Thanks for sharing the 10k information regarding the company's view of NOLs. I want to warn you about a few possible misconceptions.
First, according to section 382, nearly all of that NOL money could have become restricted AFTER the release of the 10k, depending on what happened with the 5%er transactions after the fact... It would take substantial research to figure out how much is now truly not limited by Section 382.
Next, Affy will not recap. They will never be back in business. You don't recapitalize and plow back money into a miserably failed business. Couchman's goal is to monetize the NOLs and the company will be dissolved, which, if you are a shareholder, is what you want, trust me.
Disregard the court case with Couchman and black horse. The case was dismissed in favor of Couchman, and the best we can learn from this is that Couchman did nothing wrong.
Next, expect these NOLs to take 2+ years to monetize. You have a long wait, but it may be well worth it.
Rumor on the street is that he will rename company to Couchymax. It's all about the NOLs. Couchman has super powers through his titanium green visor. He can utilize the NOLs where mere humans can't. Let's see if this fantasy comes true.
This information is all we have now in terms of AFFY NOLs potential valuation. Looking at all the information available about Couchman and Xstelos, my speculation is that they already have something in mind. The question is how long before we get news??? Unless I'm wrong...
I agree. I still don't understand longfellowsss point. Finally everything related to Orwin era in AFFY is over( including our destruction as shareholders). Now is about Couchman and his ability to use AFFY shell and NOLs. Anything else is "mute point" like you said...
The 2-3 million dollars being distributed probably was not enough for Mr C to buy a revenue stream. Draining the treasury has left AFFY in a very poor financial condition and keeping the lights on for more than a few months may prove difficult. So in that aspect the departing CEO got what he wanted. Now if Mr C actually has connections to some deep pockets then its a mute point. We will see soon enough.
I changed the topic wording so as to not alarm readers to something I don't believe happened yet the attorney mentioned it in the referenced filing. She is not a dumb bunny so an unsubstantiated liquidation comment would be out of character. With the exception of the "hidden" denial of course. And how many misstatements can you get away with in one filing.
Case3:13-cv-01025-WHO Document87 Filed12/03/14 Page11 of 19
"59. Even if Lead Plaintiff were to obtain and maintain class certification,... Further, Affymax has liquidated and has no cash to pay any potential judgment"
Rather than fault the attorney without confirmation from Affymax, whom I have tried to contact twice today, I question whether the Board, unable to get shareholder approval in Sept, is using a special dividend to accomplish what they could not do through the vote. Namely liquidation. Distributing the remaining cash.
Convincing themselves they are doing what's best for shareholders even if shareholders don't want it.
Is this true John, has Affymax liquidated?
Has this attorney's submission exposed the board's "hidden" agenda or is she just a very smart person who made a really really dumb misstatement?
If true, who came up with this ploy?
Why is Couchman CEO and a member of the board? Did TBG refuse to continue without being paid?
Are there/will there be plans for a reverse split followed immediately by split cashing out the small investors?
You know 1 for 2,000, fractional shares to be paid cash in lieu of stock, followed by a 2,000 for 1 split thereby reducing the number of shareholders to friends and family. Will it be a 1 for 100,000 ratio?
There are many other unanswered questions. Those who know won't say.
Thank you for your efforts in objecting to the settlement. Too Broad sums it up nicely.
I only had access to the objections counsel replied to.
From the court filings:
"Counsel does not appear to respond to the objection that the proposed class inappropriately includes long purchasers, short sellers and options traders. Nor does Lead Counsel respond to the assertion that the release in the proposed settlement is too broad."
Counsel's reply to objections - HIDDEN:
"67. there are no “hidden” claims. The claims are clearly stated in every document filed with this Court,
and all of the documents that are downloadable from the Claims Administrator’s website"
Isn't this part of the settlement:
"Released Plaintiffs’ Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non
contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, or
coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent,
intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the
subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts."
Broad may be too small a word to describe this.
There are not too many trading days left in 2014. Why not take tax loss now and have cash available to invest? I advise everyone who bought over $1.00 to SELL shares to me, no matter how low the price goes. Even at $0.01 it still makes sense for you to sell the shares to TGC. It will be win-win. You can then buy back the shares in 30 days. Let's be smart about this. Thank you as always.
Long, you have got to let it go man. You lost money on AFFY. Who cares? Move on. Make more money and forget it. I told you many times to SELL and you did not listen. I told you that Killer O was bad medicine. I advise you now to BUY some AFFY and take a chance that Couch Man can use his super powers and utilize the NOLs like no mere human can do.
Relax man. We've all lost money on investments. Don't invoke young military people giving up their lives. You sound foolish. Just move on and be happy. Thank you.
Despicable behavior not deserving of the protections afforded them by the young people who defend our way of life with their lives. Let us do what we can to protect and defend our nation against those who abuse our rights and freedoms for money lust.
I hope someone showed up at this hearing to defend the truth and object to this sham settlement. Make the parties make their case before a jury in an open court and not in some shady dealings between lawyers which are then imposed on a population that never asked for their disingenuous lawsuit to begin with.
And what's with this OPT OUT shareholders are required to make. In order to preserve your rights you need to file for exclusion from the class.
If the court granted this settlement today the truth may never be known. Tough luck if you bought between Aug.2012 and Jan.2013 and a released defendant is exposed for criminal behavior. Tommy Jay Carter's claims were dismissed but he still gets a payday out of this as do the lawyers who employed him. When dismissed the defendants should have been reimbursed the costs of defending the case.
These lawsuits were prompted by the Omontys recall. This is simply lawyers looting the company before adjudication of the product liability. Seems to me shareholder actions and their legal fees should be subordinate to product liability resolutions.
I could be wrong about the above but its my understanding of the following terms of the settlement.
"Class Plaintiff shall expressly and each of the Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived any and all provisions, rights, and
benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or principle of
common law, which is similar, comparable or equivalent to California Civil Code § 1542."
You might think I'm a bit hostile towards the litigators and ask why. I have spoken with them.
For those of you who don't know what a Derivative suit is.
The following excerpt from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary on "Stockholder's Derivative Suit" sheds light on the attorneys actions.
"Generally, the plaintiff shareholder is not required to have a large financial stake in the litigation. As a result, the plaintiff's attorney is often the principal mover in filing a derivative suit; the attorney locates a possible derivative claim and then finds an eligible shareholder to serve as plaintiff. Consequently the attorney may have a much more direct and substantial financial interest in the case and its outcome than the plaintiff shareholder who is a purely nominal participant in the litigation. Because most derivative suits are taken on a Contingent Fee basis, the plaintiff's attorney will receive compensation only on the successful prosecution of the suit or by its settlement. Such a recovery is justified on the theory that it encourages meritorious shareholder suits.
Most derivative suits are settled and thus do not go to trial and appeal. The lead attorney for the plaintiff usually determines whether a proposed settlement is acceptable. The fee to be paid to the lead attorney is usually negotiated as part of the overall settlement of a derivative suit. "
AFFY going to be Suspended by SEC by the year-end and those idiots who are holding it will lose everything!
Use your brains! AFFY is finished! and will be suspended soon.
If you bought at $2 or $3 then why do you care if you sell for tax loss at 15 cents or 5 cents? It doesn't make barely any difference. The important part is that you sell before Dec. 31st. Then you can buy back after 30 days. Even if this goes to 1 cent, I advise you to sell to me so that you can get tax loss and I can be happy. That will be win-win. Please sell AFFY shares to me for 1 penny. Thank you so much.
There are many unanswered questions, why rush the settlement before the truth comes out?
To whom did Affymax executives entrust the investigation of the SAEs?
Were they unaware of Takeda's reputation?
Did they subscribe to the same reporting practices? (see below Dr Helen Ge)
What was in the Fresenius evaluation Affymax refuses to make public?
Who had access to the Fresenius evaluation? Did they sell their shares?
"Takeda and Eli Lilly ordered to pay $9 billion over Actos drug" LATimes
Case 1:10-cv-11043-FDS Document 17 Filed 04/05/12
Dr. Ge had direct knowledge of the Actos bladder cancer risk and encountered resistance from her superiors when she tried to report bladder cancer as related to Actos. Dr. Ge claims her supervisors directed her to change her “related” assessment to unrelated. According to her recollection of reviewing Takeda’s adverse event database for Actos, there were more than 100 bladder cancers reported to the company, but only 72 reported to the FDA, which she alleges is a serious discrepancy.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out an attorney may settle for anything in order to guarantee approval of their fees. Is it true the insider trading reforms may be a substantial benefit to shareholders and therefore justify awarding these fees. Given the company has no source of income and very limited funds, not to mention the BOD's intention to dissolve the company, it won't prove true. The added costs associated with the reforms will probably hasten the demise of the company which the BOD would welcome. I believe the settlement negotiations lacked shareholder representation. It appears to me as if the counsel for the plaintiff bargained for a substantial fee, in return the defendants got absolution and immunity from future prosecution for yet unknown facts. Sadly I know the judges do not have all the relevant facts in either the Derivative Action or the Shareholder Class Action. They rely on the integrity of the attorneys presenting the case. The fees are based on reported extensive research by the law firms involved. So many hours yet lacking perhaps a few critical items that might change the judge's ruling. One thing I am sure of, to say not a single shareholder objected is a misrepresentation of the truth. I have spoken to Jeff Kaban of Cooley for the defendants, Marshall Dees of Holzer & Holzer for plaintiff Michael Markland, Joan Rabutaso of Robbins Arroyo for plaintiff Christopher Scott, and Leigh Smollar for the plaintiff in the shareholder class action. I did get a helpful piece of advice from the only attorney who no longer had a financial interest in the outcome. With that I asked if they could expand the class to include purchasers after Feb. 22, 2013 and include insiders selling after the Fresenius evaluation was completed.
I remarked to the FDA that it would be terrible if files went missing in this matter as they did in the Actos case.
It would be even worse if the judge allows language in the settlement referring to "Unknown"
check his other 2 stocks: XTLS ( suspended by SEC as a Fraud), MYRX, going to be suspended soon.
Because his Xstelos Holdings, Inc. holding 3.6 million AFFY worthless shares, he's trying every effort to pump it and wish other naive people to buy his worthless shares so that he could Escape from AFFY.
Sooner, you'll see AFFY to be suspended by SEC as SEC is watching CouchScam closely, then you'll lose everything, like those who did in XTLS.