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.
Hey Doc,
I would be very careful if your trying to buy. The lawsuit is for shareholders of record on a certain date, can't remember it right now. It was the date that Toledo handed over a big check for the corporate documents.
I don't know how the court is going to deal with the fraudulent shares sold after that date. The issue is that Toledo purchased controlling interest on that date. With millions of shares issued fraudulently after that, everyone's interest in the company was diluted illegally. Those issued shares are all illegitimate.
I don't think that any shares purchased after that date will fall under the court ruling, whatever that may be.
This is definitely just an opinion.
Sorry. I give up. I sold out.
I'm taking my penny elsewhere.
05/03/2010 139 ORDER Approving Settlement of Derivative Claims as to Defendant Lenny Rachitsky and Application for Attorney's Fees. The Court approves reimbursement to Plaintiffs from the monies by Rachitsky pursuant to the settlement in the amount of $27,000 for attorneys' fees and costs to be paid to counsel pro-rata as settlement payments are made by Defendant Rachitsky. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/3/2010
Deal with Ratchitsky has been approved. He can now begin making monthly payments to Searchguy and sing like a canary when questioned about Bibiyans involvement.
Sure Blue.
I'll try to update as information becomes available.
I think the statement of ownership is refering to common shares of WAMUQ stock. The previous filing on 1/16/10 shows them as in control of 108mil shares and 6.2% of outstanding.
If it was refering to Dimeq, that same 108mil shares would be very close to 100% of the 113mil warrants issued.
I ran into the same think a couple of days ago while searching for Dimeq info.
Scott,
It was a while back, but somebody posted a link or form to file a claim. I remember filing it and I do have a listing on the Kurtzman, Carson Consultants with a claim number.
It was not sent to warrant holders and at least for my part it was a 'just in case' filing.
I don't think it will have any bearing on the outcome for us.
It appears our friend Bibiyan has learned how to cut and paste. That brings his list of skills up to three, including fraud.
For anyone that doesn't know, Sabine Schudel is the plaintiff, along with Toledo and the shareholders.
I would have though posting false messages would be the last thing Bibiyan would be interested in. I don't see the return in it.
ORDER that Defendant and Cross-Claimant Thomas Bibiyan Appear at Deposition and Participate in Pretrial Conference. The Court hereby Orders that Defendant/Counter-Claimant Thomas Bibiyan shall appear on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, beginning at 9:30 a.m. for his deposition to be taken by counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendant. It is further Ordered that, immediately upon the conclusion of the deposition of Defendant/Counter-Claimant Thomas Bibiyan, he shall remain at said Court and he shall participate in a Pretrial Conference with counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendant as required under U.S. District Court, Southern District, Local Rule 16(f). Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/27/2010.
I certainly wouldn't put any money on Bibiyan showing up. I would bet it's going to take a bench warrant before we see him in court.
Looks like Bibiyan is being given yet one more chance to show up for a court appearance. Final Pretrial has been moved to 5/28/10. How many missed appearances does it take?
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Pretrial Conference held on 4/26/2010. The Court hereby orders that the deposition of Thomas Bibiyan shall take place on 5/4/2010 09:30AM in Courtroom 03 before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Plaintiff counsel to submit to the Court by 5:00PM 4/27/2010 a proposed Order re: deposition of Thomas Bibiyan and the participation of Thomas Bibiyan during the Pretrial Conference. Defendant Thomas Bibiyan shall be electronically served with this Minute Entry and the Order signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez via his e-mail address: split4to1@yahoo.com. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 5/28/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom 03 before Judge Roger T. Benitez.
I agree. I think it's just going through the motions now. Once the case is finalized, that's when it will really get interesting. I'm curious to hear how Searchguy and Busca Corp will be blended together.
New filing today. Declaration by Ratchisky stating that he was originally a defendant and is now a witness. Also says that Bibiyan has threatened his life if he shows up to testify against him. He has a record of the text messages containing the threats.
Sure Doc,
The case is proceeding fairly quickly now with deadlines falling every Monday for the last few weeks. Toledo(and Schudel) have been filing on time and are very well prepared. The recent filings include "Memorandum of facts and contentions of law" and the "Pretrial memorandum". Both contain similar information with a fairly complete history of Searchguy. They go on to describe the methods used to pump up the price while selling and distributing shares.
Bibiyan, on the other hand, still seems to believe that if he sticks his head in the ground it will all go away. His only contact with the court has been a couple of rediculous hand written notes to the judge stating his innocence.
The motion for settlement with Ratchitsky has also been filed. The agreement involves Ratchitsky paying some money back and also testifying against his buddy Bibiyan. Why do crooks always have partners?
Tomorrow is the pretrial conference and the motion for settlement with Ratchitsky is scheduled for 5/3/10.
I guess we'll see what the schedule for the trial is depending on what happens Monday.
www.pacer.com to read the filings
Looks like some Wamu board members are DIMEQ holders.
http://www.tracked.com/person/michael_murphy_32138/people/
Looking at it again. It seems like it may be confusing WM shares and DIMEQ.
Pretty interesting. I backed out to the Wamu page http://www.kccllc.net/wamu and was able to find my name listed in the claims register. I can almost remember filing a claim.
Dimeqholder,
I may be interested in signing up, but not so comfortable sending any personal information to a one time poster with a gmail account.
Who is your lawyer and can I contact them before sharing any personal information?
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't trust a commitee much either. They are there to make a deal. I don't want a deal. I want our contract honored 100%.
And this is the best reason for getting an account with Pacer.
Makes it much easier to filter out the rediculous posts.
Sure, as best I can.
All the court documents are available on Pacer. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/index.html
You do need to get an account to view anything and it cost $.08 a page.
Once your logged on it's easy to search for both cases by name or case no.
The Searchguy case is 3:2007cv00695
The Bibiyan case is 2:09-bk-36666
The site seems to run a couple of days to a few weeks behind. It is worth it. I hesitated at first to set up an account, but have found it very useful for several investments I track.
The filing for the relief from automatic stay in the Bibiyan bankruptcy case has been published as of 3/25/10.
This allows the case of Toledo vs. Bibiyan to continue in District Court.
Schedule:
Memo of Content of Facts 4/12/10
Proposed Pretrial Order DDL 4/19/10
Final Pretrial Conference 4/26/10
Back to court.
How about sending us the award now and forwarding the tip later?
Only had a quick look so far.
The court has affirmed the award and has remanded to the Federal Claims Court to have a second look at mitigation costs with the only option being to either affirm or increase the award.
Anchor wins and may win even more, possibly an additional $63 mil.
Decision is out.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-5175.pdf
Far as I can tell, the Bibiyan bankruptcy judge must have allowed relief from the automatic stay. I only base this on the schedule where the next hearing in the bankruptcy case is set for the summer, allowing enough time for the original case to proceed. That means Toledo can continue action against Bibiyan.
The next scheduled set of filings and such in the original case isn't till mid-April.
The bankruptcy filing has managed to delay the original case at least 6 months so far.
Hearing is scheduled for today at 9:30am to dismiss the Bibiyan bancruptcy filing due to the fact that he has been accused of committing securities fraud.
If the case is dismissed, it will allow the original case to proceed on it's new schedule, having been delayed several months to deal with this bancruptcy.
I'm not sure if your just baiting me with this nonsense or if this is actually what you believe.
Regardless, the case continues to drag on with Bibyan.
A filing was made at the end of Dec to argue the dischargability of Bibiyan bankruptcy filing. Bibiyan has filed a response to the allegations. Not sure of the schedule from here.
The original case is still proceeding, or at least still scheduled to proceed. Rachitsky is scheduled to sign a settlement.
The final pre-trial hearing is scheduled for Feb 8th, 2010. This will probably be delayed again by the Bibiyan bankruptsy case.
It won't be today and I would bet not tomorrow.
I do check everyday after 11am to see the published decisions.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/dailylog.html
It'll be there one day.
I am still buying more when I can, though it is tough to get some. The orders sit.
The issue is control of the company.
Ramon Toledo was a shareholder that made a deal with Ratchisky and Bibiyan to purchase the corporate documents and control of the company. They both remembered to cash their checks, but failed to uphold their part of the deal.
Without transfer of control, the pair were able to continue printing and dumping shares, diluting the holdings of current shareholders, including Toledo.
Currently, there seems to be a settlement between Toledo, representing all shareholders, and Ratchisky, pending court approval.
The complaint against Bibiyan has been delayed once again. Bibiyan filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.
The status of the corporation is up in the air until this is settled. In the meantime, Toledo has been growing and developing products and services under the company name Busca Corp.
Did Mr. Bibiyan show up for his 341 hearing on 11/24/09?
Pacer hasn't been updated since 11/6/09.
New dates thanks to the bankruptsy filing by Bibiyan.
Momorandum of Contentions of Facts and Law-Jan 25, 2010
Proposed Pretrial Order-Feb 1, 2010
Pretrial Conference-Feb 8, 2010
Bibiyan bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for Nov 24th. He has filed a new Statement of Financial Affairs. It says he has pretty much nothing except a couch and a $2000 BMW Z3?
His primary source of income seems to be from his father.
I bet Dad's really proud now.
I have been able to contact him easily. Getting in touch with Bibiyan seems a bit tougher. Even the courts can't track him down.
Mr Toledo is accessable. You can contact him through Busca Corp. http://www.buscacorp.com/?sec=contact.
He filed for bankrupsy protecetion but then failed to show up to the hearing. Another hearing is scheduled Nov 26th, I think.
Tremblay's office (Toledo's lawyer) did attend the hearing and I'm sure will attend the follow up also.
Bibiyan appears to be using this as another delay tactic as it forces the case against him to stall while awaiting the outcome of the bankrupsy.
On DB7s link, you'll find the bulk of the original case information and ruling listed under Opinions/Decisions and then Winstar.
For Pacer, you need to search for case 2008-5175
For the audio of the verbal argument held Friday, Nov 6, 2009 by the appeals court, go to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/
and find the audio link. Search for the same case number as Pacer.
Thanks Merbendim. I didn't know we could listen.
This case seems to drag to the long side every step of the way.
Just more delay tactics.
Every form he has filed with the bankruptcy court has been rejected and delayed because it was filed without a signature. No lawyer can be that incompetent.
Skipping the hearing afforded another delay till 11/24/09.
The Searchguy case has to be put on hold while this sideshow proceeds.
Out of all this, the only good news is that Tremblay did have somebody attend the first scheduled bankruptsy hearing and will probably be at the 11/24 hearing also.
Never really doubted that they would get paid. It's just that the warrants call out a specific formula that includes both the payment to the lawyers and the holders. Like you said, the lawyers will get paid. We should also. It's the same agreement.
I don't think any of us are arguing that Chase should get the proceeds, just concerned that they will.
I agree that holders of the warrants are entitled to any settlement. I haven't received anything specific mentioning that it will not be the case. The issue was raised on here during the partial purchase of Washington Mutual by Chase.
The fact that the warrants are still trading gives me hope. If there is a decision by Chase to not payout accourding to the original agreement, then I think it will be up to the warrant holders to file a class action suit.
The payment of the lawyers in this case was tied to the settlement also. It will be interesting to see how they get paid also. Would Chase honor part of the settlement agreement and not the rest? Would they really not pay the lawyers? Would they pay the lawyers and not us?
Sure would be nice to get a big check before Christmas. I won't start putting things on layaway just yet.
The United States of America was found to be liable in the Anchor Savings and Loan Winstar case. The government appealed the decision and the hearing for this appeal will be held on Nov 6th, 2009.
If the award is affirmed, the next question is the payout to the warrant holders. It's quite possible that the long awaited finally of the Anchor case will be just the beginning of the Chase vs warrant holders case.
Yes, Nov 6th
DIMEQ.PK
Yeah, Thanks Rollin/db7.
It was your posts on RB that got me caught up in this debacle. lol
I'm with you though, it's either going to be really good or nothing.
I didn't think to ask the clerk about details of the case.
I'm curious if the distribution of the award will be raised during the appeal hearing or if it will just be a judgement affirming or denying the previous award.
Pacer isn't showing any updates after 7/24/09.
I spoke with the clerk at the Court of Appeals. The parties have completed briefing each other and the case is scheduled to be heard during the November session, November 2nd-6th.