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.
Certainly we want this overturned...to declare us debt rather than where we currently are. However, I read the revised version to state that we will receive "New shares" using the final court award as the figure which will be divided by the price of WIMEQ .....at the trigger date. Am I reading this wrong? Doesn't that mean that they propose that we eventually receive a MULTIPLE of what the common receive?
Happy New Year to all DIMEQ holders. I am an original holder from when we first received these at no cost.. and added to them a few months ago. Sorry I had little to add to these intelligent posts over the many months I've followed them. I still can't get past JPM keeping property (85% of settlement) that was given by other than the rightful owner. The outcome under criminal law would be return of stolen property, IMO. So, why is there no action against JPM .... OR,is there?
Best to all,
Marty
cartouche,
Who's afraid of you?
You been drinking ahead of the ruling??
Thank you for your reply. Even artwork stolen by the nazies and later in the hands of unsuspecting new owners ..has been confiscated and returned to their rightful owners. I just don't understand how JPM is left quietly alone on this.
Why is it that JPM is allowed to to keep fraudulently transferred property? Very little said here about them keeping 85% of (stolen) property. Under criminal law stolen property is confiscated and returned to rightful owner...even when the buyer holding the property had no knowledge of the crime. So, isn't a criminal complaint against JPM another area to pursue?
Thanks merchntDeth,
Seems the easiest of all litigation going. How could the BOD not exercise their fiduciary responsibility along with other responsible parties....regardless of us being creditors or equity! Just so strange to be dropped off like an uncared for baby...with no one being responsible.
Are the not going after the BOD presently? BOD insurance company has some time limit...don't they.
Perhaps send your "missing link" to his office on your law office stationary. I would think that he or his secretary would give it attention.
Marty
ST,
Thanx...but what I meant was fractional pennies on a stock ABOVE $1. I see many higher price ($5 to $25) stocks trade at 24.409 to undercut a 24.41 offer as an example. Same on the bid by unknown traders flashing 1/100 of a penny above the bid on higher priced stocks. I think most of it is computerized trading. Just wondering if individuals can place these type of orders at some houses.
Hank,
Thank you for your explanation of size requirements. You saying that a market maker must show at least 500 shares on the bid or asked for a $9 stock? Then the market of 1x1 and 3x3 on level 2 that I so often see is for a client? Am I understanding this incorrectly? I was under the impression that the 500 sh rule ended when they allowed individual investors to place orders at penny increments though their brokers. I recall seeing a communication from FINRA signed by Bernie Madoff arguing that market makers be relieved of that requirement due to that change. You know more about the rules than me.
ST,
Thanx for being truthful and correcting my conclusion. Will Interactive Brokers buy and sell at fractions of a penny for their clients...whereas traditional brokerages won't?
Hank,
It was obvious that someone was painting. You seem to be defensive, rather than saying it could have been a trader OR it was NOT painting. The point was that it was done! I am not here to argue. While I have not been a market maker...I do have 57 years of successful trading. I don't think the rules that apply to regular OTC listed stocks apply to pink sheeters. I seldom buy them as I could never get a fill above the bid or below the asked.
I will answer your question...but, expect you to answer mine.
I don't believe there are any size requirements!
NOW..can you tell us all who was responsible for changing the 500 share requirement without researching it?
Hank,
The market makers profit by acquiring at the bid..and selling at the offer. If they bought a block at 28 cents they would try to make a few pennies by selling at the offer. So, they show a few trades at the offer to hide the real price action. How else would you explain a $32 trade?
It seems obvious when 25,000 share trades are on the bid...28 cents followed by 100 or 200 shares on the offer. Who buys $32 dollars worth of stock????
I agree that it looks like a good buy.
But,you don't know...what you don't know!
Someone is trying to get out of a large position,IMO...and the market makers are painting.
Here's an interesting print.
100 shares bought at 69.5 cents at 10:57 today....think someone was in a rush to make this large investment? Or, was some scummy market maker looking to paint a higher price for all to see?
Who is the market maker LAFC?
They have been sitting on the offer for days with a seemingly endless supply.
I wonder who they represent to sell a huge stake...or, keep the price from rising.
Any thought on this?
Conditional release.....
Thank you MrchntDeth for your opinion on the release. That is most important in my mind. I want to keep all avenues of litigation open in the event we get zero'd out in the reorganization. I also have two accounts and would like all stock in the smaller of the two. I can't elect in my Roth account because I MUST keep the ability to recharacterize those shares back to their original IRA. I mentioned RECHARACTERIZATION earlier in the year as a possibly good strategy for this situation...seems no one picked up on that.
It's almost time to make OR not make the elections.
Not only am I confused by the confusing offer...even my brokerage is confused. They want me to call Kurtzman Carson (for explanations)...agent for the opposition! Some places they state that we must elect to get settlement. Other areas it says that we have a year from this settlement to opt in. I understand that in order to opt for reorganized stock they require you opt in NOW. My problem with all this is that they seem to state that opting IN is under the conditions of section 43.6 which includes releases. Reading the releases of sec 43.6 it appears to me that I give away ALL my right to ANY litigation. I certainly don't want to lose any rights we all have in other litigation re our claims! Am I reading sec 43.6 correctly...that opting in takes away our rights to litgate?
So, If we don't want new reorganized shares...can we simply hold out and do nothing till 12 months after reorganization is approved, and then opt in? Any viewpoints??
I had asked earlier what actions have been filed against WAMU, it's BOD and JPM, in case we fail to be recognized as creditors.......
Looking back I seem to remember that the situation is clouded by the wording that WAMU could pay the 85% of proceedes to the LTW's in stock. Does that allow for the possibility that we get paid in the almost worthless shares? Or, would we get JPM shares, new WAMU reorganized shares or cash if we are not deemed creditors? Just my recollections and thoughts while waiting. I may be way off base with my memory of the situation. I just received my packet, which I will read tonight. Good luck to all.
Marty
While waiting...could someone advise what our other avenues are if we take a shafting here. Do we have current actions against parties to this fiasco? What reasoning does JPM state for keeping all the proceeds recovered in the LTW action against the FDIC...rather than the original trustee percentage?
I think the FDIC is telling WaMu and JP to stop the nonsense and get this settled PROPERLY....or face the (personal) CONSEQUENCES.
I expected a bunch of posts following today's (Monday) article in the WSJ regarding FDIC "Poised To Sue WaMu Executives"! Looks like great news to me.
Marty
Bluzie,
Wouldn't we also have a lawsuit against WAMU, FDIC and JP for the miss-handing of their fiduciary responsibilities to the LTW's...even after we are classified as equity or class 12? Or, is their liability ended with completion of these proceedings. If we have a suit against WAMU...how could they validly distribute to creditors without putting aside funds for their potential loss. Appreciate your opinions!
Marty
Added to my DIMEQ in a new Roth account today. My contribution to this board is the tactic of recharacterization. You can transfer money from a regular IRA to a Roth IRA. You can change your mind by the end of the year and reverse it. This way you are speculating with AFTER tax money in the Roth. If the situation goes sour, you recharacterize the loss back to your regular IRA...so, your loss becomes pre-tax.....which is less painful. There are rules that go with this.
Marty
Bluzie,
Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate all your posts and those of others, re the principles and laws governing this situation.
Marty
Why wouldn't many of creditors insist that the LTW's be paid in original WAMU stock...as I believe the original terms stated? Are there damages if they correct the situation and go back to the original terms? I am NOT short...just wonder about a buzz saw we don't see.
Thank you Bluzie....but, wouldn't that mean that we would get a percentage of the award...just as other creditors. Maybe that is why these LTWS haven't jumped to the level expected? Anyone with estimates of percentage distributions to creditors (including us under this possible scenario)...if WAMU collects full award?
If the rights still belong to WAMU...do we get a gazillion old shares which may be almost worthless after creditors get paid. OR would we get the NEW shares? Any thoughts?
Thank you bluzie and hardasset for your opinions.
Marty
Does a favorable ruling for DIMEQ END this situation in our favor? What are the further obstacles to the payoff? Do we get a percentage of that money as a creditor and are there further appeals to overcome?
What are the potential results of this hearing as they affect DIMEQ? I know that it has been discussed in bits and pieces...but, it remains a bit unclear to some of the older folks, like myself. If we lose here is there still another place to redress of this issue? If we win on this level...is it conclusive, or will it drag on further into 2011? Thank you for all the postings by very intelligent and knowledgable people who have kept us lurkers up on important information.
Tim,
Are you saying that your opinion is that we collect our 85% of the proceeds from Washington Mutual if we win? That would be about a trillion shares and someone on this board might calculate the remaining value in DIMEQ for us. Thanks for your reply and opinion.
Marty
Dumer,
I would think that the proceeds of a fraudulent conveyance/stolen property would be returned to the rightful owner. Stolen art has often been returned to rightfull owners after many years...even when the unknowing owners believed they acquired it legally. Washington Mutual would bear responsibility if the goods could not be recovered. I am referring to criminal law. I am not a lawyer and know little about bankruptcy law.