I think this article needlessly stirs the pot. It adds heat, but no light.
Whither Audio Research
- Thread starter davidavdavid
- Start date
I think this article needlessly stirs the pot. It adds heat, but no light.
"Many times"? Personally, I would find that frustrating and aggravating. Doesn't that suggest a problem with big, high-power tube amps which don't have circuitry to prevent damage when a tube blows?
Whatever auto-biasing circuitry and supervisory control circuitry is required to avoid that (thank you VAC and VTL), I am in favor of it.
The worst cases for me were the big KSA Krells. Huge weight. Had to ship on a pallet. Went in multiple times over many years. Levinson too.
Finally got tired of it and went back to tubes. Far less likely to need a trip if you pay attention to what your tubes are doing.
FWIW, service from Ray Mutchler and Pat Brosnihan (sp?) at Krell was always excellent
Probably Otto Korrekt messing up It’s.
I think the development is done, but the capital to buy materials and set up production has been stalled due to the financial crisis.
The amp was actually announced last year (4th quarter iirc).
I would counsel patience, dear readers. I'm not a creditor's rights lawyer but have been around enough to know how to read some of this stuff. If you recall, the issue was getting the court to approve the receiver and to extend the stay. The identification of a competent person in the industry to "guide" the company may serve two purposes- one, to show positive movement in support of an extension on the stay, and also, to help attract investors.
I'm speculating, but I wouldn't read too much negative into this-- stuff happens slowly in some of these proceedings at first and then, once all the pieces are lined up, and everyone is in agreement, things can get finalized.
As I recall, ARC had already signed a confession of judgement in favor of the bank, which holds a secured interest in 1.5 or 1.6M of the debt. I suspect if the bank wanted to have the company assets liquidated to satisfy its security interest, we'd see that.
My suggestion is that we read these things with the perspective that we are only seeing what is filed in the court and not jump to conclusions. It may be that ARC wanted that announcement out there just to buy time in the marketplace as well.
Patience....
I'm speculating, but I wouldn't read too much negative into this-- stuff happens slowly in some of these proceedings at first and then, once all the pieces are lined up, and everyone is in agreement, things can get finalized.
As I recall, ARC had already signed a confession of judgement in favor of the bank, which holds a secured interest in 1.5 or 1.6M of the debt. I suspect if the bank wanted to have the company assets liquidated to satisfy its security interest, we'd see that.
My suggestion is that we read these things with the perspective that we are only seeing what is filed in the court and not jump to conclusions. It may be that ARC wanted that announcement out there just to buy time in the marketplace as well.
Patience....
I agree. This will all settle out after Mr. Cora’s checks to cover the creditors have cleared.
For now, ARC needs to pay a good lawyer to guide their side of the process. Lighthouse is in charge, like it or not.
Cora will be the new owner. Once it’s sorted out, he’ll have to decide whether he can juggle both companies, or not.
if Cora can placate the debt holders(by paying them), it will all be over soon.
I wouldn't assume anything just yet, that press release doesn't tell us much and I could read it to mean that Cora is going to be the guide, not necessarily the funding. That was my point about waiting to see how this unfolds. The fact that there is someone who can steer the ship would help get the stay extended, and my point, also attract new investors. Again, speculation, but there are more questions than answers right now. That's why I suggested we just wait and see.
Lighthouse is already steering the ship.
The paperwork suggests that ARC wants to regain control. They’re going to have to pay the creditors before Lighthouse let’s it go. Right now ARC thinks they have a deal with Cora. Lighthouse has not confirmed they’re on board yet.
The next hearing is June 7. The only document filed after the May 17 hearing was Lighthouse’s affidavit that they are capable and qualified to perform their duties.
@Another Johnson - Lighthouse is a turnaround financial house, they aren't going to stay with the company as management once this gets sorted. Their job is to help put the company back on an even keel and into the hands of new management/investors while dealing with the creditor issues as the receiver.
Which is why the Cora announcement has limited value but may be sufficient to keep the wolves at bay. Look, I'm not trying to be contentious here, to the contrary, I'm suggesting we don't know all the facts and shouldn't read too much into this.
FWIW, I agree that we will just have to wait and see. If Cora can’t pay the debt holders, Lighthouse will not go away. If he can, and I think he can, then there’s no purpose for Lighthouse.
The paperwork says ARC is representing themselves. They need a good lawyer to guide their side.
I spoke to long-time ARC exec Dave Gordon yesterday afternoon at the ARC booth at the Munich show. He told me that Valerio Cora of Acora Acoustics Corp. has indeed bought ARC, and plans to run the two businesses as separate entities. Trent Suggs is out. Apparently Cora has a relatively larger IT company that can provide some financial cushion to ARC. That doesn’t shed much light on resolving debt issues, but Dave seemed upbeat about ARC’s future. He said that Valerio Cora has long been a big ARC fan and has owned of several of their products. I wish them success.