it does is, take insurance against the borrower defaulting.  Remember the financial crisis of 2008 which was the outcome of borrowers defaulting. The banks had created derivatives based on the loans distributed. CDO, CDS are some of the simple derivatives banks sell to cover their backs in case of defaults. There are derivatives using these derivatives as underlyings which they then sold it across to other buyers including other banks. Google for Fabrice Tourre and you would realise how much deep the banks go to save themselves from defaulters. If everything fails then go to the government for help. That was what happened when the US government doled out $600 billion to save the financial sector.
EBIT could be lower due to non-operating revenues such as investments in other companies, tax reliefs, adjustments to incorrect loss provisions and various other items that would not be part of the companies day to day operations.  Be careful and read the footnotes and managements discussion for those items, they should be disclosed to some extent.
Low interest rates and tax breaks caused large co and PE firms to leverage buyout other firms, didnt stop people from issuing equity. For example, if you follow semiconductors, a lot of M&amp;A has happened over past 4 years and some analysts coverage list went from high teens to a dozen. Also, it exacerbate debt levered co going bankrupt, e.g., solar and wind co.
"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and ""pump and dump"" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts."
This is going to be the source of the next recession. Retail accounts for a huge part of domestic spending, and also makes up a large portion of employment. Lots of chains are going bankrupt or are closing down their brick and mortar, which means things like seasonal retail work will dry up. Small businesses that rely on holiday shopping to make revenue (eg. Black Friday) will be totally screwed.
Why would they do that? The data has value.  Bankruptcy isn't just shutting the doors, it's selling off the data.  I predict this will start a new firestorm around what happens to *your* data that you don't own.  People are about to realize that they're going to be fucked both ways.
Some banks are bankrupt, or so close to it that they can only pretend to give real dividends in a desperate attempt to keep investors from fleeing and driving their stock price (and thus credit rating) down into a pit of despair.   Other banks (like jpmc) are not in  bad shape, have cash, and are quite happy to disburse it.
"If the banks are not giving you a loan, there is probably a good reason for it. Banks are lending, they are only making safe loans. And this is not a bad thing. Remember that everybody is pissed off at the banks because they made too many risky loans and inflated a bubble until it popped and needed to be bailed out. It's stupid to be pissed at the fact that they stopped making risky loans.  But of course, everybody says ""but I'm not risky, the other guy is the risky one""."
Maybe his accountant not taking care of things meant that there was a miscommunication about his debts. He could've had outstanding loans, back taxes, etc and he didn't have a clear enough picture about what his cash balance would be after his transaction.
There may well come a 'tipping point' where suddenly personal bankruptcy becomes socially acceptable simply because there are so many people underwater and so many people - previously 'good' people - have defaulted. As you say, I can see a (retroactive if necessary) law preventing people from being freed of debt.
This would be governed by bankruptcy law... there is no reason a healthy company would take such action. This would be a long drawn process generally amongst debtor the taxes have higher claim, then Sunday debtors (payable), then bank loans... This is followed by loan raised by company deposits then debentures... even among share holders there can be special shares...  More often most shares are equal and the balance is distributed to all.
I work at a large accounting firm. The reason major accounting firms don't have mass layoffs is because the regulatory environment creates a huge demand for accountants. In fact, many of the newer regulations that create this demand are a result of legislators attempting to remedy the problems that caused the financial meltdown in the first place.  It's the same with fields such as medicine. Certain jobs simply have steady demand that isn't impacted in the same way as other jobs during a recession. It doesn't mean there's some sort of malevolent profiteering going on (not that that doesn't happen).
It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers.  If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker.   Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.
Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it.
Banks make far more money on bad ~~creditors~~ debtors.  The interest rates and penalties for getting behind on payments are pretty absurd.  There was a law passed in 2005 that made it extremely difficult for people to continue to file for personal bankruptcy, so the banks thought they were safe.  This could've been extremely lucrative for them had there not been an snowball effect of the rates doubling thus forcing many to search for last resorts plus the fact that so many houses were now underwater due to dropping housing prices at the same time.  If they default then the bank just keeps the house... win for the bank unless the housing market sucks so they can't unload it and they have to take a huge lose even if they could.
There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people.  Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes.  Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward.  (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much).
In addition to the company-specific annual business cycle reasons and company-specific historical reasons mentioned in the other answers, there is another reason. Accounting firms tend to be very busy during January (and February and March) when most companies are closing and auditing their calendar-year books.  If a company chooses its fiscal year to end at a different time of year, the accounting firms are more available, and the auditing costs might be lower.
Nearly every state in the US is full-recourse. If one doesn't seek bankruptcy protection, creditors can seek judgement, and collect assets. Foreclosures frequently sell for approximately half the market price. Considering unemployment risk, homes can be risky.  A far better way to accumulate wealth is with equities (stocks).  However, the risk converts from insolvency to liquidation since during times of high unemployment, equities are also cheap, causing any liquidation used to fund current expenses to be potentially ruinous.
Now *that* is what I call spin.  The economy is down, construction companies are suffering all over (no longer profitable), and these people blame the *taxes.* Fact is, if the business were significantly profitable, the taxes would not close it. Evidence: he operated for 25 years in this tax environment.
There is no generic answer and it would depend on case to case basis.  CSD are built on strong foundation in the sense they would have very low cost base and generally would not go bankrupt.  However if such a situation as CSD provide an essential role, the regulator, central bank and Government would all step in to prevent a total collapse. They would be forced merged with other entity or more capital raised or put under watch by Govt appointed trustee to settle issues so that there is least or No impact.
The most significant reason is that if the board of directors of a company neglects the stock value, the stockholders will vote them out of their jobs.
There are several reasons:
&gt;  If you can't grasp why bankruptcy has different implications, and thus is handled differently, for incorporated businesses, then (facepalm) you don't get it.  Care to explain?  AA screwed over their creditors by filing Chapter 11 - and will likely screw them over with more bankruptcy filings.  A homeowner walking away from an upside-down mortgage screws over his creditor - the bank.  Why is one action more moral than the other?  On a side note, house price collapses hurt individuals a lot in this country given that the home represents the majority of most people's wealth.  If your house falls 50%, you are hurt for life.  You might have thought after you paid it off you could live it in the rest of your life with the aid of a reverse mortgage.  Not as easy with such a pricing collapse.
Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt).
"So perhaps what people mean when they say ""bankrupt"" is that, if the government were any other group of citizens, it would be bankrupt.  Otherwise, we are left with the definition that the government can never be ""x"" if it says it isn't, which is a strange way to qualify a corporate body's acts."
This sounds like a crazy idea, but in reality people don't make the wisest decisions when considering bankruptcy in Australia.  My suggestion would be to get some advice from an insolvency specialist.
Before the financial crisis it was all the rage with Sears being another controversial one. Sears Canada shareholders were upset that that company sold off all of its flagship stores and then distributed the cash via dividends to shareholders (in particular Lampert). Unsurprisingly with no reinvestment in the business, they declared bankruptcy recently. The US Sears is going through this selling stores to a separate real estate holding company.
Why would you want the company who failed to be the one monitoring your credit?   Bankrupt them and be done with them. They're likely going to be sued into insolvency and that in turn should create an about-face to the other credit companies.    The last thing anyone should want is giving additional or further responsibility to a company with the largest personal information leak of all time.
It (usually) is better to use Other Peoples Money (OPM) than your own. This is something that Donald Trump has mastered. If you use OPM and something goes wrong you can declare bankruptcy and wipe out that debt. The Donald has done this more than once.  At the fantastic low Intrest rates a company would be wasting resources if they only used their own money.
It's always sad for the employees, a lot of them have been working there for years.        Liquidation sales are also a nightmare.  Lots of employees are leaving because they found another job and the ones left are stuck with all the mess.  I wish them good luck!
I'll also say that construction wages doesn't surprise me, after the bubble the demand has dropped tremendously and the profit margins have also dropped. Construction companies that are already struggling aren't going to bankrupt themselves just to pay employees what they were paying before. Manufacturing on the other hand is interesting since more and more manufacturing jobs are coming to the states I would be interested in seeing more information than what was provided.
It's because financing can fall through, and then the time between offer and closing is wasted. Often buyers will include preapprovals and other evidence of financing eligibility with their offer for this reason.
If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last.
"Declaring bankruptcy is not ""stealing"", as you forfeit the property once you repudiate the debt.  The article correctly states that consumers should exercise the same rights as mega corporations to walk away from bad deals, and not feel bad about it.  I agree strongly with the article."
&gt; There was a reason it went out of business in 2013  Which had just as much to do with executives raiding the pension, which lead to the company unable to meet it's financial obligations - as it did with the lower demand for twinkies.
"Corporate bankruptcy is yet another program that can benefit the wealthy at the expense of the little guy.  A few years ago I had a trading account with a large company known as Refco.  They filled for bankruptcy and I was shocked to learn that my personal funds in my trading account were seized and used to pay of ""secured creditors"" which were companies like Bank of America.  I was lucky to get back 3 cents on the dollar.    TL:DR - large companies use bankruptcy to screw over the little guys"