Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc (IMPM)

[Joe Stocks]

loobeyondbm, You are most absolutely wrong. I don't think you are familiar with the current standing of the lawsuit. I doubt that I am myself. But, we do have this one opinion from the court.

From; http://www.courts.state.md.us/businesstech/pdfs/mdbt1-13.pdf

The Articles Supplementary allow material, adverse amendments only upon approval by two-thirds of the affected shares, and Plaintiff argues that Defendants simply did not have enough Preferred B votes to amend the Articles for the Preferred B shares.7 The parties agree that, while holders of all Preferred Stock tendered an aggregate of approximately 67.7% (4,378,880 shares) of the outstanding shares in response to the tender offer8, the breakdown of the tendered shares reveals that Preferred B holders tendered only 66.2% (1,323,844 of 2,000,000) of the outstanding Preferred B shares.9 Plaintiff asserts, and Defendants acknowledge, that the number of tendered Preferred B shares alone fell short of the requisite 66.67% of outstanding shares necessary to accomplish a materially adverse amendment to the Articles Supplementary.

Start reading on page 8 about counts I and II. Count one is all about IMPHP not having enough votes, while IMPHO did have the votes necessary to change the terms of the preferreds terms. The whole argument is that IMPHP did have enough votes and and should not be held to the vote by the IMPHO holders. It says nothing to that if the IMPHP shareholders did not approve by the 67% vote, that the IMPHO vote is then invalid.

You say the lawsuit is to reverse the event. At one point that was true. But the courts have ruled on several of the accounts that would affect that for the IMPHO shareholders leaving the IMPHO shareholders in a weaker position.