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.
more impatient bagholder?
illhonkyl, you really interetped the nov doc out of context. i won't spoon feed you. do your own reserach but I'll give you a clue: current outstanding matter ruled in anchor's favor is the expectancy claim. Reliance and resitituion are all old news and are non-overlapping with the current damage claim. hope you didn't sell based on your MISinterpretation of the nov doc as you posted. LOL
FERRA was inacted in 1989. Anchor merged wtih Dimecorp in 1995. HOw could the two be related as illhonky states. he wants in lower and it like he may have gotten it.
rolling, i sent you email...
who's this illhonky app;earing out of nowhere, born yesterday, claiming long knowlege of dimez. i think he wants our shares. The bottom of the price is sub penny. thus far no bias one way or another. if indeed teh court has been slamming dimez we would have seen series of sell offs down to virtually zero. it would be subpenny by now.
don't you find it weird teh price has not fluctuated much, absent vipaxx. you'd think it would be rather easy to feel how the case is progressing and see trades trending up or down. but it's been farily stable for a year.
cd, what do you mean by "He said it's up the the trial,"? I wonder what the remaiing 2005 open issues are? also for us without accesss to electronic can you post what is avaialble?
yes, the 7/18. maybe new just to me.
another favorable winstar decision just publihsed involving expectancy damge. it's a summary judgement but still good news others are pursuing lost profits similar to dimez. see usfc site.
CD,
1. Only expectancy is left; $960M worth. judge threw out the rest. But what's signficant about ours is the method behind lost profit cacluation. we know courts have ruled against any speculative claims -such as lost goodwill could have been levereaged, or invested, for profit. dimez is demonstrating real lost, ie had to sell off assets. one other bank with a similar type of claim won.
I think it is taking this long due to the size of the claim. Bluebonett closed only several weeks after their closing argument adn the award was only $30M.we have potential for $900M award. read the details of the claims and judge for yourself if they are speculative or not. i personally think we'll get a minimum of $260M. see my eariler post for my rationale. but could be zero as well.
3. correct.
4. i hear a motion and counter motion citing previous cases but would like to know as well. i htink you can go to the courthouse and look it up.
read post 337.
a nice july 06 aritlce on recently settled winstar case and reverseal of thinking that lost profit can't be won. NICE!!!!
http://www.arnoldporter.com/case.cfm?publication_ID=1330
these low volumee dips are good buying opp. no worries here given the volumne. got small partial fill today at .10. still got GTC order and hope to complete it soon then waiting for the judgement day.
OT. i'm watching hmsg closley. i think it is a good bet but i'm all tied up currently. maybe timing with dimez will work out but i doubt it.
bagholder selling. float is so low it doesn't take much to drop. picked up more at .11 this am.
just checking in while on vacation. anyone remeber BNKUZ? this is the stock i've been trying to recall since i bot dimez. i think it is a simiilar winstar case bankrolled by WM but became worthless. i've been looking at all the unsuccessful lost profit claims and one thing constitent about them is it's is based on losing the leverage to make more profits due to the lost goodwill. dimez is based on tangible events and measures. just a thought.i think bnkuz ran from sub penny to over .2 in one day a few years ago. any info on it would be a fun read. glta.
if no leak should bounce back soon. like i said price fluctation doesn't matter if you plan to hold to the end. $0 or $3.
I wonder if there is someone at WM who can shed some light on what occurred during the trial. An IR person familiar with the trial on argumetns and rebuttals. Also, both sides filed addtinally last month - what these were?
Rollin, maybe i'm misreading your post but my understanding is that the trial that concluded last year was the actual proceeding to argue the expectancy damages. The summary judgement concluded, as we know, in 2003, so the expectancy piece moved forward into this trial. So i would think somone who was present at the trials or have access to court records, all public info, would have some sense of the arguments and who was winning and based on that would impact dimez. If i were near dc i would want to go adn look up the records myself.
Yes, summary was granted on the actual stock offering (but not the hypotheical stock offering theory) and the lost estimate is credible vis-a-vis the Fifth verdict but the cauality is different. In Fitfh, the stock conversion was a direct forced sale to raise capital to get back into compliance; In Anchor's case teh stock offering was done not related to the breach but they couldn't raise as much becuase they didn't have RFC or branches in their asset base. I know the loss has to be borne directly out of the breach but this one can be argued either way.
Yes, both sides can appeal but once they publish the verdict it'll be easier to get a sense which way it would go as now there are engough similar settled cases for guidance. My guess is $270M at the minimum.
i'll send you email later today. i've known about home security for some time. what a coincidence. their floating armor should be a hit but governmetn contracts take a long time.
Here’s my updated take on Dimez. I’m just an amateur enthusiast so take it for what it is worth . These are all based on my guesses and interpretation. I’ve had Dimez on my radar for more than a year but never got in because I thought it was too speculative at then price levels. Lucky for me the price dropped recently and based on my dd to the level I think the risk is worth the possible HUGE return. This is unlike a penny stock in terms of investment strategy. First, there is no dilution risk and since the final price is definitive, whether $0 or I guess max at around $3.5 pps fluctuation doesn’t really matter if you plan to hold onto it to the end. PPS does matter on entry so I felt good when I got in on recent dips between .11 and .15. It doesn’t matter to me now if it drops to .01, aside from the lost opportunity to get in at lower, if holding onto the end for a zero or greater pps. I’m awaiting on additional buying opportunity for my last block after which I’ll sit and watch. I did notice the ruling on other concluded winstar cases came about a year after the trial so it should be anytime now.
Thanks “Rollin” for the link to the court and this thread. I looked for cases with similarities and found three: Fifth Third, Cal Fed, and Commercial. The courts have repeatedly warned using expectancy theory, ie lost profit as in the case of Anchor, is pointless, a waste of time, because of its speculative nature on how you estimate lost profits. On the other hand, Fifth Third and Commercial prevailed on their expectancy damages because they demonstrated lost profits with solid evidence. Cal Fed, in my opinion, had similar concrete methodology except they lost; but not because of the lack of validity but they couldn’t establish causation; in other words, they couldn’t prove their damage was related to the breach rather than some other reasons. However, their approach in calculating the damage was sound and acceptable. The point to this is Anchor’s claims in my opinion have the characteristics that appear to be acceptable to the court based on all of my readings of other cases. For example, their profit losses are based on tracking actual performances and market comps rather than some speculative growth formula which others have used unsuccessfully (except Commercial won theirs because they demonstrated their formula made sense given their past income performances). Courts have indicated the need for specific data by which to determine damages and I think Anchor is using this hard data approach which makes their case more compelling. I have to admit initially I wondered why they would continue with the expectancy theory when courts have repeatedly ruled against this approach as well as to opined over and over for plantiffs to not use it. Solid data approach won it for Fifth and Commerical on their lost profit claims.
Anchor’s $970M damage consists of the following components of lost profits: sale of RFC, sale of branches, stock offering, and gross up(to mitigate the effect of income taxes on the damages if awarded). It has to meet the three tests of causation, foreseeabilty, and non-speculative way of estimating the damages. What is really interesting is the recently concluded Fifth Third case is very similar in that they were forced to sell assets due to the breach and then sought and won lost profits. (they did lose one component of their lost damage because of its speculative nature in calculating the damage). Gross up damages follow the type of damages won. Here is a coincidence - the government in the Commercial (or was it Fifth?) case used the exact same argument as in Anchor with respect to the sale of branches related to causation – I mean exactly the same. The rebuttal was fairly simple and I’m sure Anchor will use the same (basically the government claimed the bank sold assets not due to the breach but because they exceeded the regulatory limit on the type of business conducted by these assets).
Based on limited information that can be gleaned from the summary judgment, it seems the branch sales damage has a good chance and if awarded the net will be $120M. The other three are all connected to the outcome of the RFC claim so it’ll be a boom or a bust. I think causation will be proven; foreseeabilty is similar to that of the other three banks so a good chance of prevailing on it. And calculating lost profit will be the key. The government also argued Anchor did not take steps to mitigate their loss of RFC when they regained their capital requirement three years later. So if Anchor concedes on this point and the court awards damages in proportion to these three years and we assume damage is cut in half it would be $150M. These two alone equal $270M and if they get $270M we have a 8x bagger. Add to this NAMCO, and stock offering plus the gross up which would all be gravy. On the other hand, if they get zero which is still a real possibility then this would be a bummer and we can use the warrants as wall paper. The one thing I am wondering about, however, is when the trial concluded a year ago and leaks do happen but there have been no movement good or bad. Everyone involved must be really tight lipped about this. The float is so low on any positive outcome the pps will jump instanteously to its intrinsic value. It’ll be hard to get in. Alternatively, if the outcome is unfavorably it’ll be virtually impossible to bail before it hits zero. I suspect when the verdict is announced, positive or negative, they’ll probably halt trading or instantaneously price it appropriately. This is all my opinion. Do your own DD before investing. Post any thoughts, arguments or corrections to my account above.
thanks . thoought maybe a resversal on a decision. my dd on anchor is turning out very interesting. will post final thoughts when complete. accumalted more on dips the past two sessions. notice other cases ended appropximately a year after the trial finished? That's where we are now i believe. really interesting read on other winstar cases. I think anchor as a good case despite difficulities associated with lost profit claims. read Cal Fed case which is similar to anchor but tsons cited for ruling against themtheirs is farily empirical with solid data rather than speculating "what ifs". more later.
reversal of what?
resitituion claim was dropped. should read 8k closer.
One article from way back mentions a &760M resititon damage. Since this was not challenged I assume it moves forward? If so, the change for a huge windfall just doubled!!!!!!! To break even at this price level we need $60m award on a total claim of $1.7B!!!! what are the chances of this happening?????
Recap and question:
In 2002 the court ruled in favor of Anchor on the four assisted mergers (Suburban, Crisp, Peachtree & Sun) and aganist unassisted (Heritage, TriCity, United, and Standard).
As a result, Anchor filed a series of damages related to the above.
The government then filed motions for summary judgement, basically throw out the damage claims. In 2003 the court granted on some and ruled in favor of Anchor on other claims - expectancy, gross-up, and wounded bank - worth approximately $970M. However, there was no diagreemetn on and the defendant didn't challenge the restitution damage. ANYONE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THIS RESITUTION DAMAGE? THIS WAS NOT FACTORED IN ANY OF MY PREVIOUS PPS CALCULATIONS.
In 2004 the court ruled on the government and anchor's separate motions for summary judgement - ruled agasint them - bascially keeping the intital 2002 court ruling intact as well as the summary judgemets in 2003. ALSO, THE COURT ADMONISHED THE US GOVERMENT FOR not operating in good faith and dragging this along. I guess this is a good sign. So, the $970M plus the restitution damage, current not known to me, moves on.
Anyone have any information on what occurred in said "trial" which ended in 2005?
gross up was approved by the court.
gross up is included in the $969M. what I don't get is the filing last month - if this is to revise or to sustanticate the claim. Also, how do we access the trial that ended last June 05?
sorry, i made a misleading statment. the cour denied defendants' summary judgements and rule to trial the expectancy. we konw the trial ended and now awaiting on teh verdict and damages. still, need $60m verdit to break even at this price.
My two cents worth - updated anlaysis of dimez.
In reading the court papers we know DIMEZ prevailed on expectancy claims and we are now awaiting on damages. Alternative theories as posted previously and filed in their 2003 8-k were ruled against which is favorable to DIMEZ as the initial claim of $970M now stands. So there are two risks currently – the value of the award and timing of the award. The latter I won’t get into as it is a matter of cost of capital and individuals have different valuations.
Given current trading range between .13 to .14 the break even award would be around $60M. So ask yourself, in light of the $970M claim and prior awards given to other plaintiffs what are the odds of landing an award exceending this amount?
As the award increases, the equivalent Dimez PPS goes up exponentially. That’s because the cost of the ligiation is fixed (I used $30M) so anything above this is gravy to DIMEZ holders, less income tax (I used .45 tax rate). The bottom line? Here are my calculation on Dimez value vs. amt awarded:
.29/$100M; .50/$150; .71/$200….1.96/$500; $2.38/$600. and if $970 is awarded - $3.92. The last amount is different form the $6 to $7 posted earlier that’s because initially DIMEZ had other claims which have since been ruled against.
Of course if 0 awarded Dimez is worth a zip. The above are all my educated guesses. Anyone know what was filed last year? My gueses are based on the court decisions and papers in 2003 so if DIMEZ has updated their damages above is moot. Do your own DD> the above is just my two cents worth.
Lastly, how long do these things take? it's been 10 years since the intial claim.
I've been accumlaing in the .11 to .14 range. i'll likely pick up a few more if it falls below .13.
so the items available on the specifi blyc site is a small subset of the entire network?
If I have a warefhouse full of crap i want to move, i can put it all up on the barter network and start collecting barter cash which i can use to "buy" crap other biz can't unload in the cash mareket. If all of the bizs are on this network they'd essentially create a parallel market place. WOW, what a concept.
dd or not i'm in with a lot of shares. i didn't expect the 300% level to sustain today but the drop to below .003 did surprise me. at sub penny levels, seveal days of huge gains without a retracement is not all that uncommon so i'm hoping we have a lot of steam left to blow through .01. a nice pr would be nice.
looks like you know the co pretty well. so how many bizs are part of their barternetwork? I wwnt to the blyc site and browsed through the barter categories but these can't be the only items in the network?
boy did i get luck this am. saw te activity adn got in in low .002. thought to get out at .004 but then decide to add instead for longer haul. it's been interesting reading the threads. it must have been killer the past year watching the paint dry. 1680m shares traded today. could it be purely momo or something cooking. either way, the float make it a real possibity it could pop above .01. i still don't get teh bartering business adn how they make money but i guess their last 10q doesn't lie.