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.
This is crazy. The common has traded 150 today and 130,000 yesterday,so it's actually trading now. I still have the feeling this is a complete rig job, but I'm still long warrants.
I agree. I like our chances more than I ever have.
That is a nice read. The funny thing is that it all makes so much sense. I think someone uninvolved in this could read the Blackwell filings and think, "of course, this makes sense." Legally, I hope that will mean something.
Looking even healthier today. I like this.
Are you drunk?
I've kind of forgotten that as long as wamu common is worth more than the dime judgement , we should get the full value. We'll just get a ton of stock. And it's trading like it is. I didn't even look at wamu yesterday but that would be why dime was up.
We need the anchor case to be finalized. I've forgotten all about the original case.
As far as level 2 goes, it doesn't look as if anything's changed in my etrade system.
"That's why I was surprised at Rosen's response "
He actually told Steinberg that he'd speak to him later about it, trying to shut him up. That was a wierd, weasley, answer. He was hoping everyone would drop it, but both Steinberg and the judge stuck it to him, which I think bodes well for us.
You sound pretty expert to me.
I don't know how this applies, but the ltw's to me are not a right to convert, they are a right to the lawsuit proceeds in the form of stock. Conversion would be mandatory or automatic. One morning we'd find wmi in our accounts rather than dime. At least that's what would have happened had the wamu fiasco not occurred.
Bluzie - good analysis.
" it may be to Broadbill's advantage to drag us all along,"
The fact that Steinberg bothered to ask what Rosen's intentions were tells me that he has some interest in including all holders. The tone of his voice seemed to me that he was surprised and disgusted that Rosen would stoop to trying that. Rosn tried to weasel out of the question but the judge stuck it to him.
I can't imagine that they could apply a ruling to Broadbill and not all holders but that does seem to be what WMI intended.
I know I'm reading too much into a few garbled voices, but I got the impression that the judge thinks Broadbill has a good argument. She seemed to respect what Stein had to say and treated Rosen with contempt.
As far as dragging us along goes, I think that any investor in this has shared ideas with others, put others into it or been put into it by someone else - I have friends involved. I know all of us here would include everyone rather than acepting a side deal and screwing everyone else. Of course this is money we're talking and I wouldn't expect Broadbill to rack up legal fees on my behalf. Hopefully there's a more concrete reason than that.
Good comments here
I just listened again.
The mp3 opens in a player with no time markings. The Steinberg Rosen exchange is about 3/4 through.
Apparently the day before Rosen had written that if Broadbill receives the declaratory relief the debtors would recognize Broadbill as a certain status. (Also referred to page 48, maybe in new por?) Stein asked does that apply to just Broad or all ltw holders? Rosen avoided answering and the judge said, "does it apply to all or not?' Rosen "we focused on Broad because that's what we were responding to."
Judge"Put in all parties in the Broadbill litigation." Does that mean it applies to all ltw's?
The way I heard it, Rosen had filed a change just the day before addresing the status of the LTW's following the Broadbill declaratory relief decision. Steinberg was asking Rosen if it applied to all ltw's or just Broadbill. The judge sounding annoyed,asked Rosen, Well does it? At that point it went garbled, and then, I thought I heard the judge say "Ok then it does." But, that could be completely wrong and someone else here I think heard differently.
Hopefully the archived audio is up soon.
I give up. I think unless the judge says "Dime - You win" I probably won't understand it.
I will try the archive when it's on. We'll be able to rewind on the archive at least.
I thought I heard the judge say "ok so it will apply to all.
It's garbled and the sound cut off on me as Broadbill, the guy, started apeaking.
Maybe someone else heard this but I think Steinberg just clarified that if Broadbill wins? the declaratory judgement the ruling will apply to all dime holders. That's what he was trying to clarify and I'm not sure if I heard that correctly.
Steinberg on. Broadbill on and the sound just cut out.
Thanks for info. I'm going to try and listen.
And if you'd like to spread the word that Paulson is in it because he's been buying large quantities of dime, that would be good with me.
Just kidding of course.
Adamantane - I just saw your name on the yahoo NNA board, assuming that's you. And DB is on the IHub spac board. I'm guessing others in dime are also interested in spacs.
I just bailed out of my nna warrants when I read the news. Now I'm more convinced than ever that deal is going through. Oh well.
NHR Completion date of 7/23. Two months. Not much time.
LIA warrants, to move on to another one, are interesting. They're up a little today but are trading as if the deal has serious problems. It does, but the warrants are worth a look. A little cheaper maybe.
GFC - Warrants are not currently exerciseable. Shares are not registered. They need to file prospectus. Would normally cause a small discount but nothing like this.
Common can't be shorted.
http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Hearing
Click 5/19 and then mp3 audio.
COAST FEDERAL LITIGATION CONTINGENT PAYMENT RIGHTS TRUST - The point about why the ltw were called warrants is a good one. This ccprz appears to be similar. Mirant also issued litigation rights that I think traded. I seem to remember another litigation right trading.
I can't look into this now but there were I think 120 winstar cases. Some other banks probably issued similar vehicles. I wonder what they were called.
The name warrant is wrong. I wonder if they were called rights if they would be seen differently?
Certificates representing undivided interests in the assets of the
Trust, and therefore interests in Ahmanson's commitment, were publicly issued by
the Trust to the holders of Coast Savings' common stock immediately prior to the
effectiveness of Coast Savings' merger with Ahmanson on February 13, 1998, which
certificates trade on The NASDAQ National Market under the symbol CCPRZ
This is from the wamu board:
LISTEN LIVE:
Dial-in at 11:25AM EST
Hearing begins at 11:30AM EST
The bridge number is 712-432-1001 and when prompted for the access code enter 477420980
You may hear silence, a beep or music until the hearing begins.
AUDIO ARCHIVE:
http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Hearing
I listened to the last audio that was available from the US appeal and without understanding much of it I had a pretty good idea that the judge would side with dime. I'm not sure now what will be said about Broadbill on Wed. The agenda says "Summons and Notice of Pretrial Conference in an Adversary Proceeding...Status: The pretrial conference regarding this matter is continued to the omnibus
hearing scheduled for June 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
Is that nothing or could we get something out of it? I'd like to listen, anyways.
New Broadbill filing.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100513000000000013.pdf
I give up. I don't see anything on Pacer relating to Broadbill, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I need a pacer instruction course.
Hey DB. I just found this board and was surprised not only to see a spac board but to see db from the Dimeq board. I guess people that dig deep enough to find dimeq would find spac's also.
Anyway, I bought some gfc warrants. Now I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing here. Was the exercise price raised? Is it still 7.50? And the conference call mentioned they might do something with the warrants similar to what they did with the preferred. Could they be thinking of lowering the strike price?
This one makes no sense to me. The prf conversion will bring out something like 90 mil shares - I don't have the numbers in front of me. And the stock is straight up. I guess the conversion is good but this seems overdone.
Any ideas anyone?
I received mine today. We are listed as "impaired" in the disclosure statement so I guess that's why we receive this.
I just looked at the disclosure statement for the first time. "We've decided your LTW's get nothing and you can't vote." It's no surprise that this is what the debtors would come up with. I think a judge reading the Broadbill complaint would have to think it makes sense. That may not matter legally of course.
If the POR is approved what happens next? We go after the fdic or JPM?
I think it's possible that a number of buyers wanted a position, got to the number they wanted, and are now just sitting back and waiting or scaling some in.
When I first bought this I knew that it could be a zero. But, the zero always seemed off in the distance. It was almost easier to own when there was no chance of a decision. As this comes closer to a resolution, it probably makes more sense to buy it now than ever, however the fear of that zero becomes more real. I suppose some will get the urge to bail out and some will buy more. I'll be somewhere in the middle.
Ok then, "maybe" fifty cents is low. I suppose I believe we have a better than 1 in 4 chance or I wouldn't still own it. Regardless of the odds, I'll make sales on the way up, but I will stay long some to the end.
It's good to hear your optimistic.
Thanks. So 10% of the 360 number would bring the per ltw value down to about 2.30.
If 2.30 is about right as a possible outcome, maybe fifty cents is about right at this time.
Yes. I'm going too fast. Taxes. The grossup is meant to cover taxes and I added it in.
Thanks for correcting me.
So 85% of 357 is 303 divided by 113 outstanding is 2.68 /ltw before legal fees.
What legal fees are I have no idea but unless we're missing something the 2.68 number minus taxes seems correct.
Searching for dimeq I found a good summary using outstanding of 112 million.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30552389/DIMEQ-Warrant-Summary-04-26-10
I'd like some input here. In all this trading it would be good to know what the end payoff could be. Please tell me if my numbers seem accurate or where I'm off.
Judgement in March 2010 was for 356 million plus a possible 63 million dollar grossup for a total of lets say 420.
LTW's are entitled to 85% - the bank 15%.
The prospectus states 113 million would be issued. I saw the number 130 in a post somewhere. I'm going with 112. Anyone know for sure?
So 420 time 85% is 357. Subtract legal fees and divide by 112. With no legal fees the number is 3.18/ltw.
130 million would come to 2.75.
For anyone who doesn't know the history there's a great summary in a post here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48335669
200,000 just crossed. This is beyond the point where it's small amounts of money changing hands. The word is out among professional traders and they're scrambling to buy chunks. Whether these buyers know anything fundamental from a legal standpoint or not I don't know. I've been making small sales. For me, it would be silly not to. Time for lunch. I may make it a long one and hope for 60 when I return.
I had to pipe in here with something
Hello all,
I first bought this in March 2008 because I thought it was a good risk reward. It made sense. The funny thing is that even with all the uncertainty, it's probably a better risk reward now because the time factor is shorter and the case was decided. Good or bad it's finally coming to a head. It makes more sense now than it did then. I paid 33 cents and luckily bought it around two and 3 cents also.
If I had no position and was looking at this for the first time, I would without a doubt be buying it. However, I'm in a position now that probably some of you are also in. At this price I've got a nice profit and a lot of money tied up in dimez. I'd hate to see it disappear.
I think we all have to keep in mind that this still could be a zero. If you can't afford to see it go to zero you may want to make a sale. It's never too wrong to take a profit. Bottom line - whether you just sold it or bought it, I agree with you. Having said that I'm holding on for now.
A few years back I was in a stock called Forgent. Forgent was a patent troll. They claimed they had the patent for jpeg and they sued everybody. 30 or so companies. It was a bet on a lawsuit just like this one. We all went back and forth on a message board about the legal details when the bottom line was that no one, especially me, had a clue as to what would actually happen in court. They settled with enough companies for the stock to go higher and I got out before they finally lost in the end. This is similar, but I can make a much better case for holding on this time. But it all comes down to price. At the right price I'll want to make some kind of sale.
Enough rambling.
Going to $1!!!! Long and Strong Baby!!!!!! Sorry.
I just got excited.
I was holding out out for 21. Just thought I'd reply to show I'm still here.
I am actually wondering what happened with the dimeq at gmail guy who was asking for information supposedly for lawyers. I answered, but told him to email me. They never did. Maybe he was Broadbill?
I wonder what the timetable is for a response on the Broadbill legal thing. I don't know what to call it. It's not a lawsuit.
And it occurred to me that Broadbill is probably making sales right now.
Anyways, I'm still long.
Great job finding this and thanks for sharing it.
It all makes sense to me. I think we win.
"That's from the judge in the Mintz case."
After looking through my files, I'm not sure if what I posted came from the decision or from the FDIC's argument. I can't find the decision.
I doubt anyone cares, but thought I'd clarify rather than possibly mislead.
"I'm not sure that "belongs to" is the accurate term here."
"the Warrant Agreement stated:
6.3. Control of Litigation. The Bank will retain sole and
exclusive control of the Litigation and will retain 100% of any recovery from the Litigation. "
That's from the judge in the Mintz case. He separated the bank from the holding company. The bank "gets" the cash. The holding company issues shares. That's the way I understood it.
But, I think, and hope, that the intent clauses do mean something and that ltw holders could be given cash. If for instance, the case takes so long that the holding company shares are worthless, ltw holders should receive cash. But I'm no lawyer. And I know that's a real longshot.
The more I think about this the more I confuse myself. I still like the risk/reward though. I know that.