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.
For what it's worth,
I had a buy order sitting at .52 today that went untouched. It was an AON order so the market makers could legitimately ignore it, but I found it interesting that they are filling large blocks at .50 and not letting much go at .52
Ralph,
I was just checking balances on different account and realized that I already have a Fidelity account. My wife started a new job two months ago and they use Fidelity for their retirment management. It has a brokerage account associated with it. Just have to decide if I want to trade in my wifes name. Would I then be able to blame her for any bad choices?
It may be time for me to re-evaluate my accounts. I thought I opened my account with Mytrack years ago because there were no limits on the pennies. Been a while since I pushed any limits so it hasn't come up, but I don't like the restrictions either.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'd be interested in your final choice.
Greg
Scottrade streamer. I think the only difference may be that I'm able to place orders directly from the streamer......and I like the looks of it better.
I haven't had any problems with Scottrades restrictions, but mostly I trade with the Mytrack account.
I have a Scottrade account and use their streaming quotes. One issue I have is if an order is broken up over several days, each portion is charged full commission.
Many times I like to put in an order to sit and fill as it may. Can't do it with Scottrade.
I also have an account with Mytrack. It only charges me a percentage of the commission for each percentage of the order filled. Much better for accumulating without AON orders.
On a side note, all of the correspondence relating to this case has arrived at least a day earlier from Mytrack.
If I could only have one account it would be Scottrade because of the streamer.
Monthly volume for CANT hasn't been that significant. Looks like it's probably a single customer aquiring a position since June.
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/tradeact_mv.asp?SearchBy=issue&Issue=DIMEQ&SortBy=volume&Month=7-1-2010&IMAGE1.x=18&IMAGE1.y=7
Maybe they stepped it up this month.
The judge has issued his order granting default judgement and the case is closed.
The default judgement includes:
1)Plaintiff awarded $219,578 in damages against Bibiyan.
2)Awards Searchguy $100,000 in breach of contract damages, plus 10% intrest on the damages.
3)$16,646.29 in attorney fees
4)Awards Searchguy $11,892,000 in damages against Bibiyan
Great!
Where does this leave us? Heck if I know.
Also read Broadbill's filing. They are attempting to reclassify as a class action to benefit all LTW holders.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100715000000000021.pdf
Must read. Latest filing by Nantahala and Blackwell.
Speaks to the needs of all LTW holders.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100715000000000020.pdf
Yes indeed. Some of these senarios are both amusing and tragic at the same time.
I think you could convince me. Give Aunt Flo a good scratch behind the ear for me.
unless the holder of a particular claim or interest agrees to a less favorable treatment of such particular claim or interest
I would predict WMI would argue that by failing to file a claim and subsequently an objection, LTW holders have agreed to less favorable treatment.
Related to the objection, I received notice in the mail today of the extension of the filing deadline till Aug 24, 2010. The hearing is now scheduled for Sept 7, 2010.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100707000000000025.pdf
I have signed on with the Rosner Law Group. They also currently represent Blackwell Partners and Nantahala Partners.
It was through them that I was informed of the date change. I still haven't seen any filings that confirm the information, but I don't doubt it.
When speaking with Scott Leonhardt from The Rosner Law Group, I mentioned that there were many of us in the same situation looking for legal assistance to protect our investment. He, of course, was well aware and indicated that they would be willing to represent similarly situated individuals.
This is an expensive proposition for anyone and doesn't make sense for everyone. I felt it was the right move for my situation. You can contact The Rosner Law Group and see if it's right for you.
I think WMI may have done us a favor by trying to wipe out our claims. There are some strong arguments being submitted. Until now it has been solely a Broadbill, Nantahala and Blackwell show.
Now the responses are beginning to roll in and it broadens the picture for the judge.
ScottC,
I haven't seen the due date posted anywhere yet and like Bluzie, I would continue to act according to the published dates. I was told about the date change by Broadbill council over the phone and in email.
Good idea. If you have it ready, send it in.
The dates are Aug 24 to respond and the hearing is Sept 7. I don't have a link to the notification yet. I assume we will receive it in the mail.
The hearing concerning the objection to claim has been delayed till September and any responses will be accepted till late August. I'm not sure of the exact dates as I received the information on the phone while driving.
There is a new Broadbill case filing today:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100701000000000012.pdf
The notice claimholders received has a required response date of July 6, 2010. It is docket number 4750 filed on 6/16/10.
I definitely agree with that. I run a small business and originally was comfortable with doing business with a handshake. It has been a shocking lesson as to the number of characters that swim in a very shallow moral pond.
Yes Bluzie2,
That would be ideal. Again it comes down to investment size and just how practical it is to spend the kind of money needed to respond and also to appear in court.
It is possible to file a response without council, but you then also have to be able to stand up in court and argue your case.
Hire a lawyer and have him file and represent you? That's what we all should be doing. Just not practical for most of us. Those fees will eclipse our investments quickly and possibly even our final award.
WMI knows this and is playing on it. This is why I think it will lead to class action furthur down the road.
I do agree that we should respond. I am speaking with an attorney to do just that. If there is enough of a response at this point, I think the judge will have to concider the class instead of the two or three main players.
Yes, I agree we will see many arguments, some logical and many not so.
The judge did seem open to a allowing a deal with the desenting parties only and leaving the balance of the LTW holders out to dry.
I think it could end up being a case of the law being on our side, but since we're not presenting an argument in front of the judge she can't rule in our favor.
My worrying may be unfounded, but I get can't get past the feeling we are going to be left behind at this stage of the game and will be forced into a class action to defend our rights as a group.
Only if you filed a claim against WMI. WMI has filed an objection to the claims. Anyone that has filed a claim and doesn't respond to the objection by July 6, 2010 will be disallowed.
It seems to me to be a way for WMI to clean up the claim sheet and open the door to making a deal with Broadbill exclusively as all other claims will go away. It was raised in the last hearing that the Broadbill motion is in fact NOT a class action suit.
Broadbill has been actively arguing that any settlement includes all LTW holders. This may be because they actually believe this????????? or that they don't want to have to have that fight at a later date when only they are awarded a settlement.
What to do? If you haven't filed a claim, nothing. Your already not on the list of creditors. Wait and see how things play out.
If you did file a claim it gets a bit more complicated. The choice is to pay a lawyer to respond or to allow your claim to be swept under the rug and hope Broadbill comes through. It's also a matter of just how many LTWs you hold. The lawyer fees can easily add up to more than some of our holdings.
Simple, yet sometimes unreliable, google searches.
We all leave traces, even the mysterious Tom Bibiyan. Most important will be to follow the money. All those sales came with a check. All those checks got deposited somewhere. We're talking millions of dollars. Yours and mine! Where is it now?
I'm sure much of it has been blown on Tom's fantasy life as a player in Los Angeles. Spending his nights chasing celebrities with "246 Entertainment" and trying desperately to make a name for himself in the film and music industry.
Just public info. Farhad Bibiyan. Employed by Union Bank.
Same address as Thomas Bibiyan. Tom got his values(or lack of) from someone.
Still a long way from any resolution. The judge has to approve the judgement. Collecting? Something happened to the money that Bibiyan stole. I would lean on his father, the banker.
There also has to be a plan to unify SHGY and Busca Corp. This has been made more dificult due to the fact that Toledo doesn't own a controlling intrest in SHGY. I would suspect there will need to be a shareholder vote on any proposed plan, but as of right now I would guess that there is still a question as to who's running SHGY.
100 mil shares authorized. 21 mil shares issued.
The filing went in today detailing the claim against Bibiyan.
It includes an individual claim by Schudel and Toledo for $219,578 for their personal loss on SHGY stock and another $27,850 for software development that Toledo paid for.
There is a derivitive claim also which includes $11,892,000 for issuance of SHGY stock for no concideration (free). There is a $100,000 claim for breack of contract and finally $16,646.29 for attorney fees.
Don't be knocking my trading strategy!!!!!!!!!!
Those 100 share trades are just for the Market Makers use to move the price or send a signal. You'll notice we didn't have them until a market maker became active again.
It's not clear. Steinberg was difficult to hear and then all audio dropped off. Prior to losing audio was a heated exchange between Rosen(WMI) and Steinberg about a previous out of court discussion and Steinberg's desire to have the discussion on the court record. This was possibly the issue about all warrent holders being included in any settlement.
Will have to wait for the recording to be posted. This discussion occured at approximately 1:30pm or 3 hours into the hearing if your trying to find it.
The first several hours of the hearing were spent discussing the release and sharing of documents between WMI, the equity commitee and several other parties including Broadbill. The judge left open the option of reintroducing the need for an examiner.
From the sound of it, Steinberg's arms were probably flailing and he took out the microphone just as it was getting interesting.
This is excactly what the lawyers were questioning the judge about. The POR has been revised once again and they have less than 24 hours to respond to formulate a response.
Listened to the audio from the 19th.
There was a lenghty comment section reguarding the amount of time the judge has been allowing responses to the debtors plan. Most were stating the standard is 28 days, but were willing to shorten that period conciderably, to maybe two weeks.
Steinberg seemed to be the only one able to articulate that even though the judge agreed that they would have enough time to review the documents as they have till June 3, they in fact will have less than 24 hours because the plan that is available to review currently is not the final draft and does not include any of the mentioned attachments. The judge has allowed WMI till June 2 to file the final draft.
Steinberg brought this up twice. The judge didn't seem to get his point.
Not a bankruptcy lawyer.
After reading a few sources describing sec. 365, it seems that it may come down to the definition of 'Executory Contract'.
Executory Contract is a contract between a debtor and another party under which both sides have material performance remaining.
The way I read it, if it is deamed an executory contract, WMI can refuse it's obligations under sec 365 and we will be put in line with the unsecured creditors.
It seems to me that there is not material performance remaining for both parties, only for WMI, thus not fitting the definition of executory contract.
???
I think this is where we will see Toledo go after the illegitimate shares sold after the date of the intial agreement with Bibiyan and Ratchisky.
New filings available:
05/13/2010 143 ORDER Striking Defendant Bibiyan's Answer and Counterclaims and Entering Default Judgment Against Defendant Bibiyan. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to prove damages on or before June 11, 2010. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/12/2010.
05/13/2010 144 Clerk's DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Ramon Toledo, Sabine Schudel against Thomas Bibiyan.
Jared,
Yes to receiving the disclosure document today also.
I'm taking the bankruptcy 101 class also.
Greg
I would think the reasoning would be the same in either case.
Try this link for pink sheet info.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=shgy
Pink OTC Markets has discontinued the display of quotes on pinksheets.com for this security because it has been labeled Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) and because adequate current information has not been made available by the issuer of the securities. It has been labeled Caveat Emptor for one of the following reasons:
Questionable Promotion — The security is being promoted to the public, but adequate current information about the issuer has not been made available to the public.
Spam — The security is the subject of spam promotion having the effect of encouraging trading of the issuer's securities.
Investigation of Fraud — There is a known investigation of fraudulent activity involving the company, its securities or insiders.
Suspension/Halt — A Regulatory Authority has halted or suspended trading for public interest concerns (i.e. not a news or earning halt).
Disruptive Corporate Actions — The security or issuer is the subject of corporate actions, such as reverse mergers or serial stocks splits and name changes, without adequate current information being publicly available.
Unsolicited Quotes — The security has only been quoted on an unsolicited basis since it entered the public markets and the issuer has not made adequate current information available to the public.
Other Public Interest Concern — There is, in Pink OTC Markets' view, a public interest concern.
Jared,
I was thinking we might see it start creeping up again as we get closer to the pre-trial hearing. I think the date was May 19?
Each court event seems to drive interest.
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Status Conference held on 5/4/2010. Defendant and Cross-Claimant Thomas Bibiyan failed to appear to his Court-ordered deposition that was to take place 9:30AM 5/4/2010 in U.S. District Court for the Souther District of California, Courtroom 03, 940 Front Street, San Diego, California 92101. The Court hereby orders that Thomas Bibiyan's answer be stricken from the record and orders that default be entered against defendant and cross-claimant Thomas Bibiyan. Court to issue Order.(Court Reporter Deborah O'Connell). (Plaintiff Attorney Donald Trembley). (Defendant Attorney No Appearance). (gxr) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
lol, looking at it that way, it sure is.