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.
If what you say is true, because I don't really know, then why can't they get the POR confirmed?
This is #7. Apparently they have not been within the law.
Everything you say makes sense; I agree, so why didn’t Steinberg pass on the mediation; why do we need to mediate at this time? Just object to the 7th POR and wait for the ruling.
Merchant & Wall street.
Why don’t you guys knock it off and stay on the subject….
And forget the NOLS. …Not important know.
This is about getting what we deserve; the Anchor Litigation proceeds.
As an original holder of the Dime warrants of which I have added to over the years and have a substantial position I think this is a critical moment in our case. The last important point in time was when was the objection to the extinguishment of the Dime warrants, which was back in June 2010 I also filed a claim with the Bankruptcy Court in March 2009. Now we have Ratrosen (I smell a rat), inviting Steinberg, Arthur J, to mediation.
I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, what we should do is wait for the Judge’s ruling and if not known by the deadline Jan.4, 2012 for objections to the 7th POR, then file an objection to protect our rights under the warrant agreement and most importantly protect our right to pursue a breach of fiduciary duties against the BOD. This is not in the 7th POR and if we don’t object, and the judge rules against class 12 status for DIMEQ we are screwed and can no longer appeals.
Ask yourself, why do we need to mediate at this time? Wait for a ruling and then mediate if we lose because we have that right if we object to the 7th POR.
Am I missing something here?
I don’t believe under Bankruptcy a Fiduciary duties are waived; is that correct?
I ask all you legal eagles and well informed board members for your opinions. Thanks in advance.
Tom
Ps: It’s easy enough to write an objection because they ignore all our rights under the warrant agreement it will just take 14 letters.
Question; as we near the end of this fiasco and the mediation now includes DIMEQ:
I just rec’d notice of hearing on 7th Plan of Debtors, should I file objection?. Notice must be served on 14 listed parties by JAN 4, 2012 or can we count on A.S. to do it?
Exactly…but that is why we have to wonder if something has leaked out from the Judge.
Mediation with Dimeq because the POR 7 will not pass, as is, if we are not class 12 ?
Post 5120 Yes I wonder also…why do we need to mediate if we are class 12
here is your answer:
Order Amending Order Appointing Mediator
"If Judge Walrath had already ruled a Class 18 or 21 for the LTWs I would think that the Debtors and Creditors would be jumping up and down in joy instead of going into a Mediation to resolve the Class Action."
Mediation with Dimeq becausethe POR 7 will not pass!
Yes I wonder also…why do we need to mediate if we are class 12?
I can’t see how there is a mediation where the parties mediate an agreement that affects another party (shafting that other party) and that other party is bound by that mediation. This is basically what happened when the Anchor Lit proceeds were transferred to JPM (the party who had an interest, DIMEQ, was shafted). Here we go again with Rosen in charge.
The Grudge got it…and to take out the “legal gobbly gook” it reads like this:
“Section 4.4 Other Events - If any event occurs …(that)…would not, …..fairly and adequately protect the purchase rights of the Holders of the Warrants in accordance with the essential intent and principles of such provisions, then the Board may make (and only then), ……such adjustments to …. Article IV, in accordance with such essential intent and principles,…….. to protect such purchase rights as aforesaid
well it is Dimeq's money!
I've seen it, but I have to say I did not remember the lines. It was too long ago and not that funny. I am more of a fan of The Dude. The Dude Abides!
I hope your knowledge when it come to investment picks(DIMEQ) is far better than your knowledge of history! "Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Funny! I'm glad you understood it.
What do you mean?
Thanks! So I guess $2.20 for the U’s is based on a hope and a prayer.
Your opinion; what do you think the U's are worth with a DIMEQ win.
Since the LTW turned out to be a secured liability (debt) by winning the Anchor Litigation Award, and since the award is no longer an asset of the BK Estate;
and it turns out we are relegated to class 18 or 21, and do not collect fully on our claim, don’t we have a claim against the BOD (fiduciary) for breach? Or is it over? What are your thoughts?
I know we do not want this to go on forever.
"specious arguments and subterfuge" .....Should be against the law!
i agree....secured claim from the beginning of court win.(never belonged in this messy BK)
case for 12 vs 18? I don't know? class 21 not!
I'm just fine with getting the $337 million that JMW ring-fenced for us in the event that Steinberg proved up damages to the Class.
So am I..but I wish JMW would sit down and read the Warrant agreement 2 or 3 time if necessary to see its true intention.
Most Judges do not read any of this stuff personally, and that is what the Rosen group has been counting on.
As I noted above, I think the decision not to move for summary judgment was strategic, and hence, counsel for the LTW class hasn't pushed the idea that the agreement itself is clear on its face. I agree with that strategy, but I also agree that Section 4.4 is clear.
I agree with what you are saying..but it's funny, because of the state of affairs in our courts, we have to agree to something we don't really agree with, just to stay in the game!
What ambiguity are we talking about?
Under Section 4.4 of the Warrant Agreement, WMI and its Board of Directors were required to take such steps as necessary (whether WMI was undergoing a Reorganization or a Combination) to protect the interests of the LTW holders in accordance with the essential “intents and principles” under the Warrant Agreement. Those “intents and principles” were, as stated in the Registration Statement, to give the value of the Anchor Litigation to the LTW holders. Thus, if it was not practicable to give LTW holders stock of WMI for the value of the Anchor Litigation, WMI and its Board had the duty to compensate the LTW holders in some other form of currency (e.g., cash, notes, etc.) The failure of the BOD to perform their duties on behalf of LTW holders and safeguard the value of the Anchor Litigation recovery, as required by the LTWs and the Warrant Agreement, is the basis of the Claimants’ claim against the Estate and/or the Board
It’s very clear to me and I don’t claim to be of superior intelligence..
We all know that Justice is not always served but don’t call it legal; more like unscrupulous lawyers who subvert the law with subterfuge.
Is this Rosen’s firm? Weil Gotshal & MangesJapan's Olympus Scam Numerous US parties are involved in the scandal.When Olympus acquired British medical instruments company Gyrus Group in 2008 for $1.92 billion, two firms that allegedly advised Olympus on the deal were American firm Axes America, and Axam Investments, which was registered in the Cayman Islands. Both firms were paid $687 million for the deal, or about 30% of the overall acquisition price, when bankers usually only get around 1% for M&A deals. The FBI is now investigating the matter to find out what really happened to the $687 million. Both firms were owned by ex-Wall Street banker Hajime Sagawa, who’s since dissolved them, writes the Wall Street Journal.
Besides Axam Investments and Axes America, law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges and M&A firm Perella Weinberg Partners were also involved in advising Olympus on its 2008 purchase of Gyrus Group. Perella Weinberg, founded by former Morgan Stanley executive Joseph Perella and Goldman Sachs alum Peter Weinberg, was paid less than $8 million, while Weil Gotshal & Manges’ compensation has not been disclosed.
I have been following this and maybe I am nuts, but doesn’t everybody deal with a broker; who asks for certificates these days?
These guys make your blood boil…as they use the law to break the law and steal huge amounts of money with no consequences even when their caught in the act. Our system is broken because of these exact type of maneuvers carried on by too many lawyers/politicians.
good ruling...leaves the directors butts hanging out there!
I think the volume may be down because many shares have been committed to the exchange offer and cannot be traded.
I do not want to bust any bubbles about what a good guy Steinberg is…but he is in this fight for his Million dollar clients, whom probably have $50 million to win in this if not more. They are rich and have the money to hire the best, like in any other litigation that goes on in Wall Street. They are only forced to carry us because we hold the same paper as they do and there was no other way other than have something like 50 pro se cases at every hearing clogging up this endless mess for the next ten years. Just picture all these participants in the court room with something to say at each hearing to protect their interest. They (all the lawyers and Judge) did themselves a favor to combine the case. Our argument is not that complicated, it is exactly the way you stated it MrchntDeth
no need to
....but I'm loathe to give these guys their releases.
You don't have to check any box regarding releases, and if you want to elect stock in lieu of cash (if we win @ trial in Sept.) then you must file this form with your broker indicating such election and no releases given at this time. You can decide on the releases after we see how much stock we get if any.
That makes sense,
thanks again!
I want stock, so which box do I check top or bottom?
They both state "Elect to receive Reorganized Common Stock in lieu of...."
It's all stock in lieu of creditor cash box 1, or stock for the LT interest only, box2? Is that right? I'm very unclear on the distiction.
thanks!
You don't have to check any box regarding releases, but if you want to elect stock in lieu of cash (if we win @ trial in Sept.) then you must file this form with your broker indicating such election. If you do not want stock then there is no need to file at this time unless you want to release these SB’S from their fiduciary liability.
My question:
Does anyone know the difference in item3 OPTIONAL Exchange Election Between?’
Check the Box I: Elect to receive Reorganized Common Stock in lieu of Creditor Cash
And
Check the box 2: Elect to receive Reorganized Common Stock in lieu of Cash to be received on account of Liquidating Trust Interests.
Is this either or, or can you choose both? I called the Kurtzman number and either got double talk or someone pretending to know but had no clue???
Thanks in advance!