5. Concerning lawsuit, the court order is pretty clear on claim 1, that in order to make the proxy stand, 2/3 of each class much vote for change. Thus the judgement is for both classes of preferreds, if IMPHP wins, IMPHO also wins. IMPHP getting paid while IMPHO getting nothing is absolutely nonsense.
Actually, you make an interesting point. If you truly believe this to be the case, then it's very likely that both IMPHO and IMPHP will lose this lawsuit. Why? Because the combined vote of IMPHO and IMPHP shareholders DID in fact breach the 66.6% threshold. So if you believe IMPHP and IMPHO should be treated the same and should be categorized together -- then the votes for both classes should count as one vote and the 66.6% requirement is met making the amendments valid.
However, per Curtis Timms' argument vs. IMPAC MORTGAGE -- he's basically saying IMPHO and IMPHP are two completely different entities and should not be grouped together as one entity -- i.e. their votes, their terms, their dividend payouts, their articles, etc. are in fact, different. So while the 66.6% threshold was exceeded in the case of IMPHO shareholders, they were not reached by IMPHP shareholders.
So if you truly believe both classes of preferreds should be have the same treatment and the judge agrees, then it's likely Curtis Timms will lose his case. On the other hand, if you believe IMPHP and IMPHO should receive different treatment because they are different entities -- then Timms could win his argument and IMPHP shareholders would certainly benefit. However, in the scenario above -- since it was decided that the 2 preferreds are DIFFERENT...it's up to the judge to interpret how that applies to IMPHO so the same ruling would not necessarily apply to IMPHO (NOTE: IMPHO did receive > 66.6% of the YES vote meeting the threshold). Again, this is all speculation and it's really up to the judge.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer and this is just one shareholder's opinion of the case. I am also long IMPHO, IMPHP and IMH stock.
