Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[jmbell42]

I agree that there are ambiguities, but the warrant agreement has an entire section devoted to situations that fall outside those explicitly stated.

Any good faith reading of the contract shows that the warrant agreement provides due compensation to the LTW holders in the event of a corporate event.

If these had just been named Litigation Tracking Trust Certificates, then we would not be having this problem. Unfortunately, the term warrants is being applied by the debtor's in a bit of sophistry. Even by BK rules, these "warrants" have a 0.00 conversion cost, meaning that, by definition, they are not equity warrants.

In the future, when people craft litigation tracking securities that are claims on a contingent asset, perhaps they will use a term that will not be deliberately misinterpreted to deny the rights to the claims holders.

Again, if the only way that the Debtors can try to deny our claims to the Anchor litigation is to use minutia of "may" vs "will" and refuse to acknowledge the warrant agreement as a whole, then I am supremely unimpressed. I'm most likely biased, but I have yet to see anything in the most recent filings that isn't warmed over re-hasings of sophistry and misdirection. All in all surprisingly unimpressive performances by the Debtors.

I hope that Art's rebuttal eviscerates their weak arguments and exposes them for the drivel and detritus that they are.