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.
What a nice find. Interesting to note that the sleezeball's buddies bought 104,400 DIMEZ shares with hi-jacked money to drive the price up, and it only went from .13 to .14. What were they thinking?
FYI, Looks like Court denied a defendant motion in another Winstar case. See the event posted on the court website today.
I agree; I don't understand why it takes so long. I hope the judges are accountable for the time they take at taxpayers expense, but so far I have not seen any evidence of such.
Then again, the longer they take to decide on an award for a claim against the government, the longer the government gets interest free use of money that does not belong to them.
Nice find. And it looks like few if any of the institutional holders have made any significant reductions.
Seems like someone is trying to start a rally, but then it doesn't catch on, and it fades into oblivian.
Hopefully Judge Block will instigate a rally with real staying power soon.
Bottom,
I see in the 9/29/3 opinion, top of page 27, that the issue of what caused the sale of RFC - either the breach or the service subsidiary limitation, could not be determined by the government's motion for summary judgment. I don't see where the court decided the issue in Anchor's favor, but is simply supporting their decison that such questions would have to be decided by the subsequent trial and not trough summary judgment. If you see something more favorable in the opinion, that would be quite useful, perhaps you could guide me to the page number.
I am aware that the plaintiff testifed that RFC was a fire sale, but it is also true that during and after the trial the gov claims they have evidence and testimony that 'claims' Mr Large stated otherwise at various times. (I'm sure you could even confirm this with the attorney) I am trying to discern if their defense is from immaterial things taken out of context, or if it is material. The defense says some of these statements by Mr Large were in Anchor's SEC filings at the time, which I intend to try to see if I can access somewhere on the net; though I doubt I will be successful because of their age.
I have not sold my dimez.
I recently came to understand that in the June 05 trial Anchor's ex-ceo's testimony included some things that the government is using in its defense. Such as that the sale of RFC would not harm Anchor's future profitability, that RFC was sold to meet risk-based capital requirements and not for the the breach in usage of supervisory goodwill, and that he was happy with the sale price Anchor got for RFC.
Does anyone else have knowledge of this and/or our side's rebuttal to it? I know we presented documents & evidence supporting the contrary, but I would still like to know if we specifically shot down this testimony used by the defendant.
Makes sense. Thanks.
FYI, A new Winstar ruling posted. It seems to confirm Granite's losing of their case, even after appeal. I'll read it further but the crux of the weakness of their case seems to be due to transferrability of their Supervised Goodwill. I hope that's nothing we/Anchor have done or will have issue with.
Thaks for your thoughts on this rollin. I'm glad they got a good lawyer, even though I believe DIMEZ warrant holders pay the whole legal bill :)
Looks like the appeal gave the gov back some credit for the sale of those branches. I also noted in this decision Globe's failed attempt to by-pass the government's attempt to appeal again and delay award payment without having to pay interest.
This case does seem to show the appeal process happens relatively quickly though.
As we wait, I wonder, who is paying the costs such as that to keep the warrants listed? Is it WM? Are they obligated to continue the fight despite the absurd length of time it takes the court? Will the warchest of funds from the initial sale of the warrants run out?
TIA
TierOne says to get $4.5 mln in damages from federal government
Odd, why don't I see this award posted on the Court's Winstar webpage?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061102/20061102006246.html?.v=1
Thursday November 2, 5:09 pm ET
LINCOLN, Neb.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--TierOne Corporation (NASDAQ:TONE - News; "Company"), the holding company for TierOne Bank ("Bank"), announced today the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court") issued an opinion on October 31, 2006 awarding $4.5 million in damages to the Bank in connection with a lawsuit it filed in 1995 claiming the federal government breached its contract with the Bank upon the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA").
<<50k @ .153 in ah? >>
That's the only AH trade I see being done.
Nice volume today.
Good question / point. I guess the paint would indicate the difference between a pump and a leak?
I see a tick for 100 shares went at .2 and another at .32 but the latter was "erased from the chart" because it was "above the ask". I guess that's how charts are screened for painters.
I wonder if there is anyway to tell if the interest today might be from the same source as last week's?
I Just called. "Nothing new since June"
Rollin,
<<and now the 30day of WM is 42.70 not 45.27 but it really doesn't make a difference in the end pps number>>
I believe what does make a difference is the ratio of the WM 30-day-ave to the current price of WM. I can't remember exactly how I modeled it, but I think that's because we may get shares based on 30-day-average of WM, but will be able to sell them at current WM price.
CD
A full award would provide an intrinsic value closer to $3/warnt once you subtract items that won't go to us and use the formulas in the 8k that describes the warrnts.
I like the trend of plaintif victories. From an earlier filing for the Amer Fed case, they won expectancy damages and tax roll-up (this recent filing was to decide on the amount of those damages). These damage types, expectancy & tax roll-up, are the remaining types of damages I believe we/Anchor are asking for, so this layman takes the Amer Fed victory as being a positive sign.
"For the reasons stated, American Federal is awarded expectancy damages equal to the
bank’s net costs of replacement capital, with a tax gross-up, plus incidental losses of $3,610,081."
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Lettow/06/LETTOW.AMFED090106.pdf
Thanks for the update.
I guess we wait some more...
Ot, Hi rollin. Thanks for the site. EOF
OT Rollin
Thanks for all the info rollin.
Since these stocks are all OT, would you be willing chat about them over e-mail? If so, you can reach me at cdrucker@yahoo.com or you can post or private post me your address.
CD
Thanks rollin. Good strategy.
Are you expecting some fireworks soon from the symbols in your signature; HMSG ATWT eqbm ?
I might take alook at them while we wait on the judge. I think you wrote about some of them in your earlier messages. Anything you suggest I take specific note of?
CD
Been very quiet lately. Anybody got anthing new or interesting to report in the world of Winstar?
I assume most of us here are just holding onto our core DIMEZ positions like I am?
Looks like a new case filing just posted Aug 8.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Williams/06/WILLIAMS.FirstAnnap.080806.pdf
Not sure how useful the filing is for us though.
Thanks for the update. It's good to confirm they are waiting for a decision too. No indication from him of when it might be?
I guess this court was never nicknamed 'the Rocket Docket'.
Sorry to hear you had a bad month. I agree it's a lot more fun playing with the house's money.
That makes sense. Thanks for the info rollin.
bottom,
"what do you mean by "He said it's up the the trial,"? "
Can't remember if he said "up to the trial", or "up to the court." I interpret that to mean we're effectively waiting on the judge.
"I wonder what the remaiing 2005 open issues are?"
I assume it is the decision, any award, opinion, etc. When I tried to dig for some specifics he mentioned how he was legally not able to go into any further details or information. Which makes me wonder if he has access to some non-public other details about the case, but I have no idea how significant they may be. He said there were some 'sealed' things related to the case that not are not public and can't be seen even if you go to the Clerk's office. Hmmmmmm. I should have asked if they were recent documents, or old ones.
"also for us without accesss to electronic can you post what is avaialble?"
I'm not aware of anything electronically available except the website with the winstar decisions that you already know about.
I wish I had a trip to DC planned.
Thanks rollin. I can see the value of helpful clerks. Did you try to contact some of the lawyers earlier? I think I read a post here that someone did and wondered if any useful info could come from them.
BTW, besides BNKUZ, do you know of any other winstar lit tracking warrant? It would be nice to see how others reacted in the past when decisions came out.
bottom, I couldn't find the decision you mentioned. I looked at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/winstar.htm - is that the site you referred to?
Thanks.
I called the Clerk and Judge just now. Clerk's office confirmed nothing new happened and could not say when something would. When I called the Judge I was asked if he was expecting my call. I said "ummm, no" feeling that next time I'd need to think of a way past this question. I was then told he was "not there". I asked about when a decision might happen and I was transferred to a law Clerk. The Law Clerk was very cooperative. He said it's up the the trial, it's still ongoing/live and "lots of people" including the parties are waiting too. He said what is expected from the court is a decision on the remaining open issues from the 2005 trial. The case is not 'electronic' because it was well under way when the count went electronic. So all I would be able to see are the decisions and opinions on the website, and to go to the Clerks office to see hard copies of the pleadings, etc.
I'm sure I've written nothing new or unexpected here by most of you guys, but figured I'd share my results anyway as confirmation of what we know.
Thanks for the replies rud & bottom. They were both useful to me, along with all your previous posts and rollin's DD. I'm going to spend a little more time going over the Sep 29, 03 decision again. Wish there was a way to get more info, but since I don't have plans to go to DC and visit the clerk anytime soon....
CD
Well, I had some time to go over the WM 8-K and associated Warrant Agreement and I've tried to go through the very informative posts on this board. I have a few points I would appreciate any answers, confirmations, or comments on:
1. If I read the 8K correctly, expectancy damages asked for are $969M calculated one way and/or $200M (+$11M "wounded bank") calculated another way. Reliance damages asked for are $329M. If we get an award, it'll be expectancy or reliance, but not both?
2. In message 384 rud56789 previously posted a further breakdown of our damages:
"Summary of Plaintiff’s Expectancy Damages Claim (numbers in millions)
a. RFC pre-tax earnings, March 1990 to September 1997 $328.9
b. Purchase price of NAMCO $351
c. Less: sale price of RFC ($92.8)
d. Replacement value of branches sold $169.6
e. Less: actual sales prices of branches ($49.3)
f. Reduced proceeds from 1993 stock offering $42
g. 40% gross-up adjustment on lines b, c, and f $220
-----------------
Total: $969.4"
Does anyone know how this was known? Is this from some publically available document?
3. The trial that ended in 2005 was just to determine expectancy damages. Previously, the court already ruled that there was a breach of contract by the gov for the assisted mergers. Correct?
4. The Court apparently asked both sides for additional info in June. Does anyone know how one can access it? Can it help us get an idea of when or what an award might be?
5. Aside from the Claims Court website and WM's filings, are there any other places to get information about the lawsuit including the pleadings and other court documents, or the papers asked by the court from both sides in june? I could find them on Pacer or the Claims Court pay-for website.
Thanks. It seems to me like we have a good risk-adjusted investment opportunity here. I've been trying to accumulate dips, knowing full well they could become worthless or become a 10-20 bagger.
I had my limit to buy at .13 hit today. Wish I had set it lower :) My intrinsic value model estimates we'd need a decision award of only $54M to get to a break even intrinsic value of .1.
The volume still doesn't look that strong so I hope today is just a buying opportunity.
I appreciate all the DD done by those of you on this board !
CDrucker
ok. Thanbks fnord.
At the company website, click on Company, then Company Presentation and slides 2 and 3 show Downs as being Chairman of the President's Business Advisory council and winning the 2003 Businessman of the Year Award.
Are these accolades true? Would the President's Council have convicted felons?
Good info about HYRF sales to EYI from a wholistic consultant: "Obviously, doing what we can do to avoid arsenic exposure is good, and the introduction of the ONLY water filtration system that eliminates 100% of the arsenic is nothing if not timely. Essentially Yours Industries, the company that also brought us Prosoteine to help increase energy by healing mitochondria that produce it, has the exclusive right to sell Code Blue water filters. In the cheapest and simplest portable incarnation from Metal and Arsenic Removal Technology Inc. ( MARTI http://www.martiinc.com ) Code Blue is a pitcher and cartridge system that is similar to the hugely popular Brita system (a Code Blue cartridge will fit a Brita pitcher); this has been used by the U.S. military in some of their foreign campaigns. Also available are other systems for industrial, municipal, and residential use. MARTI systems use a proprietary compound (ARTI-64 T) that cleans the water without pH adjustment, no harmful byproducts are produced, and treatment is unaffected by nitrates, phosphates, silica, or sulfates.
Jay Sargeant, President and CEO for EYI, states: "I fully expect that all of our distributors and customers will see that the nutritional support products we offer can only be enhanced with the pure water that will be provided by the (Code Blue) water systems. It seems like such a simple solution, and now we can offer our customers an exciting and innovative way to deal with a problem that has been recognized worldwide. We intend to price and sell the units at an affordable price so that Canadian and American families can benefit."
This is a HUGE development with significant growth potential for both publicly-traded companies. Distributors and agents are welcome. Start here now and let's get Code Blue out there to remove the arsenic in drinking water. "
http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/arsenic-in-drinking-water.html
RB not working so I just registered here. Glad to see some familiar posters.