How many years have you been pumping this bilge? Now, a month after they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you're still pumping. Go back the LOCMQ board.
I agree with everything you say. I guess I just have a different understanding of "precipitate". The dividend was cut in half with the Oct. 2012 dividend (this after Portnoy on the Feb. 2012 earnings call said "It’s our current intention to maintain the dividend and that’s what we foresee for the foreseeable future. And again there has been no discussion about reducing the dividend at the board level at all.")
What precipitated the ejection of RMR and the Portnoys from CWH was the proposed 27 million share equity offering in early 2013.
From a press release by the law firm filing suit
On February 28, 2013, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP initiated a shareholder derivative and class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, Mass., before the Honorable Denise J. Casper with the caption Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund v. Barry M. Portnoy, et al.,
Plaintiff will ask for damages and seek to enjoin Defendants from any further self-dealing and mismanagement, including enjoining a recently-announced 27 million share Equity Offering and Tender Offer, as well as any attempt by Defendants to enforce the oppressive arbitration clause in CWH’s bylaws.
Quick, Just a comment on point J. I don't think the trading and volume mean anything with regard to whether Glen and Co. have a chance to pull something out.
Pull up a historical price listing on ticker TXCCQ. Then, take a look at when they filed bankruptcy. Then, take a look at the bankruptcy type. Never mind on that last one, they filed for a Chapter 7 liquidation. Does the fact that this ticker still trades mean anything with respect to any possible value for shareholders? And, this case is still active, the trustee is still being paid somehow.
Bankruptcy courts very, very seldom provide any value to shareholders. They are a dogfight among the creditor classes, the lawyers, and the financial advisors for whatever meat they can tear from the bones of the company.
The article, although it didn't state it explicitly, took the cash from the 3/31/2015 10-Q. The CFO was undoubtedly giving a current (as of the date of the presentation) cash balance after all of the recent property sales.
It was mostly a paean to Zell. They cite a JP Morgan analyst stating that the net asset value is $32/share, which may be conservative. They say that analysts estimate that ffo for 2015 may drop by almost half from the $3.32 reported in 2014. Debt is 4.1 times ebitda, down from 6.1 times a year ago, and cash is $421 million. They expect some distribution by the end of the year because REITs must pay out 90% of net income.
They didn't compare it to any other REIT.
I don't know, you may be correct. If you do a search on the exact term "tax loss carry forward change of control" in Google, the third item is a pdf titled "A Primer on Protecting Tax Losses from a Section 382 Ownership Change" I haven't read it all, but it is extremely complicated.
I think any order can be changed by the judge. But, the terms of the order itself can be essentially waived by the "Debtors". After a proposed transaction, the Debtors have 20 days to object, and if they don't object, the transaction can go through.
The legal mumbo jumbo about this topic is mind-numbing.
Wouldn't a bid from E or another oil company constitute, if consummated, a change in control and thus a loss of the tax loss carry forward benefits? Such a loss of the tax benefit is exactly the issue that Docket #6 addresses.
You say "you can't buy large amounts without judge approval and 30 day notice....."
Docket #6 says "a “Substantial Shareholder” is any Entity that has Beneficial Ownership of at least 9,102,850 shares of common stock of QRI (“Common Stock”), constituting approximately 4.75% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock;" and restricts any entity from buying a number of shares which would cause that entity to become a "Substantial Shareholder" or selling a number of shares which would cause an existing "Substantial Shareholder" to cease being a "Substantial Shareholder".
So, you can become rich! You just need to buy 9 million shares at $0.03 per share ($270,000) and then when the shares become worth $3.50 after the conclusion of the bankruptcy as you assert, you'll be worth a cool $31 million!
This is, of course, patently absurd because the share price would have reflected this opportunity by now. I agree with Strayman.
First, those were units, not shares. A unit consisted of one share plus 1/2 warrant.
Second, since that press release was issued out of Toronto, and specifically states that
"The securities offered have not and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act"), or any U.S. State securities laws ..."
what makes you believe that the price of $0.60 per unit was US$? It was certainly CA$. If you're not aware of it, go to the SEDAR web site. On July 2, there was a document filed which is described as "Underwriting or agency agreement". In that document, it specifically states under DEFINITIONS that “$” means lawful money of Canada.
Yes, I do have a negative opinion of Axion. It just seems to me that after so many years, their technology should have already have gained traction and been generating sales. But, different opinions are what make a market!
When officers and directors spend their own money to purchase shares, it shows strong support for the company. Current officers and directors have not done so. To me, that fact speaks for itself.
I hope that the LCB investment works out for you and Axion and that the Chinese money behind LCB is not affected by the crashing Chinese stock market.
You mean you didn't read the PRE 14A you just referenced in your recent post? It's on page 3.
If you think that AXPW is such a compelling buy at this price level, why do you think that all of the officers and directors don't agree? In total, they own less than $850 worth of the company's stock, at today's closing price, or less than $13,500 of stock if all warrants were exercised?
Do a search on William Lerach and his law firm Lerach Coughlin, which morphed into Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, which ultimately became Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd, LLP. You'll find it interesting if you want to take the time. I misstated the firm's name in my previous post about the SZYM law suit.
Mr. Lerach's last name became a verb, as in "Solazyme has been lerached", although I haven't seen it in use lately.
Look as the news headlines for 3D Systems (DDD) and you'll see a similar number of plaintiff law firms trolling for a lead plaintiff in a class action. The original suit was filed on June 16.