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.
I haven't received anything yet. How many shares is 5%?
Look at the share count of VRTB...
I believe it is being done to slowly squeeze out the minority shareholders. In many states, if a shareholder has less than 1 share it is easier for the company to buy them out.
Frankly, I'm surprised Mr. Shustak has time to be CEO, given the SEC charges he's now fighting.
Anyone have info on the tender to convert pfd. Into common at 4.5 to 1 ratio?
Indeed
I'd like to thank any Pan Pacific Bank shareholders for their continued support and confidence. I know the Board and Management of PPFC are pleased with the transaction announced earlier today. The hard work of CEO Wayne Doiguchi and the entire team at Pan Pacific, our diverse and capable Board of Directors, and the support of our loyal shareholders, combined to deliver exceptional returns over the past three years. I strongly believe California Bank of Commerce will be an incredibly successful force in the California banking business in the years ahead. It'll be a privilege to be associated with them as an exciting evolution in financial services occurs in the years ahead.
Picture of mom on my desk? No, that's Trixi from Vegas!
Just kidding....
OMG,
Because of the board seat, I've been advised to generally avoid making public comments regarding EVOQ. Having said that,
I can answer some of your questions. Both the fund and I, personally, have held all of our shares following the reorg plan. You recall all shareholders had to tender a portion of their shares at 35 cents (1.75 post split). As a shareholder, we did that, but have sold no shares since.
I am having fun. I believe market is continuing to improve in downtown Los Angeles. There is still a lot of work to do, but I believe we are making solid progress.
I became involved in EVOQ because I felt substantial equity remained in the company despite prior management's statements to the contrary. It was a difficult process, during a very difficult period, but I think the equity committee did its job. With the help of informed and dedicated shareholders like Chevy and EI, we were able to do what was right and make sure all shareholders were served fairly.
I'll try to answer some of your other questions sometime in the next few days- I'm spending the holidays with my family and will be back in the office in a week or so.
Steve
Don't assume we don't have a position in the bonds.
I am on the board at Evoq ( formerly MMPI )....and if you do root around at TAM, don't mess up my desk ;)
Steve
Great work by Wayne, Joe, Dale, and the entire Pan Pacific team....Hope you are doing well Chevy :)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pan-pacific-bank-announces-record-100000927.html
SST
Once again Joe, you have your facts wrong. I mentioned 9 stocks favorably (and said we own them), 3 private companies, and 2 companies that our fund doesn't own.
To all- I would encourage folks to track down and read the Corriente Advisors report on China, which I mention in the article. It raises some questions about China, and I'd like to get others' thoughts. Thanks.
Steve
P.S.- Joe, Use both sets of fingers this time.
Bob, just doing a little pro-bono work on the side here...
We are a registered fund. The value of our reputation, our business ethics, and the trust of our clients is very important to us. It's the foundation of our business. So when someone shoots their mouth off, using erroneous information, and sloppy thinking, we'll call them on it. Goodnight.
The company did file an S-3 Registration statement giving all investors in its earlier private placements the opportunity to sell a portion of their holdings. This filing does not indicate that the shares will be or have been sold, but gives holders the option should they desire. Remember, the investors listed in that table have been holding these securities for more than a year.
Companies raising money have to give their investors liquidity at some point, or the investment flow would slow down. Most investing institutions require the issuer to file these type of registration statements within a certain time frame.
As for our fund, I'd note that this registration statement only covers two-thirds of our holdings...while some of the holders have all of their shares registered. Finally, our fund was the largest buyer of LPH stock and helped encourage participation by other funds.
We continue to have a favorable opinion of LPH and its prospects- but may also be a seller as the price rises, or better investment opportunities present themselves. That is the way capital markets should function.
As a final thought, remember that most investors can sell private placement stock after one year, under Rule 144 - regardless of whether or not a registration statement has been filed.
Hope this adds to the discussion,
Stephen Taylor
You've got company on that graveyard shift Chevy...
No comment :)
It suspect it would be inappropriate for him to do so (smile).
The petition for the Official Equity Holders Committee was for a committee to represent the "Non-insider" equity holders. The reasoning was that Meruelo and Maddux were managing and controlling the debtor, and were thus represented by the debtor in the court. In apointing an OEC, the Court may have taken the position that minority shareholders' interests were not being adequately represented and that a seperate voice was needed for them in court.
Ron Orr, attorney for the Equity Holder's Committee raised an interesting point about the purported contracts of RM and JM. The original agreements expired in January. Were they renewed without the permission of the bankruptcy court? Did the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approve something or not?
Interesting...
Company's filing of Form 15-12B on January 22, 2010 is HIGHLY questionable.
The are using that filing, and rule 12g-4(a)(1) (which allows a company to delist its stock if it has fewer than 300 shareholders of record), to get out of having to file SEC reports, proxy statements, etc. This is not appropriate public company behavior.
And it certainly doesn't reflect a board fulfilling its fiduciary obligations.
FYI-
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/reg12G.html
and especially this-
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule12g5-1.html
NOTE section b. 1.
The company is likely trying to count DTC (Depository Trust Corp) as only 1 shareholder, when in fact it may represent hundreds of shareholders who hold their stock in street name. Look at the numbers of shareholders listed in the 10q of Q1 2009, then look at the number of shareholders listed in the disclosure statements filed as recently as April and May. In all three cases the number of shareholders easily exceeds 300, probably exceeeds 500.
The company should withdraw their 15-12b filing immediately. The company's citation of progressively lower shareholder counts 600, 126, 61, 57 over the last 12 months defies belief.
Maybe the next letter writing campaign should go to the SEC ;)
Those conference call transcripts are interesting....
I don't think that will happen.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortswingprofitrule.asp
Now that's funny....