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.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/docs/friedland-proposed-distribution-plan-120721.pdf
MMJ, I'm no lawyer and reading the doc can be confusing. Here's a link to the document; Pg 34 has the section on Market Loss Limitations.
If you want my uninformed opinion, here goes.
1st sentence says Market Loss is the value the fund will use IF Market Loss is less than Recognized Loss.
2nd sentence says if Market Loss is a gain, no payment from the fund.
3rd sentence is formula for Market Loss: (Total Purchase Price of shares during relevant period) - (Sales of Shares during Relevant Period) - (holding value of remaining shares after relevant period [$.39]). Since you purchased a number of shares for less than $.39, I think those shares reduce the market loss. Since your market loss is now less than your recognized loss, it becomes the value they paid for from the fund per 1st sentence.
But I may be way off; I'd think you'd have to speak to a fund administrator to get a full accounting of how your recognized loss was calculated. If there are any attorneys still reading the board, they may be able to clarify the language of the agreement. Good luck, and hope you get better clarification than I can give you!
MMJ, unfortunately, the agreement stated clearly that the Market Loss supersedes the Recognized Loss if the Market Loss is less than the Recognized Loss (Market Loss Limitation, pg 34 of the agreement). They just calculated the payments based on the rules that were agreed upon by all parties when the agreement was negotiated.
Sorry you didn't get what you hoped for.
That is not quite correct, Chuck. The $.39 was the price of OWCP on the last day of the "look back" period, December 22, 2017. If you sold after that date, you subtracted $.39 from your purchase price to determine the loss. Only purchases that occurred between Nov 18, 2016 and Sept 22, 2017 were eligible for settlement consideration.
If you purchased between 11/18/16 and 9/22/17 and sold between 11/18/16 and 9/22/17, the loss was the difference between what you paid and what you sold for. If you made a profit, there was $0 loss and those shares didn't qualify for consideration. If you purchased between 11/18/16 and 9/22/17 and sold between 9/22/17 and 12/22/17, your loss was the calculated lesser of: A) taking what you paid for the stock and subtracting the daily average price of the stock on the day you sold - those prices are shown by date in a table at the bottom of the agreement (Table A, pg 37) or B) taking what you paid for the stock and subtracting what you sold the stock for. Again, if you sold for a profit, your loss was $0 and those shares were excluded from the settlement.
For more detail, go to pg 32 of the agreement doc (start of Attachment A, which defines how the loss was determined and what shares qualified).
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/docs/friedland-proposed-distribution-plan-120721.pdf
I don't think it's deductible. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p547
Unless you can get it to be declared a federal disaster...and it sure felt that way at the time!
Chuckbits, I don't think the shares purchased before the claim period are a part of the settlement. Why would they be - the settlement dates are the time frame JFF pumped OWCP. If you bought before that time, he had no influence on your decision and should not be held responsible. As far as I can tell, that is why they provided a time period that purchases qualified for reimbursement, if you purchased for a share price of greater than $.39. JMO
I did not sell either. I took the total $ from the purchases made during the claim period, subtracted $.39 x number of shares from that number and that was my qualified loss. My case had nothing to do with selling either during or after the claim period.
Only the shares purchased during the claim period were valid, as near as I can tell. If you bought before or after the claim period, those purchases did not qualify, even if you lost money on them. I assume that is because Friedland "pumped" it during the claim period - not before or after. So he wasn't "responsible" for your purchases/losses/gains, and therefore should not be responsible for reimbursing you.
IIRC and as another poster said, there were some special rules for those that sold during a portion of the period, but like he, I'm too lazy to find the document that explains it. If you didn't sell, it would not matter anyway.
My ID was on the list, and the dollar amount of qualified loss was also correct. Since I haven't told anyone either of those things, I'm assuming that list is real and accurate.
IIRC, a little more than $4 million, plus interest minus legal fees and expenses.
Thanks DG for the update. One little edit - I called the 877 379-5986 number and it's actually for something called the Washington Tenant Screening fund. The lady that answered said she could give me the JFFF number, which is 877 379-5985. I tried that number and it is for the JFFF fund, but they were gone for the day. Anybody looking for their qualified loss numbers should call tomorrow during regular business hours.
Or Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. Thanks Swamp for sharing the info, even if it is no info. And so we wait. I don't know about all y'all, but I'm not spending even a dime of what I THINK might be paid out. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....
Based on the filing, if I understand legalese correctly, the interest that has accrued since the fund was established is taxable. I was also under the impression that the actual proceeds are not taxable. Like many have said, we'll find out...maybe.
Suppose the attorneys take $1 million of the settlement. That leaves $3 million for the claimants. Now suppose there are claims for $60 million in losses that are found to be legit. You tell me how much on the dollar you'll get.
BTW, I have no idea of how large the claims will be, nor the attorney fees nor anything else. It was a guess on my part, based on seeing results from previous class actions for stock fraud. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry for trying to impart a little updated info to the board and then having a little fun with what is likely to be pretty much a lost cause.
Well, at least they're keeping their story straight! lol
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171199829
DGlover, no I really don't know why. I just received an email through the address I filed under, saying that I had to submit W9 information by the end of the day on 2/3/23. Since I didn't receive that email until 2/2, once I submitted the W9 I called to make sure they received it. As I said in the previous message, she didn't supply any additional information other than they had the W9 and that we'd receive a check sometime in the future IF we qualified. Not much help, I'm afraid, but that is all I know.
FWIW, I called the administrator last week to make sure my W9 was received and recorded. I asked if there would be notification of the amount awarded to each individual claimant; she said, no - we would likely just receive a check in the mail IF we qualified for a claim. She did not give any info re: the percentage of pennies on the dollar any legitimate claim would get paid. Also, no timeline given as to when the payout might actually happen.
I'm surprised no pool has been started here to guess the recovery percent that will ultimately get paid to claimants (after attorney and other costs are paid from the pool). I suspect in will be in the single digits - I'd guess $.03 or $.04 at most. Probably enough for a nice meal, as long as you don't mind Mickey D's.
At the same time, I believe the attorneys will make at least 25% to 33% of the total pool (roughly $1 - 1.3 million). It's a shame that those fees don't come out of a separate JF pool, so the investors might actually get back a little more of the lost money.
Feeling good, Lewis.
Just don't want people to think there were only 50 million O/S shares. 77.6 is correct, as are your restricted and unrestricted numbers. But if you go back 5 months on GNBT, you'll see that a couple of the holders of restricted shares went ahead and sold them into the market, creating all kind of havoc and headaches for non-restricted shareholders and corporate plans for dividends. So it is best to assume the full 77.6 million as outstanding.
With that said, it is still a relatively low number of O/S shares, so the overall point is still correct.
Shares currently outstanding 77.6 million (OTCmarkets.com). This increase is because they just paid a 2:5 share dividend to shareholders on 2/24.
Really? Heck, if OWCP can't come up with that cash, I'll throw in a couple hundred. If we can get a few others, we're golden.
Raise the pps to $.10 on news of patent granted, and I'm up 1000% on my contribution! LOL!
I'd think the main thing that is indicated is that those patent apps are still active. If they had been rejected or were dormant, why would anyone care if they were in Baruch's or Ziv's name or in OWCP's name?
Nice find, Phenix. Let's hope the rest of the world realizes the potential here.
Also nice to see 0 dilution from Jan to Feb. So what are some of our friends trying to convince us that it is a share selling scheme going to come up with next?
Volume is much higher this time. 14 million and 20 million on Feb 21, 22 of 2017 was the peak volume - there were a couple of later days in the 10 to 12 mm range, but most were 5 - 9 million.
So the last 4 days (and what looks to be again today) will far exceed what was seen in 2017. Good sign? Let's hope.
Fair enough. Time will tell...and to Lar2's credit, he did say it was a rumor (or something he heard). No taking that to the bank, for sure.
Possibly correct. However, I will say I have been an expert witness in five different lawsuits (part of my work) and all of them have settled before the trial. In a couple of them, they settled right in the middle of the depositions, which occurred months (maybe years) before the trial would have been convened. In another one, it settled the morning of the trial. We were walking to the courtroom when we were told to wait outside and later told of the settlement. So there is no rhyme nor reason to when a settlement might occur.
JF could have offered the assets as a proffer of a settlement to the prosecution, and the prosecution would be required to at least consider the offer against the unpredictability of a trial. I'm not saying this did happen, but it certainly is a possibility. The "rumors" that were mentioned may have come from the offer, regardless of the status of the legal process.
Or, there is a possibility that this is part of a plea agreement to avoid the trial. I'm not saying there is any truth to the rumor, but it is a possibility prior to the trial in lieu of jail time or other punishment. Since this is a white collar crime, would not be unheard of that restitution suffices for punishment.
MJ, I know you're not a big fan of OWCP right now. However, there is likely a good reason for the condom/abstention criteria in the study.
It is probably included for liability purposes. If someone was given the tablet as part of the study, then got a woman pregnant, and the baby had a birth defect, the mother would likely have a liability claim against OWCP for allowing a man to use the tablet while not knowing the potential the drug had on fetal development. Looks to me that OWCP is just trying to eliminate a possible (but unlikely) outcome.
If the pill does meet the study criteria, I would not be surprised to see another study re: impact on reproduction or other functions. Or maybe the pill would be sold with the disclaimer not to use if you're pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant - I've heard that on TV for other drugs as well.
Geez, only six digits right of the decimal on the closing price. C'mon people, we can do better!
The 8k states that 1 for 500 is the maximum split, not the split they will ask for. That is currently undetermined.
Does a 1 for 500 RS make a lot of sense from a shares outstanding perspective? Let's say we have 200 million, including the shares that can be converted from the preferred shares. With a 1 to 500, that would mean we'd only have 400,000 shares outstanding - not enough liquidity for any meaningful trading volumes. Probably not enough liquidity for uplisting either.
I just don't think 1 for 500 is going to be the number. But even a 1:50 or a 1:10 probably won't do shareholders a lot of good, unless Hirsch has something up his sleeve.
Hey Debunkinator, you might want to see a urologist for that weeee problem...LOL.
Did you ask for photo IDs? Did they have Israeli accents? Couldn't it just be three bums off a street SAYING they were Hirsch, Bignitz and Dagan?
C'mon, man, you have to start thinking like our resident conspiracy nut!
HB - Read the headline. OMG, HB has gone off the deep end...until I opened the full message.
Well played, sir, well played.
And thermo-nuclear bombs.
Ooohhh, Citronellol! So it will help with flaky skin AND keep mosquitoes away. Bet OWCP's cream won't do THAT!
Way cool. LOL, with great sarcasm about the other cream...
I believe the market will determine the new price - buyer and seller agreeing on some value/per share. This is the difference between this distribution being a dividend vs being a forward split. A forward split would automatically reduce the pps by holding the market cap constant and then calculating the pps from the new number of outstanding shares. A dividend will not automatically change the price; the market demand/supply will create a new price. Theoretically, if there is great news released prior to market opening, the pps could jump to $50 (or any other number) if that is what the demand/supply dictates for the first trade.
Got 'em in my Fidelity accounts, not in my TDA accounts. Will wait until next week on those. Nice call, Natasha; looks like you are the scammer now, not GNBT!
Fun to see the balance increase with the divi shares at $18.99, lol! Won't last once trading starts Monday, but who knows - stranger things have happened in the market!
Birdy, sorry - I misread your post while watching the football game. I thought you asked if you bought on the 20th, not before.
To correct myself, I understand that yes, you get the shares if you buy before the 20th. At this point, it would be from the seller of the shares, who would likely get them from GNBT.
Sorry for the confusion.
No. The 20th is the ex-divi date, so you won't get the shares. Here's how I understand the dividend transaction by dates:
I am assuming the company will issue the shares based on the close of business on the 19th (it doesn't make sense that they would issue them during or before the trading day - they'd use close of business of the 16th instead). If that is the case, buy on the 19th (Monday) and you'll get the shares - but not from the company. From the 12th to the 19th, you get the shares that the company gives to the seller that sells their shares to you. That is that "due bill" language.
If you bought prior to the record date, you get the shares directly from the company. Since that was last week, it is now moot. Anybody with shares from last week that holds them through the 19th will receive divi shares, and they will be supplied by GNBT.
So the only difference up to the ex-dividend date is WHO provides the dividend shares. Up to the 9th, it will be GNBT that issues the divi shares to you. From the 12th through the 19th, it will be the person who sells you their shares. From the 20th forward, all dividend shares will have been issued and all purchases will not involve them, other than a direct sale of those shares at the then existing pps.
I don't think the T+2 has anything to do with the dividend. If you bid on shares, and somebody accepts that bid and sells them to you prior to the ex-dividend date, you are entitled to the shares you purchased and the dividend shares that will be given to the seller of your shares. You do not have to wait to physically have the shares in your account to receive the dividend; you have paid for them and all the T+2 is is time to deliver the certificates. You own them once the buy/sell transaction takes place, not when the shares hit your account.
I assume that the seller's broker takes care of that end of the transaction - ie, you won't have to hunt down the actual seller of shares and demand that they fork them over!
It was my understanding that the shares are tax free until sale (as per another poster) with a cost basis of $0. So there potentially could be a significant tax implication if the pps climbs significantly. But if held for 1 year or more, taxes would be calculated at the capital gains rate of 15% for most of us.
I don't even know where one can go to confirm or modify that with the new tax code this year. Any thoughts of where to look or seek advice?
Here is an explanation I found on another board:
"The rules for stock dividend is different than it is for cash dividend.
Sometimes a company pays a dividend in the form of stock rather than cash. The stock dividend may be additional shares in the company or in a subsidiary being spun off. The procedures for stock dividends may be different from cash dividends. The ex-dividend date is set the first business day after the stock dividend is paid (and is also after the record date).
If you sell your stock before the ex-dividend date(The Company believes that the ex-dividend date will be Tuesday, November 20, 2018), you also are selling away your right to the stock dividend. Your sale includes an obligation to deliver any shares acquired as a result of the dividend to the buyer of your shares, since the seller will receive an I.O.U. or "due bill" from his or her broker for the additional shares. Thus, it is important to remember that the day you can sell your shares without being obligated to deliver the additional shares is not the first business day after the record date, but usually is the first business day after the stock dividend is paid."
Based on that last paragraph, I read it as follows:
If you buy 100 shares next week, lets say on 11/14, you will receive the 100 shares in your account on 11/16 (T+2). On 11/19, the person that sold the 100 shares will have to deliver to you the 2000 share dividend that he/she receives for those 100 shares under the "due bill". I assume his/her broker would be required to make sure that transaction takes place.
Therefore, any transaction prior to 11/19 should require the seller to forward the dividend shares he/she receives on 11/19 to the buyer. On 11/20, any share transactions will now include the dividend shares in each holders account, and therefore, a 100 share transaction will only require delivery of 100 shares, not 100 shares plus 2000 divi shares.
Want to give the board a hint why you say that? Something coming, just a correction, or tech analysis telling you this?
OK, we all honor you as the best and most prescient trader ever. Since you obviously have no position here (and are a multi-millionaire from your perfect trades), why bother to post? Just like making people who are underwater here feel worse? Mighty humane of you.