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.
S sax
Your time in this matter is very much appreciated by all, I am sure.
thanks for the clarity
obiter, I've had some health issues which have prevented me from participating in this forum. I've tried to catch up and appreciate your commentary on the proceedings.
Maybe I'm a bit annoyed at this point with the Treasury but this latest revelation from Treasury that the monies were an investment vs. loan, I mean does it really matter ?
As we have discussed before and you so eloquently stated when asked,
" In your opinion has the FHFA entered into a legal contractual agreement itself or on behalf of the GSE's, which signs away a portion of its powers to another agency, which may be deemed illegal ?"
"When the FHFA enters into a legal contractual agreement by itself or on behalf of the GSEs, such agreements and the provisions and covenants within them can have binding effects on FHFA actions.
If the FHFA signs away a portion of its powers to another agency or makes FHFA or its conserved entities dependent on another agency decision or participation, then it is so until the contracts are amended, waived, or deemed illegal and rendered void and vacated."
"In your opinion has the FHFA entered into a legal contractual agreement itself or on behalf of the GSE's, which signs away a portion of its powers to another agency, which may be deemed illegal ?"
"Yes. The Third Amendment to the SPSPA."
Is Treasury trying to divert attention with loan vs. investment, does it really matter ?
TIA and I hope you don't mind me quoting you.
Thanks obit for the very relevant cases and explanation of the dpp.
Very technical and slow reading and re-reading for my peanut brain to comprehend, and very much appreciate the time you devote to this cause and I'm sure most on this board concur.
I've come away with a few questions I hope you can shed some light on.
I'm a bit confused by the process of how an objection comes into play.
When a document is entered into the privilege log how does the plaintiff determine whether or not to object, do they get an opportunity to view it ?
The statement , "When the integrity of the deliberative process itself is an issue in the case, the deliberative process privilege cannot be invoked to foreclose inquiry into those deliberations", how is "integrity" defined as an issue ?
And if I can ask your indulgence, what is meant by "some undefined minimal evidentiary threshold" as stated below ?
"Similarly, courts have stated that the
deliberative process privilege is negated when the party seeking discovery has
provided “reason to believe” that governmental misconduct will be uncovered
by the requested material.60 However, bare allegations of misconduct
are not enough.61 To activate this per se exception, the litigant must meet
some undefined minimal evidentiary threshold.62"
TIA again
Thanks
So the judge sees the docs and makes the call?
Hi Obit,
I've been away from the board for awhile and am glad to see you're still contributing to the clarity of a very complicated situation.
When you say:
""deliberative process privilege" which has been invoked by the executive branch - DOJ, the defense. In this case documents can be withheld if they are found to be pre-decisional and deliberative under existing legal precedents. "
Who makes the decision " if they are found to be pre-decisional and deliberative under existing legal precedents "?
Are there parameters for a doc to be pre-decisional and deliberative or is it subjective?
TIA
Thanks
Hope you had a good one
Thanks
Have you seen last nights filing in the Sweeney court ?
Plaintiffs motion for leave to file amicus brief.
mb
Have you checked timhoward717 ? They are formulating a "Statement of Truth" campaign.
obiter you have piqued my curiosity
In your opinion has the FHFA entered into a legal contractual agreement itself or on behalf of the GSE's, which signs away a portion of its powers to another agency, which may be deemed illegal ?
As always thanks for your consistent input
From your link HERA 2008
122 STAT. 2736 PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
‘‘(7) AGENCY NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCY.—When acting as conservator or receiver, the Agency
shall not be subject to the direction or supervision of any
other agency of the United States or any State in the exercise
of the rights, powers, and privileges of the Agency."
Does this apply to Treasury?
Is there any requirement in HERA which requires the Treasury to be consulted before Watt makes any move to release the GSE's ?
TIA as always
Thanks obiter
Should we be concerned with the csp in any way ?
http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Policy/Pages/Securitization-Infrasturcture.aspx
Good to see you chiming in at times, telling it like it is and not what we want you to say.
Appreciate it if you could comment on statements that Layton and Watt made at the MBA conf in Las Vegas.
Very applicable metaphor and very much appreciated
Thank you Obiter for your customary concise and informative analysis of the legal issues before us. You help me in separating the forest from the trees.
Could you please explain your comment "Wise and well-informed moves were made by filing injunctive and takings suits against the US Treasury, FHFA and the US Government."?
TIA
MHz
T rtht uimmyw
Toi
BIG YANK,
Are you implying that without the lawsuits, eventually somehow the gov't would allow f/f to emerge from conserv. and the "sweep" would be cancelled ?
WOW
Therefore all swindlers in the world should not be prosecuted because eventually they will change their evil ways and return what they
stole.
I would assume that the conversion price would be adjusted by 1/5
News
5:1 split
Dividend policy
Share repurchse
The stock is trading ex-dividend, so add $12.00 to the price of the trading stock and you arrive at about $159.00. Typical for when a stock goes ex. Nothing to worry about.
Agree, same result just a different way of explainig it.
Special dividends and warrants
From the experience I have regarding warrants and special dividends it has always been the case that when a special dividend is declared the warrants are adjusted one way or another. In our situation the $12.50 is classified as a special dividend and therefore upon conversion an additional $12.50 is payable to the converter together with each share that's converted. The planned additional $25.00 special dividend should also be treated in some similar way. However, when it comes to regular quarterly dividends this does not apply. If I am wrong please advise.
Either way you will make money. If the stock goes up the warrants appreciate more, percentage wise. When the special dividend is declared the warrants are adjusted so that the warrant holders do not lose out if and when they decide to convert. When the split is announced the warrants usually don't split but become more volatile.
I agree, most times when stocks go ex it's usually momentary and they usually bounce right back, which will probably occur with Tronox. I'm looking for much higher numbers in anticipation of China continuuing to cut rates and resolution of the Euro crisis (Greece, Spain, France, Portugal etc.) I'm also looking for more road shows in order to spread our story.
Don't be surprised if the stock drops the day it goes ex-dividend.
Are you referring to the special dividend of 12.50 ?
The road show begins.
STAMFORD, Conn., June 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Tronox Incorporated (TROX.PK) announced today that Tom Casey, chairman and chief executive officer, will participate in the Deutsche Bank 2012 Global Industrials and Basic Materials Conference on June 14, 2012. Mr. Casey will provide an overview of Tronox and present the company's growth opportunities and leadership positions in key markets and geographies around the world.
Presentation slides will be available on Tronox's Investor Relations web site at: http://investor.tronox.com/
Tronox is a global leader in the production and marketing of titanium
So the trust has the expense but TROX receives the benefit in the form of a write-off. As we know that could amount to major millions with these attorneys. No downside for us.
I thought I heard mention during one of the conference calls that there was a possibility that Tronox, depending upon the outcome of suit, might have the use of a tax loss carryforward.
On this site, go to news for Tronox
Check out new form 425 just filed. Updated investor presentation, reads very well.
Cianfichi believes there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the additional chloride-base supply in China as those producers currently don't have access to that technology (and there is a U.S. technology theft compliant registered against the China state-owned Pangang and others for stealing DuPont technology) and have had little success in running any of their plants at close to name-plate capacity.
It wouldn't surprise me if Woodruff and Seth Klarman of Baupost read these jokers the riot act. You figure they should have learned their lesson after what happened at Enron, Global Crossing, etc.
Paige you are so right-on. The tutes are aware of this and are trying to get more of a commitment out of of management or else this ain't gonna fly. There is too much gravy for management and not enough for stockholders. These side deals should be looked at very closely.
Credit Suisse
Supply/demand balance for titanium oxide, or TiO2, will tighten in 2013-2014 owing to a dip in demand in 2012 (largely tied to Asia and inventory destocking).
The industry will see a modest dip in utilization rates in 2012 versus 2011. However, with limited supply and demand growth improving both in the U.S. and Asia, the supply demand balance should tighten in 2013 and through most of 2014 (until DuPont's (ticker: DD) large brown-field expansion comes on).
Given limited capacity and the end of long-term low cost contracts, the ore producers are putting through significant price increases (resulting in raw material costs spiking for TiO2 producers). This tight supply along with the aforementioned demand growth should result in continued price/cost pressure over the next few years -- especially for rutile [a natural form of TiO2], with some supply relief coming for ilmenite [a titanium ore].
Despite the outlook for raw materials to push significantly higher, the TiO2 producers are expected to see improved profitability over the next few years. While the percentage margin may subside (given the spiking raws), overall profits should rise as the industry passes through raw-material increases as well as "real" price increases due to the tight supply/demand balance.
Currently, beyond the Chinese capacity announcements (that have historically been significantly overstated and now have some legal issues over patent infringements regarding the chloride process as well), there is limited supply coming on over the next few years with DuPont's large brownfield and debottlenecks coming largely at the end of 2014. In the event that we don't hear announcements for new supply (both in titanium ores and TiO2 capacity), we could see utilization rates remain in the high 80%s in 2015 and push back into the 90%s beyond that. This would result in further price hikes and profitability for the industry.
On May 10, we hosted a conference call with Gary Cianfichi of Ti Insights on the TiO2 industry. Cianfichi estimates global TiO2 nameplate capacity was about 6.7 million metric tons in 2011, although available/effective capacity was well below (about 5.7 million metric tons or 15% below).
The top five producers represented about 53% of nameplate capacity: DuPont accounts for 19%; Cristal Global [of Saudi Arabia], 11%; Huntsman (HUN), 8%; Kronos Worldwide (KRO), 8%; and Tronox (TROX), 7%.
Roughly 24% of the nameplate capacity is located in the U.S. and 29% in China, which compares with 31% of supply in the U.S. and 13% of supply in China in 2005. That said while China's share of nameplate TiO2 capacity has increased over the years, Cianfichi estimates their effective/available capacity is on average about 40% below nameplate capacity given the producers continued struggles with quality/purity as they don't have access to the chloride-based production process.
Looking ahead, Cianfichi forecasts available/effective supply to grow at a 3.5% compounded annualized growth rate (CAGR) through 2015 with total effective supply reaching about 6.8 million metric tons by 2015 (up 1.2 million metric tons from 2011). Of the announced incremental supply coming on roughly 62% will be produced from the chloride process split 50/50 between China and non-China, although, again, Cianfichi is skeptical that the Chinese capacity will come on as expected. The remainder (32%) of the production will be tied to the sulfate process (almost exclusively coming from China).
Looking at the producers, Cianfichi expects DuPont to add 250,000 metric tons in the U.S. and Mexico (the bulk in late 2014), Cristal Global to add 95,000 metric tons in Saudi Arabia and U.S. (part of which has already come on, with a further about 10,000 metric tons to be added in 2012/2013, and about 40,000 metric tons in 2015), and Tronox to add 23,000 metric tons in Netherlands and Australia (coming on-stream in 2012/2013). The remainder of the supply (about 824,000 metric tons) is expected to come from the Chinese producers.
However as we stated earlier, Cianfichi believes there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the additional chloride-base supply in China as those producers currently don't have access to that technology (and there is a U.S. technology theft compliant registered against the China state-owned Pangang and others for stealing DuPont technology) and have had little success in running any of their plants at close to name-plate capacity.
-- John P. McNulty
-- Alina Khaykin
-- Abhiram Rajendran
Stock Exchange Listing
Upon completion of the Transaction, we expect the Class A Shares to be listed on the NYSE.
As per S-4A just filed
Each outstanding warrant to purchase shares of Tronox Incorporated common stock will be adjusted at closing to provide that the obligations of Tronox Incorporated will be assumed by Tronox Limited without any action on the part of the holder of such warrant. Each outstanding warrant will become a warrant to acquire, under the same terms and conditions, upon payment of the exercise price, at the option of the warrantholder: (1) one Class A Share of Tronox Limited and $12.50 in cash, or (2) an Exchangeable Share (provided there are Exchangeable Shares outstanding immediately following the completion of the Transaction). Any fractional Class A Shares resulting from an aggregation of all such warrants granted to the holder under a particular award agreement with the same exercise price shall be rounded down.
In the event the shares of Tronox Incorporated common stock held by holders who elect to receive Exchangeable Shares represent less than 5.0% of the aggregate number of shares of Tronox Incorporated common stock outstanding on the record date of the special meeting and therefore no Exchangeable Shares are issued in connection with the Mergers, each outstanding warrant will become a warrant to acquire one Class A Share of Tronox Limited and $12.50 in cash.