Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nobody had to listen to and act on Mike White's information.
Your choice.
Mike, put the blamers on ignore and don't waste you effort defending yourself to them.
I would say that you need to be careful in interpreting the information you are getting from the court and/or its website, and then passing to this board.
There was a previous misinterpretation a couple of months back when the stock dropped to the low teens.
I for one believe your intentions are good, but make no mistake if you are not careful about what and how you post the information, it can obviously have a big impact on the price of the stock and peoples account balances.
It takes a high level of sophistication and legal savvy to communicate about these things correctly.
But to all, take these two misinterpretations in consideration when reacting in the future to Mike's posts.
Would someone tell geoart9 that he is iggying the wrong people. He has iggied me and Mike White and I don't think that is what he intended. Thank you.
Mike, I think to say the "ruling was reversed" is a bit of a leap given the information you have. At most, all one could say is that the denial was reversed, but this does not speak to whether the motion was granted in the least.
You retards blaming Mike don't have the maturity to accept repsonsibility for your own actions.
Mike may need to make some changes in his methods of disseminating information, no doubt, but to question his integrity says more about yours than his.
This is a reversal of the denial--not a grant...at least not yet.
You must be jokon right?
Actually, you seem like a reasonable chap based on your posts on other boards...
"The word I have is settlement is tomorrow"
Ok tough guy.
Thank you much GO MOSH!--eom
I am a relatively large unitholder (100,000) and have followed the events here since December.
It is clear, circumstantially anyway, that PXD appears to have take deliberate and likely criminal action to screw the trust.
However, has anyone proposed a theory as to why they would do this?
What would their motivation have been, other than just wanting to keep the properties for themselves? Or is the motivation only this, purely financial?
To an outsider hearing about this case, the response is often incredulity as to why executives of a large corporation in the post-Enron/Worldcom era would engage in such activity.
thanks instruct, I will check it out!
Did a search on "Heitz" on the Harris court documents, and though it did not turn up the letter you cited, it was interesting to see that PXD has attempted to strike his testimony from the record.
Not looking for spoon feeding here, but I see no document dated 12/29/06 on the Harris website. Is that the correct date?
And someone whacks that bid out of the park.
And the bid moves to .37....
cool, understood
Why the coyness dialer?
Happy New Year Dragon!
Well said...
...in the meantime, in the words of the great Tom Petty..
Stop dragon my heart around....
Pretty obvious to identify these posters who don't fully understand the situation, and who apparently didn't get in to these units yet and are hoping this thing doesn't run away from them.
Absolutely, you got it. As long as there is a liquidation value and an expected future royalty stream, the units will have value post-settlement payout.
And it is likely that both a settlement/trial victory and a resumption of royalty income will haappen somewhat concurrently, though we could see royalty income come in first.
MOSH--Kiwi + "downunder" = New Zealand, no?
Ron, you are double counting the settlement dividend. The unit price would be reduced by the amount of the dividend, when it was paid. The money would no longer be in the trust so would no longer be reflected in the price of the units.
What would still be reflected in the price of the units is the expected royalty income, at a multiple of its expected growth rate.
Right, at most 10 days from the date of that last ruling will provide the next potential catalyst. Then it will be on to discovery demands and potential settlement offers, then on to trial if no settlement agreements.
Yes, good point--forced discovery of damning stuff would force their hand no doubt
I believe GO MO$H was talking earlier than the 2nd half of 2008, but I guess it all depends on the date set for the trial. There will probably not be any settlement proposal, if any, until just before it goes to trial.
No, you are correct, the judge said the parties had ten days to come to terms on "something", and yes, it sounds like that is in conflict with her granting PXD's motion today, which I think is why many are confident about her ruling today.
Yes, too much institutional ownership is not viewed positively as the only place it has to go is down--in other words, the current price already reflects the large amounts of money that have come in, and if/when they want to exit, it hits the stock hard.
Ideally you want to find stocks that have low institutional ownership for technical reasons (priced too low, losing money) but are moving out of those criterion (moving over $5, beginning to show a profit, etc.).
Pretty funny, 100 shares traded so far--guess everyone has placed their bets...
CA$H,
The seller obviously.
Of course there is a buyer for every seller CA$H, but obviously this was a seller initiated trade...
As someone already pointed out, that 95k trade was done at the bid of .32, hence a sale. But no worries.
ok, who's going to step up and buy 100 shares at the ask so we close at $.35?
Eh, 10000 shares is only $1730.
Mike and others that suggest reading these court documents...just to confirm, these need to be purchased, they are not free to view...has that been your experience as well?
Thanks.
Not to mention, you promised free veg-o-matics for all MOSH holders in the event of a settlement, correct?
Nice to know most of this is probably well-researched long-term buying, not dayflippers.
Should hold this level better than first time around.
What, is everyone in shocked disbelief here? The silence is deafening.
I do wonder how much selling here is due to the sell-offs in CFPC and NNRF, and not due to issues specific to CYRX. If so this is a buying opp
Still no reponse to my e-mail from IR...
So we get the fluffy PRs regarding conferences and such but they fail to put out that minor information regarding their buyout of a majority interest in another company.
I've written to the company and will post any response.