FYI
Posted by: jaxstraw Date: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:32:39 PM
In reply to: ABIGHAMMER who wrote msg# 180 Post # of 183
I'm not stating that it's to get paid.
Although forming an EC could very well help that cause.
Whether you own pre or post doesn't matter if equity is to receive some sort of distribution in the final outcome to my knowledge.
That is another discussion though ( although I do not believe it matters unless case specific rarities exist).
My point of buying pre-BK is that the Trustee's decision to appoint an EC was heavily weighed in the CEMJQ case on when you were a shareholder of record.
The Debtors Counsel and the UCC opposing argument to every attempt by shareholders painted a picture of shareholders as profiteers and vultures. And they used this successfully in part for three denials from the Trustee.
If the flood of letters had been from a majority of pre-BK owners it most likely would have helped.
My partners and I actually had to scramble to try and enlist company employees ( we knew they owned pre) upon our fourth , and successful, attempt.
My point is that every letter sent in to form an EC that states the letter writers pre-BK ownership takes away that argument and appeases the Trustee's implied bias towards when the shares were acquired.
We learn from our efforts, and it is now apparent to me, from being as deeply involved as I was, that if I am presented with an opportunity to buy a few token shares at a bargain PPS pre-BK, on a company that is most assuredly going into Chapter 11, I will do so to make my efforts easier should the case progress to a stage where an EC is considered a worthwhile venture.
And I urge others who invest in Q's to do the same, it will help the organizers of the EC effort immensely.
Posted by: ABIGHAMMER Date: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:37:02 PM
In reply to: jaxstraw who wrote msg# 178 Post # of 183
jaxstraw..... i am not at all familiar with the CEMJQ situation. however, i am intimately familiar with the WAMUQ situation, more specifically pertaining to the EC.
now, just reading this short post of yours, i ask you this:
if the court finds that A>L for CEMJQ, arent the post BK shareholders going to get paid???
if so, screw the trustee, court, attorneys, news reporters etc... that have coined these unsavory terms.
if they are NOT getting paid, please guide me to something or other i can read/reference that would indicate such.
the only reason i show some interest is there have been innumerable heated battles on the WAMUQ board regarding pre/post BK share ownership. i think we have pretty well affirmed that a share is a share. period.
thanks much for your time !!!
Posted by: jaxstraw Date: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:30:04 PM
In reply to: eom7 who wrote msg# 177 Post # of 183
It was a lesson learned the hard way during our struggle to get an EC for CEMJQ.
It didn't matter if you owned shares one day before BK, the Trustee made it very plain for us involved to see that they favored the services, and thereby the implied integrity, of pre-BK holders over post-BK.
The debtors counsel also referred to post-BK holders in various unsavory terms.
Picking up $10-$20. worth of ANY stock going into BK is a good idea, IMO if your a distressed asset investor.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
