If I had the money "sewer rat" law firms have spent sending me litigation filing information over the last forty years, I'd be a very rich man
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. If it were true, you'd be guilty too, except that you think it's appropriate to just complain about it. The fact is, there is no mugging, and your income stream will not change either way (it wouldn't have gotten any better, and it won't get any worse).
You have no idea of how I think. But it's funny to watch you try. As partners, we don't share directly, we share according to the partnership agreement. But since this lawsuit in an immaterial amount (I know you don't know what that is, you really should look it up sometime), it won't make a difference either way.
again, your argument is that it's OK to be mugged and robbed, so long as they don't take too much.
Also, I was suggesting it was you who is not clear on the concept of partner. You are not a shareholder. A partner directly shares in the profit and loss of the underlying partnership according to your percentage ownership. You think in terms of dividends and shares rather than partnership.
If you aren't clear on the concept, I wonder why you keep posting? Here is another concept: Material significance. Not all profit goes in the pocket of the partners. To bring it down to your level, this is like saying that because the cost of electricity went up, we aren't going to buy toilet paper. No, we're still going to buy toilet paper (you need it!), we're just not going to be buying the high grade paper (be careful with your chimp fingers!). These are the cuts that are made, when the amounts we're talking about are materially insignificant. No one has to feel it in their wallet, because there are many other discretionary accounts that can absorb the costs, and the business goes merrily along. And I never asked you for investment advice, so please stop providing it. It is terrible advice.
I'll repeat the same offer here that I've provided on every other board you've harassed me on: If you can post one single, intelligent, and non-inflammatory comment in response, I'll not bother to retaliate. But if continue to attack, I have every right to defend, and I will, until you tire of the effort (but they say kids and dogs never get tired... how about chimps?).
apparently still not clear on the concept of partnership.
If you are a partner in a business (which MLP unitholders are) and that business has to pay legal fees to defend frivolous lawsuits, indeed, the money is coming out of your pocket. I'd suggest you don't invest in any more MLPs until you become clear on the concept of what being a partner means.
How much propane do PVR and RGP produce?
Propane boom pits U.S. exports against home heat
By Dan Murtaugh, Christine Buurma and Christine Harvey, Bloomberg News
12:20 a.m. EST, November 20, 2013
HOUSTON — Midwest propane prices are higher than those on the Gulf Coast for the first time in three years as domestic demand competes with exports for supply.
The benchmark price in Kansas averaged 1.4 cents a gallon more than the Texas equivalent this month, the first premium since November 2010. Midwest stockpiles are the lowest for this time of year since 1996, curbing supply in a region that uses more of the fuel to heat homes than anywhere else in the U.S.
The country is shipping record levels of propane and propylene abroad, helping improve margins for producers while raising costs for farmers to dry their crops in an area that produces 32 percent of the world's corn.
Prices jumped 51 percent in the past year, illustrating a side effect of exports as shale drilling boosted production of natural gas liquids such as propane, as well as natural gas, to all-time highs.
"The demand for exports is pulling barrels to the coast and away from traditional U.S. markets," said Anne Keller, manager of natural gas liquids research at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consulting company in Houston. "Our own residential market is bidding against markets somewhere else in world for these barrels."
Again, you fail to grasp the issue. No distribution has been cut, and the recent share price drop isn't because of this suit. It doesn't affect me, or any of you other banana peelers. Or should I say, "OOh oho, eek eek!"? Which do you better understand? The latter, I figure.
OM_! What an imbicilic comment! I'll admit, 'div' is easier to type than 'distribution', so pardon my brevity. What you banana peelers will never realize is that, if you looked at this situation objectively, without the 'benefit' of the internet, you couldn't tell the difference between the company with the lawsuit and the company without the lawsuit. It is so small, that in the grand scheme of things, it isn't material (that's another word I'm sure you don't understand). By the way, you peel the banana from the top, not the middle (silly monkey).
" it isn't coming out of my pocket. The div doesn't change,"
You clearly don't understand what being a partner means.
There is no 'dividend'. If you own units in a partnership, you are a partner in that business and bribery fees paid by the company ARE out of your pocket, you just don't realize it.
Again with the name calling. You really have no clue. You could have eliminated about 4 sentences, and you would have appeared as a normal person, instead of your worthless self.
All lawyers are the same, they make money by siphoning it off the top. But it isn't enough to change the game, so it isn't coming out of my pocket. The div doesn't change, and since the cut is so small, it doesn't affect the stock price.
Obviously, they contact you because you appear to be an idiot. Your posts confirm this. Now shut up unless you have something to contribute.
Silly. Who do you think pays the legal fees, then?
That is all Tripp Levy are after. Fees and money to make them go away. These cases rarely amount to anything so just take funds away from the merging partnerships. And as unitholders are partners that means you.
You clearly are a newbie if you haven't come across Tripp Levy before. I can't remember a merger where these ambulance chasers didn't stick their hand out for their extortion payments as price to allow the deal to go through. They even directly contact posters on message boards asking them to sue the company they are partners in (I've been approached many times by them as I post on many boards - essentially they are asking me to sue myself and pay some of my distributable funds to pay them fees and bribes).
I don't get your point. Are you for the lawsuit, or against? Who is the ambulance chaser? I don't see anyone here on the 'for' side. And of course the Company has to defend against the suit, but which company, in this case? PVR, I assume, but how will we see the costs? The fees are relatively minor, and isn't factored into the div calcs. As far as share price, the market deeply discounts these costs, as the costs of doing business. Therefore, no real effect on share value. And no effect in court, either, since I doubt the suit will stop the merger. And I don't really get how Tripp gets paid, unless PVR or RGP settles out of court. Any insight there?
You throw around phrases like 'vast majority', like you have knowledge. Do you? Which unitholders had to pay? How did they pay it? If you have evidence, share it. This sounds like more noise, which is what Tripp Levy is peddling. I see no difference.
How am I going to pay? I've been able to pick up PVR shares cheap, and I'll exchange them for even more RGP shares than if I bought RGP directly. That's a fact that can be checked, simply by looking at the price of the stocks involved. Where is your evidence?
"Tripp Levy has extensive experience in mergers and takeovers"
That's true. They never saw a merger for which they didn't file a lawsuit within a few minutes of the merger announcement. The vast majority just result in legal fees paid by unitholders (you) to defend frivolous lawsuits like these.
If you're talking about actual downside risk, I don't know what it is at this point. I'm not an analyst, so I don't know how to calculate resistance. But I didn't think it would dive to these levels, losing .25-.30 per day. At this rate, PVR will be in the teens soon! Can someone elaborate on why this is going so low, and how low it will go?
Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading securities and shareholder rights law firm, announces that a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of PVR Partners LP ("PVR Partners" or the "Company") (PVR) shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law against the board of directors of the Company in connection with the sale of the Company to Regency Energy Partners LP ("Regency") (RGP). A complaint was filed in Delaware state court.
Under the terms of the transaction, PVR Partners unitholders will receive 1.02 common units of Regency for each unit of PVR Partners stock they own and a one-time cash payment of approximately $40 million. Based upon Regency's closing price on October 9, 2013, the deal represents a value of approximately $28.68 per PVR Partners unit. The claims concern whether the PVR Partners Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to adequately shop the Company before agreeing to enter into this transaction, and whether Regency is underpaying for PVR Partners shares.
If you own PVR Partners common stock and wish to obtain additional information, please contact us toll free at 1-877-772-3975.
Tripp Levy has extensive experience in mergers and takeovers and has assisted in the recovery of millions of dollars for shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not indicate a similar outcome.