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.
"They will not be issuing shares."
I agree!
If they issued 500 million shares at today's closing price of $.235, the company could raise $117.5 million. The math just does not work out. To much dilution.
This is interesting
The Board discussed the timeframe necessary to call a shareholders meeting. The time estimation is between 55 to 70 days due to the Canadian requirements. The Board approved
the preparation of the necessary materials for the calling of the shareholders meetings.
What would the stockholders have to vote on?
Repost from Helios Chariot board
Posted on ADVFN by Rzbern (excuse my basic translation – Helios)
Santos8,
I think the main expectation is with respect to the same shale found in Kudu. Shale is not fractured by tectonic movements and may have sufficient plasticity to trap oil. In the case of the Kudu gas field the difference between accumulations of oil and gas, among other factors, is given by hydrocarbons having undergone different pressures and consequently exposed to different temperatures.
High temperatures find HC in a gaseous state at temperatures below the find in oil window. [The] belief in Moosehead is that the same source rocks in Kudu are active in Moosehead. The shale is also there, and we hope it makes a good trap and that all the conditions of temperature and pressure are favourable, as the porosity of the reservoir Barremian below the shale also has good porosity.
Pacer Docket #49
08/13/2013 49 MOTION for Default Judgment as to defendant(s) BACKSIDE BEVERAGES, LLC dba POMPIS and Memorandum in Support of Unopposed Motion for Entry of Default filed by Plaintiff PomWonderful. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of M. Vasseghi, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Vasseghi, Michael) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
Pacer Update
07/11/2013 43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Defendant Backside Beverages. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for Withdrawal of Defendant's Counsel)(Smith, Timothy) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/12/2013 44 RESPONSE to Motion re 43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Plaintiff PomWonderful. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Decl. of M. Vasseghi in Support of Opposition)(Vasseghi, Michael) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/15/2013 45 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : (Notice generated by chambers) Motion Hearing set for 7/22/2013 at 04:00 PM in Room 103 before Judge Tena Campbell. (cff) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
07/17/2013 46 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Defendant Backside Beverages. (Smith, Timothy) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
07/22/2013 47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tena Campbell: Motion Hearing held on 7/22/2013 re 43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Backside Beverages. Counsel are present and the court hears from them as to the motion to withdraw. For the reasons more fully set out during the hearing the court GRANTS the motion to withdraw and strikes both the 7/30/2013 pretrial and 8/19/2013 trial. Mr. Smith is to notify his client immediately that he has 21 days to obtain new counsel and to have that counsel file an appearance with the court. If new counsel is retained, the court will conduct a status conference by telephone and set a new trial date. All cutoff dates that have expired will not be re-opened for new discovery to be conducted or motions filed. Counsel for plaintiff to prepare and submit a proposed order. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stephen K. Christiansen, Michael M. Vasseghi, Attorney for Defendant: Timothy B. Smith. Court Reporter: Patti Walker. (cff) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
07/25/2013 48 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Timothy B. Smith withdrawn from case for Backside Beverages. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 7/25/13 (alt) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
Docket 42 on Pacer
06/14/2013 42 Proposed Witness List and Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures by PomWonderful. (Vasseghi, Michael) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
Buying interest
The last two days a buyer has been taking all available at $.11 on the ask. Now the bid has gone to $.11.
Thinking about Granite Re as I read this article.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/with-lax-regulation-a-risky-industry-flourishes-offshore/
http://commercialforeclosureblog.typepad.com/indiana_commercial_forecl/files/SymonsOpinion.pdf
The above court case, IGF Insurance Company vs Continental Casualty Company (CCC) discusses the history of the sale of the crop insurance lines which were bought by Acceptance Insurance. The case discusses the sale by CCC to IGF, and then the sale to Acceptance Insurance. Starting at paragraph 40, the case opinion discusses the terms of sale to Acceptance Insurance.
This case has some very interesting discussion about the structure of the agreement between IGF and Acceptance Insurance. From that agreement, I can see how the eventual $17.5 million Granite Re creditor claim came to be. I have often questioned why that agreement was written so poorly. After reading the case, I can see what really happened.
All of the Symons companies(Goran, Sig, Pafco, Superior, IGF, IGFH) went into liquidation or bankruptcy. Except, I can find nothing relating to Granite Re. Nothing defining bankruptcy or liquidation. Granite Re is based in Barbados and that may have an effect on my research.
On another subject, I have a question for Mr Holty. Do you have a link to the 2nd quarter results which you are commenting on for Acceptance Insurance. The Nebraska Department of Insurance has the yearly Summary of Business for 2007 thru 2011, but I cannot find the quarterly numbers you speak of.
56Chevy, If you think the above opinion case is worthwhile, I would encourage you to post the link in the Intro material.
Just to clarify, DIMEQ was treated different than many of the Wamu issues because of the Stipulation. Investors that did not opt in by 5:00PM (pacific time) on February 29, 2012 were permanently opted out.
Case 1:95-cv-00039-LB Document 362 Filed 06/01/12
Sidedraft -- Can you post a link. This is a must read for all remaining LTW holders.
"Unfinished Business"
Law firms win removal of ‘unfinished business’ claims from bankruptcy court
11/28/2011 COMMENTS (0)
November 28 (Westlaw Journals) - The plan administrator for the once-storied, now-defunct Coudert Brothers law firm cannot receive final adjudication in bankruptcy court for its state-law “unfinished business” claims against ten law firms that took over representation of Coudert’s clients, a federal judge has ruled.
Development Specialists Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP et al., Nos. 11-5968, 11-5969, 11-5970, 11-5971, 11-5972, 11-5973, 11-5974, 11-5983, 11-5984, 11-5985, 11-5993, 11-5994, 11-5995, 2011 WL 5244463 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2011).
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York agreed with the defendant firms that the claims should be withdrawn from Coudert’s bankruptcy proceeding in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (June 23, 2011).
Stern holds that while bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over all “core proceedings,” they lack the constitutional authority to enter a final adjudication of core claims involving private rights that are not necessarily determined in ruling on a creditor’s proof-of-claim against the debtor’s estate, unless all the parties consent, Judge McMahon explained in a written opinion.
Under such circumstances, the bankruptcy court may only make a recommendation to the district court, which then enters a final decision.
Coudert, founded in 1853, filed a Chapter 11 petition in September 2006, and disbanded that same year. It was the first American law firm to open offices in London, Singapore and Moscow, according to an Aug. 30, 2005 report in the New York Times.
Development Specialists Inc., the firm’s bankruptcy plan administrator, brought adversary lawsuits against 10 law firms, including Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Duane Morris LLP, Jones Day and Dechert LLP, under the state-law theory of “unfinished business.”
The suits seek to hold the firms liable for any fees earned on matters Coudert’s former partners brought with them, the opinion said.
The firms initially tried to have the suits dismissed under the theory that the “unfinished business doctrine” only applies to contingency fee cases, and not to cases where the client agrees to pay for services on an hourly basis.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York disagreed in an August 2009 ruling. While noting that no New York court had yet to rule on the issue, it predicted that the state’s highest court would allow such a claim to proceed even in non-contingency cases.
With the adversary cases still pending, the Supreme Court issued its Stern decision.
The defendants responded by asking the District Court to withdraw the claims from Bankruptcy Court.
The plan administrator countered that the request is untimely because the bankruptcy case has been pending for several years, and the firms have consented to being in Bankruptcy Court.
Judge McMahon agreed with the firms that their request is timely because Stern changed the legal landscape.
“Stern provided the firms with a legal basis to contest the Bankruptcy Court’s adjudicative power that they did not have before last summer,” she wrote.
Judge McMahon then concluded that the claims should proceed in District Court because the firms have not expressly consented to being in Bankruptcy Court and, under Stern, the Bankruptcy Court lacks the constitutional authority to finally adjudicate the private, unfinished business claims.
She noted that the claims do not involve a public right under a federal statute or scheme, nor is their adjudication necessarily dependent upon the resolution of any proofs-of-claim filed against the bankruptcy estate.
(Reporting by Chip Giambrone, Westlaw Journal Bankruptcy)
I stand corrected
Ameritrade was one of the two brokers I had contacted and they gave the incorrect information that you posted. February 6th only pertains to voting for or against the plan and receiving a distribution on the Effective Date, February 29th.
Section 31.6(c) of the plan describes what stockholders that do not submit anything can do to receive a distribution up to one year after the Effective Date.
However if a Piers holder did submit a ballot and opted out of the releases, the one year term does not apply. That Piers holder would have already made his decision not to take a distribution.
Wahuq now worth zero?
Called two different brokers today. They will accept P's,K's and U's for "releases" through February 23rd. However, both said the H's are no longer accepted for a distribution.
The only way buying H's here are of any value is if the plan fails and all the shares are released.
$1.00 of runoff notes for 1 share of stock
from page 35 of Disclosure
To the extent any electing Creditor receives Reorganized Common Stock pursuant to a
Reorganized Common Stock Election, such Creditor’s share of the Runoff Notes to which the election
was effective (i.e., One Dollar ($1.00) of original principal amount of Runoff Notes for each share of
Reorganized Common Stock) will not be issued and Reorganized WMI will retain an economic interest in
the Litigation Proceeds (and such proceeds will not constitute a component of the Liquidating Trust
Assets) equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Litigation Proceeds such Creditor (solely in its capacity as the
holder of the Allowed Claim to which the Reorganized Common Stock Election is effective) otherwise
would have received (and the Creditor’s rights in respect of distributions from the Liquidating Trust will
be adjusted to the extent such Litigation Proceeds are received by Reorganized WMI).
There are three parts to Dimeq stipulation.
Newco is only one part. See sidedraft's post at msg 6288
o 8.77% of the Reorganized Common Stock (as such
term is defined in the Seventh Amended Plan),
distributed to holders of Common Equity Interests
(the "Allowed Equity Portion," and collectively
with the Allowed General Unsecured Portion and
the Allowed Subordinated Portion, the "Allowed
L TW Claims"); provided, however, that, in the
event that the number of shares of Reorganized
Common Stock distributed to holders within
Classes 21 and 22 of the version of the Seventh
Amended Plan existing as of the date of the
Stipulation are less than the amount set forth
therein, as may be diluted/reduced on account of
Runoff Notes Elections, Reorganized Common
Stock Elections or otherwise, each as referenced in
the Seventh Amended Plan, the amount of the
Allowed Subordinated Portion shall be increased by
twenty cents ($0.20) for each share that the Allowed
Equity Portion is so reduced up to a cap of One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
1) 8.77% x 30% x .95 x 200,000,000 = 4,998,900 shares of Newco
2) 112,975,597 Dimeq shares / 4,998,900 Newco shares = 22.6 old shares for 1 Newco
From the Amended LTW Agreement March 11, 2003
"Trigger" means the occurrence of all of the following events:
(a) receipt by the Bank of the Amount Recovered in full, (b) determination by
the Bank of the amount of the Adjusted Litigation Recovery and (c) receipt of
all regulatory approvals necessary to issue the shares of Common Stock to be
issued upon the exercise of the Warrants, including without limitation, the
effectiveness of a registration statement relating to the issuance of the
Warrant Shares under the Securities Act.
There are multiple pricing options for DIMEQ
Equity Escrow, shall be determined by dividing the amount of the Claim by the per share price of WMI
common stock as of either (a) the Petition Date, as if the Trigger Event, as defined in the Dime Warrant
Litigation, had not occurred, (b) the close of business on the day immediately preceding the Petition Date,
(c) December 12, 2011, as if the Trigger Event had not occurred, (d) the Petition Date, as if the Trigger
Event had occurred, (e) December 12, 2011, as if the Trigger Event had occurred, or (f) such other date as
determined by the Bankruptcy Court.
Pricing options
a) Petition Date Price ( No trigger event) Don't know price???
b) Day before = $1.69
c) $.07
d) Petition Date (Trigger event occurred) Don't know price???
e) December 12,2011 (Trigger event occurred) Don't know price???
half-full, I agree with your calculations using c)= $.07 and b) $1.69 can be calculated. The other options need more work.
What is the value of the trigger event?
Thank you Grudge for posting the links
Perhaps jmbell42 could put these in the Ibox under their own heading. At this point, the agreements have become the most important factor in the future of DIMEQ.
Wall_Street61 mentioned yesterday a reference to section 4.2(d). Here is the complete paragraph:
"(d) The Company hereby represents and warrants that any
Successor Company will enter into, and the Company will provide, an agreement with the Warrant Agent confirming the Holders' rights pursuant to this Section 4.2 and providing for adjustments, which will be as nearly equivalent as may be practicable to the adjustments provided for in this Article IV."
Art Steinberg has focused on Wamu as the liable party. I can see the theory behind that approach. However, we really should be using 4.2(d) to ensure that Wamu enforces our interests with the "Successor Company", that being JPMC. Wamu does not necessarily owe us any money as Judge Walrath has opined, but they do owe us the representation and warranty to uphold our rights to 85% of the Anchor Litigation with the "Successor Company".
Wherever the Anchor Litigation goes, so do we go.
jmbell42 or Bluzie2
Is the actual LTW Warrant agreement with Wamu in the Ibox under a transcript heading or is it in an exhibit to a Court document?
Do you have a link to the LTW agreement with Wamu? Your statement about Section 4.2(d) is interesting.
I know the link, the DIMEQ decision, is already posted. In answer to your question, the path to find it is under "Adversary Case Proceedings" not "Court Documents". Then select the "Broadbill" case.
Decision in favor of defendants
Cannot post directly from Pacer
alertmeipp
Your numbers are pretty close to mine
P= $51.00
K= $1.53
U= $.099
That assumes 2/29/12 Effective date
Disclosure Statement
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229111212000000000005.pdf
This may provide better reading
510(b)
is something the debtor pulled out of the hat in desperation. It is kind of opaque in its nature and the purpose behind its use was and has created confusion. The debtor is just throwing mud at the wall hoping something will stick. Let's face it, the debtor never expected to run into a buzz saw named Art Steinberg.
The fact that Art Steinberg was not in court on December 8th is telling. We cannot have a Disclosure Statement without handling DIMEQ and if the treatment of DIMEQ was less than satisfactory, Steinberg would have been in court. He would simple wait for a Court decision versus being included in the Disclosure settlement.
With a settlement, JMW is off the hook for making a decision. Personally, I hope the settlement modifies the GSA and sends us back to Judge Block's court. That would simplify matters for the entire estate.
There are three possibilities that could include the LTW's.
1) The GSA could be amended and the LTW's liability transferred to JPM, as you suggest.
2) The GSA could be amended to return the Anchor Litigation back to WMI and we would be reinstated as the 85% claimant.
3) Judge Block could make the decision in his court and do a distribution of 85% of the proceeds directly to the LTW's, bypassing both JPM and WMI.
In the Post entitled "Judge Block's Court" there is a very interesting phrase in the "Conclusion."
"until reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to ratify the action"
Who is the real party in interest that the Justice Department refers to? That's the phrase I find so interesting.
Judge Block's Court
Here is a post from observer410... on the Yahoo board back in November.
***************************************************************
The DIME LTW hearing tomorrow is the biggest part of the open chapter in the case. There is another component to the chapter, however. It is still undecided "who" owns the Anchor litigation [regardless of JMW's Opinion on the GSA]. That gives Steiberg just a bit of another feather.
~~~~~~~~~
United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:95-cv-00039-LB
ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Judge Block
ORDER
1/7/11
“The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s “Notice of Submission,” filed this date, in which plaintiff states that the following three motions “have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution” by the court: (1) plaintiff’s motion for correction of award of mitigation damages; (2) plaintiff’s motion for award of a tax gross-up, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”); and (3) defendant’s motion to dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant RCFC 12(b)(1). The court notes that a fourth motion, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s bill of costs, is also pending before the court.
In light of defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it is ORDERED that ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS, though fully briefed, are not ripe for resolution and ARE hereby STAYED. The court will schedule oral argument on defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss in the near future.”
~~~~~~~~~~
The long and short of it, the US DOJ continues to maintain that JPMC is not the successor to WMB and therefore not the successor to the Anchor litigation and lack standing.
“CONCLUSION
The United States requests that the Court dismiss JPMorgan's claim, but delay dismissal of the action and entry of judgment in defendant's favor until reasonable time has been allowed for the real party in interest to ratify the action. In the alternative, we request that the Court reopen discovery to permit the Government the full opportunity to explore the basis for JPMorgan's factual assertions that it is the rightful owner of the Anchor claim.”
9/14/11
Oral Argument was conducted on 9/14/11 by Judge Lawrence J. Block, in a courtroom, in Washington, DC. Official Record of proceeding taken via electronic digital recording (EDR). (Entered: 09/14/2011). However, the 58-PAGE TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on September 14, 2011 before Judge Lawrence J. Block in Chambers is subject to non-party restrictions.
12/27/11
Therefore, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/27/2011. (Entered: 09/28/2011).
"Am I missing something"
You missed Charlotte and the "Totality of the Circumstances"
But you did bring up something interesting tonight... buying a share of WAMUQ ($.061) versus DIMEQ ($.695).
The LTW reserve has already been established at $337 million by the court if as JMW told Art, "If you have a claim".
The debtor wants DIMEQ in class 18 or 21. At this time, even a loss for DIMEQ is not a loss. Here are the givens:
$337 million reserve for DIMEQ
112,975,597 DIMEQ shares
WAMUQ closing price = $.061
$337,000,000/$.061 = 5,524,590,164 shares of WAMUQ common issued to DIMEQ shareholders at today's price. That works out to 48.9 shares of common for each DIMEQ share.
The EC is in a strong position in Mediation. If they don't get what they want, they will press for expanded discovery at the end of Mediation. Expanded discovery of the SNH and expanded discovery of the GSA negotiations. They can drag this out for another year into 2013 and with additional discovery make there IT position stronger. That's why I think Mediation will be successful. Everybody has something to loose, and equity has nothing to loose.
I don't think DIMEQ will end up with WAMUQ common. With 5.5 billion shares they would own 76% of the company. That won't play very well in any reorganization plan. The $337 million carries a lot of weight as equity.
If we go to class 12, that is pretty easy. We get paid!
There is one other outcome. JMW could send the DIMEQ back to Judge Block's Court.
OK, I see it. Thank you.
Bluzie2 Defendants response?
I see Arthur's file(Plaintiff's) posting on the sticky board but not the defendants. My request was for the defendants response Docket # 302.
Most of the discussion is now in reference to the defendant's Docket # 302, in particular 510(b). That is the reason for my request.
jmbell42... Sticky Request
Could you put sidedraft's message #4365 regarding Docket #302 as a sticky at the top. Most of the current discussion is focused on this document.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68667739
Adversary Proceeding # 10-50911 Docket #300
Wall-street61 has the correct information.
See Exhibit A, under Docket #300
Debtor has thru Nov 3rd, 80 pages
Plaintiff reply Nov 17th, 80 pages.
Information came yesterday via rumor. Nothing had been posted on Pacer at the time.
Rumor has it
that a extension of up to two weeks has been granted to the debtor to make their filing. This will now postpone the filing until after the mediation status update scheduled for November 7th. It does not imply that there is any correlation between the mediation and DIMEQ.
Doc #276 Joint Pre-Trial Order
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110908000000000002.pdf