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.
For Post #754. NO WRONG DOING HERE.
Mr. Jones is attempting to smear me in my efforts to answer questions and assist in moderating this Board. I did say in Post #676 yesterday that Mr. Saviano clears all my posts. I misspoke when I wrote that because Mr. Saviano DOES NOT clear my posts on behalf of the Company. When I wrote that the only post that was taken to Mr. Saviano by me was post #657 dealing with the technical aspects of what was the published position of the Company dealing with the date deadline. No improper information was disbursed by me and a review of all of my posts will show that I only reiterated that which had already been published by the Company.
For Post #717
Hey that pesky SEC is involved, what can we say? It all will come in due course.
For Post #714
Deadline has been corrected. Please read Post #682
For Post # 710
Contact the Irish government and challenge them on their grammatical construction and word etymology of the letter. The contact information is public.
For Post # 709
November 5, 2010 @ 4PM EST is no longer the deadline to become qualified to participate in the Buy Back Offer of the "float" stock with FGBF.
For Post #707
If you have submitted a form and then purchased more stock at a later date it would take an additional form filing with the Company to register those shares for the Buy Back Offer. The deadline will be establish by SEC filing.
For Post #703
1) Can I still by now and be eligible?
Answer: Read Post #682
2) When filling the form it doesn't have a link for other countries only in U.S with zip code (I am from Canada)does that matter?
Answer: It does not matter if you're from Canada. For now, until I check with Mr. Saviano, type all, your town, country and codes in the city block and then do your entire name and address information in the comment section as a back up record.
3) Is it mandatory to fill the form?
Answer: YES
For Post #702
Your Broker does communicate to the Transfer Agent and Mr. Saviano has the shareholder of record list (constantly updated) from the Transfer Agent. All legitimate stock is accounted for.
Well there you go, asked and answered. You are in good shape.
For Post #698
All legitimate shares are registered with the Transfer Agent and owners of those shares are shareholder of record.
For Post #696 please refer to Post #661 herein above.
For Post #693
To reflect the true value of the stock. As it says in the heading of that PR; "Your company is worth at least $6.00 per share". The Company is putting its money where its mouth is and recognizing that true value of the stock for the benefit of the shareholders.
For Post #686, please refer to this link
http://www.worldcorporateassets.com/News.html
That should shed light on what the Company is doing.
For Post #683, please refer to Post #650 which states in part as follows.
The Company reports that it is receiving Stock Tender applications from 1st Global Shareholders that wish to participate in the Company's Buy Back Offer and that staff is starting to process those applications.
For Post #680. Re-read Post #657 which states in part as follows:
Clarification of deadline for participation by 1st Global Shareholders in Company Buy Back Offer of float shares.
The initial offer date is the 5th November 2010, the offer is made formal by a formal offer under the SEC rules and regulations before the end of Feb 2011. All shareholders on the record at the Share Transfer Agent or who can prove they have bought float shares at the time of the formal offer are included for participation in the Company's Buy Back Offer.
Thank you for your inquiries. I'll be most happy to assist in the questions anyone has and will work to get answers back to you all in this public forum.
To Mr. Jones. My position is an assistant moderator for company on this board, serving at the pleasure of Mr. Saviano who clears all of my posts for the company.
As to me wanting to see your FGBF cert, the answer is no. Please re-read my post, I believe the request was that you, via private email communicate your proof ownership directly with Mr. Saviano.
THE REMARKS HEREIN ABOVE ARE MY OWN AND ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS COMING IN A FORMAL POST FROM THE COMPANY.
Seems that if what Mr. Jones and blulotus allege in their posts is true, then the Irish government would be issuing a formal statement denying all the claims FGBF has published asserting their affiliation with the Republic of Ireland and NAMA. Moreover, would it not make further sense that the Irish government would have their counsel issuing a cease and desist, or bringing a cause of action to FGBF requesting a court of law to issue a quick TRO against FGBF. BUT NO, THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. Instead, The Irish government does issue a formal letter to the world telling "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" how much they (the Irish Government) support FGBF. FGBF has published everything, with all kinds of contact information. Maybe some further DD is in order.
P.S. OBTW Mr. Jones, care to send proof of your sizable position in share ownership of FGBF in a private email to Mr. Saviano? I'm certain you have his FGBF email addee. The rules are, nothing is to be blacked out or redacted on a cert and must be fully disclosed so that the proof of your position can be verified with the stock transfer agent. Do you have any problems with this?
THE REMARKS HEREIN ABOVE ARE MY OWN AND ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS COMING IN A FORMAL POST FROM THE COMPANY.
FGBF CLARIFIES AUTHORIZED SHARE INCREASE 11-10-2010-3
The increase of authorized shares are created so that the Company can facilitate the Institutional Investors and for future use. The Institutional Investors will hold their shares and those shares will not be exercised in the market place. The FGBF Shareholders do not have to fear any type of a dilution of their shares.
FGBF STOCK BUYBACK REGISTRY UPDATE 11-10-2010-2
Clarification of deadline for participation by 1st Global Shareholders in Company Buy Back Offer of float shares.
The initial offer date is the 5th November 2010, the offer is made formal by a formal offer under the SEC rules and regulations before the end of Feb 2011. All shareholders on the record at the Share Transfer Agent or who can prove they have bought float shares at the time of the formal offer are included for participation in the Company's Buy Back Offer.
FGBF STOCK BUYBACK REGISTRY UPDATE 11-10-2010-1
The Company reports that it is receiving Stock Tender applications from 1st Global Shareholders that wish to participate in the Company's Buy Back Offer and that staff is starting to process those applications.
VERY GOOD INFORMATION ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHORTS
WINNERS OUTNUMBER LOSERS, BIG TIME
The ones that held or bought heavy at the end are going to win big. The Company stands by its offer and those that cratered and sold out of FEAR are now in the "SO SORRY CHARLIE" crowd. All that the panic Sellers can do now is push their nose up against window and watch the $6 buy back from the outside.
OLDEST TRICK IN THE BOOK
The Predators came in and created FEAR establishing a straw man (Boogie Man) and scared the weak into selling them their shares so that these Predators would have more shares for themselves and they have met the 4PM EDT deadline which will now enable them to sell what could have been YOUR stock for the $6 pr/share buy back program...
It's all good for FGBF Shareholders
I would suggest that a fair reading of the articles (WSJ & Irish Times alone with "Investing in Ireland") shows that NAMA whom FGBF is partnered with has a solid program thereby working to the benefit of the FGBF Shareholders. In addition, Newsworthy's statement that the decks are now "cleared" for 1st Global is spot on.
IRISH TIMES ARTICLE
irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Monday, November 1, 2010, 13:00
McKillen loses Nama challenge
SIMON CARSWELL, Finance Correspondent
Property investor Paddy McKillen has failed in his legal challenge stopping the transfer of his bank loans to the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).
The Commercial Court ruled this morning Mr McKillen had not made a substantial issue in relation to constitutionality of the legislation establishing the agency. It ruled unanimously against th
"The court has concluded that the [Nama] act is a proportionate response to the very grave financial situation in which the State finds itself and which has particular relevance to financial institutions within the State," the special three-judge division of court said in their ruling.
The judgment was delivered by President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns sitting with Mr Justice Frank Clarke and Mr Justice Peter Kelly.
The court said it was prepared to grant Mr McKillen leave to seek judicial review only in respect of his right to fair procedures but refused to grant this, saying the court was not satisfied Mr McKillen was ultimately entitled to succeed on those grounds.
"The court is not concerned with deciding whether the policy options adopted by the Oireachtas as a solution to the banking crisis are the best solutions," the judges said.
"Rather, the court is concerned with the question of whether there is a rational basis for the selection of those policy options." The judges said the court was "satisfied that there was such a rational basis".
Michael Cush SC, for Mr McKillen, told the court they would need to consider the judgment but indicated they would let the court know on Friday whether they would seek to apply for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Nama was set up the Government last year to take the most toxic loans out of the banking system. It is acquiring €74 billion of loans from five participating financial institutions.
Mr McKillen challenged Nama on the transfer of his loans from Bank of Ireland to the agency, but the case has implications for his loans of €2.1 billion with lenders participating in the Nama scheme.
The investor and 15 of his companies were seeking a judicial review of the decision of Nama to acquire their Bank of Ireland loans, estimated by them at some €211 million and by Nama at €297 million. Nama proposes to acquire a total of €2.1 billion loans held by the McKillen applicants.
The seven-day case concluded last month at the Commercial Court.
In their ruling today, the judges said it was not for the court to determine what the best or proper procedure should be but rather to decide whether the policy option by the Oireachtas is permissible.
Mr McKillen had argued that his loans should not be transferred to Nama as he was repaying them in full and that the transfer of his loans would damage his ability to refinance the loans with non-Nama banks.
The court found that Mr McKillen did not have "a constitutionally protected right" to have his loans dealt with by a commercial bank rather than by Nama.
Without the range of Government measures adopted, Mr McKillen would not be able to conduct "normal banking relationships with those banks", the court concluded.
"In those circumstances, Mr McKillen would have been required, in the absence of Government intervention, to have procured other banks willing to lend to him on normal commercial terms," the judges said.
"That right remains open to him as he has the clear right to redeem any or all of his loans from Nama if he can persuade another non- participating bank to lend him money so as to take out loans which will 'go into Nama'."
The judges said that it did not seem to be a central consideration whether Mr McKillen's loans can be said to be impaired.
"Very many people will be paying both in money, in jobs and in other ways, for a very considerable period of time, to pay the price of solving the problems of Irish banks," the court said in its ruling.
"The vast majority of those persons had nothing to do with creating the problem. Yet they will be required to play their part in its solution to their cost."
Loans were not going into Nama as punishment for borrowers whose problems may have contributed to the financial crisis which has hit the banks, the judges said.
They are being transferred to Nama as the scheme is part of a range of policy measures deemed necessary by the Government and the Oireachtas to solve the problem in the Irish banks.
Other parts of the policy mix will "require significant public funding which will place an interest burden on the State of a very significant amount on a more or less indefinite basis", the court said. "Many will pay the price for [that]."
Even compliant borrowers with eligible loans will find their loans going into Nama as part of an overall solution to solving the problems of the banks, they said.
The creation of Nama was "a reasonable and proportionate policy response" to the problems that the act setting up the agency seeks to address.
There was no doubt that Nama's definition of what is an "eligible asset" is extremely broad, the court found, but that this was no reason for questioning the "constitutional validity" of the legislation.
The definition is designed "to ensure that all loans associated with a borrower who has at least some land and development is caught", said the judges.
The court said that it was open to Nama to acquire loans which were of sufficient scale that they might regarded as contributing to the systemic risk to Irish financial institutions.
The court unanimously rejected Mr McKillen's challenge on the five issues it was asked to determine in the case.
The judges ruled that any discretion Nama had to decline acquiring an eligible bank asset was a discretion solely for Nama under the legislation and "not one which requires, in its exercise, a detailed analysis of the loan or loans in question".
Any constitutionally protected rights which Mr McKillen might are either not interfered with or are interfered with "in such a minor or tangential way" that it does not require Mr McKillen to be heard prior to the loan being acquired.
He also should not be granted leave to seek a judicial review on Nama's decision to acquire his loans was taken on December 11th and 14th before the agency was established because of its subsequent action, the court said.
Mr McKillen was not entitled to challenge Nama on the question of European state aid as the court is satisfied that the European Commission's decision does not limit Nama to acquire bank assets which are either impaired loans or connected with impaired loans.
The court was not satisfied that it was appropriate to take into account correspondence between Fine Gael Senator Eugene Regan and a Commission official.
On the fifth issue, the court said that it was not satisfied that Mr McKillen had made a substantial issue in relation to the constitutionality of the Nama act.
WSJ ARTICLE IN FULL PRINT
DUBLIN—Ireland's high court on Monday ruled against property developer Patrick McKillen, effectively clearing the way for the country's state-loan agency to buy some €2.1 billion ($2.92 billion) of his property loans from Irish banks.
If Mr. McKillen had won the case, observers say it would have opened the floodgates for other developers to launch similar challenges to the National Asset Management Agency at a critical point in Ireland's financial crisis.
NAMA is buying property loans from banks with a book value of €73.4 billion for an expected discount cost of just €30.5 billion. The purchases are central to the government's plans to rescue the nation's fragile banking system and restore value in the property market.
The president of the high court, Justice Nicholas Kearns, said in his concluding remarks that the act establishing NAMA "is a proportionate response to the very grave financial situation in which the state finds itself and which has particular relevance to financial institutions within the state."
Ireland has become a flashpoint of concern in the euro zone and looks to be among the bloc's worst-performing economies due to a collapse in the construction sector and near implosion of the banking system, which may require up to €50 billion in state recapitalization.
Lawyers for NAMA previously said that blocking the transfer of Mr. McKillen's loans would hurt NAMA's ability to buy billions of euros of good and bad property-development loans.
Mr. McKillen is a shareholder in Dublin's Clarence Hotel, along with U2 rock-band members Bono and The Edge, and in the Maybourne Hotel Group, which owns prestigious London-based hotels including the Berkeley, the Connaught and Claridge's.
The developer, who rarely appears in public, didn't attend Monday's ruling. His lawyers had argued that the steep discounts on loans being bought by NAMA are further dragging down the cost of properties. They also said all his loans are "performing" with interest payments being met on his loans and no default notices having been issued by the banks.
But the state disputed that fact, alleging that Mr. McKillen's loans weren't performing because the Belfast-born developer was unable to repay some of his loans that have already expired, despite some forbearance on the part of the banks in delaying foreclosure on the expired loans.
Conor Houlihan, a partner with Dillon Eustace law firm in Dublin, said the ruling "is an important affirmation of the manner in which NAMA has conducted its business to date. The decision is also welcome in terms of reducing any uncertainty about the future of NAMA and its plans for dealing with the impaired bank assets of its participating Irish banks.
"The outcome is also important in terms of retaining, and continuing to develop, the current interest of specialist investors whose capital and expertise may play an important role in Ireland's recovery."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588131378404578.html
This article sheds even more light that NAMA and its partners are on the right track.