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.
?...:
All I have to say is thank goodness we are talking about solvency with regards to the dividend. That should be the main focus(in my opinion).
If your potential damage is less than $1000.00, then don't "seriously" worry about it. If it is more...........don't worry about it still. Everyone wants your money(a staple phrase)......I know...and have been there.
They never guess:
Um no. Try CANTO IV via Dante. Fourth, fifth and sixth lines from the story. On the edge of the actual Pit of Hell just entering the first circle. It's only three lines......but thinking many around here fit that rhythmic structure.
Just the opposite:
Well....think about that a little bit harder:
They actually are doing more harm to themselves and their opinion.
Complete idiocy.eom
No. From day one of the suit.......two issues were a known basis. Fraud and solvency. The interpretation and opinion will be based on that. All other "may" be relevant...but very little weight will be applied to such. It really never mattered what type of dividend or due bills..etc. The load is the issue of a Company not funding a dividend that was "due"...be it..the Company that is established in Nevada is insolvent.
What fn' strong letter are you talking about?....just curious.
There is a reason behind this:
Well..the TD delay and acceptance may have opened the door for such:
It was smart. It was a counter to parties(implied) before a response via another party. It's documented and dated. What permission would be needed? It is part(permitted) of the order.
:)................yesssss.eom
....held for a ringer...."or other"....is my guess. The timing is perfect. You just need to support the "expedited" motion. COR complained for them(filed such).....pretty slick on their/all part(plural).
They nailed it.....and it is documented. Nailing it is a bit overboard though...eh? The deadline didn't matter here....it can be included with the response. Pitch of given fraud noted.
The missing amount of cash became larger.
?...and their argument is that "They" should have not done such? I'll just have to read it....no need to reply.
I haven't read it, but is this worded correctly?:
Ha!...you must have short term memory. Again...with that said:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=117897452
?...not sure I agree....do you have a link handy regarding the order via judge. Sorry for asking.
COR(from memory)is allowed to respond. Maybe you are suggesting a blanket response? Not directed to an individual objection?
God Bless you friend! I have become so lazy and apologize to all. Sorry.
You need to read it again. Refer here first:
IV.
THE REMEDY PROPOSED BY PLAINTIFF IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE EVENT OF ERRORS, NOT AS A REMEDY FOR FRAUD
The appointment of a receiver to effectuate such an adjustment sets a dangerous precedent for future cases involving allegations of fraud, especially considering there has been no discovery in this case to determine the extent of the fraud
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118137087
That is the long ball....I don't agree...but it was a good throw.
This is about Fraud and Solvency(my opinion from the start). A given of both in my opinion....and their argument suggesting such is not a remedy for fraud could fly(doubt it)....but I like it. The request for Bond is another good throw. It may just fly be it similar. Think of Escrow. Still...a bit confusing...because there seems to be a possibility that more money is missing or it may have been selective with regards to a "Due Bill"......
All will apply to the Judge's interpretation of the Law. Remember!!!!!!!!! The critical part is not the "Law" as much as the "Interpretation" of said Law. Can't wait to read the Judge's opinion.............Oh boy!
Geesh......FINRA...hello?
Again...how could the share price be adjusted to a negative share price.... post ex date. The freakn' cash divi is higher than the share price..... Completely insane and all parties should have understood that...and I mean "All" parties involved....innocent, ignorant. and most of all...Complacent/Compliant.
Nice catch!:
Agree..... they had to though given their exposure. They are more concerned about collection costs than said customers.
Yes....but it still lacks in parts....and the response must argue that. Looking forward to that read more so. It is also of my opinion that this was a "subtle" stall tactic(if such..kudos). A day here or there adds up. If TD would have secured accounts like E-Trade did.......you wouldn't have heard a peep from them...eh?
TD is one of my disco brokers......glad to see them respond the way they did. Still.....what a mess.
You would think so.
That was a great response.
IV.
THE REMEDY PROPOSED BY PLAINTIFF IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE EVENT OF ERRORS, NOT AS A REMEDY FOR FRAUD
The appointment of a receiver to effectuate such an adjustment sets a dangerous precedent for future cases involving allegations of fraud, especially considering there has been no discovery in this case to determine the extent of the fraud
.......prior:
Furthermore, the relief sought by the Receiver Motion is based on evidence that has not been subjected to the rigors of cross-examination. --- I laughed at that one because they said this right after:
Although such cross-examination would not normally be required prior to the appointment of a receiver
All in all......ok argument in my opinion. I may disagree with a lot of it....but was a decent read
Everyone is afraid of the governing party that allowed this to happen. Hello FINRA via SEC.... look what you contributed to....a royal mess.
ps.....loved the "Bond thing"....good throw in
Search the patent base..I killed all those bookmarks...but a patent app is there.....I have seen that kiln before.....not kidding one bit. I do not believe it is Grahms..it's somebody else.
That kiln looks familiar...seem to remember via patent search..?...something's very similar here.
Way to go buddy!!!!..ha!
Wow..actually put forth over a year ago...right here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105721832
I posted that a while ago....roughly 6 months a guess.
With out a doubt!.eom
Fos's alter ego here:
ha!..god yes!
People still will not get it:
Well....that is actually a point that may deserve study. Do they?: