Quantcast
I have 31 consecutive profitable trades of 15% or better. How is this possible? Every day there are hundreds of stocks setting new highs, no matter what happens in the overall market. Many of these stocks are still at very reasonable valuations. Afraid of buying stocks at their highs? Think of it this way: a new high is really a future floor for companies with solid financial underpinnings. Quantitative momentum modeling makes it easy to identify stocks that can continue this upward momentum trend. Why does this happen? It's really very simple..ask me about what investors and cows have in common. I am $$$ MR. MARKET $$$. I AM HUGE!!! Bring me your finest meats and cheeses. You can join in on the fun. Register for free and you'll be able to post messages on this forum and also receive emails when $$$ MR. MARKET $$$ makes his own trades. ($$$MR. MARKET$$$ is a proprietary investor and does not provide individual financial advice. The stocks mentioned on this forum do not represent individual buy or sell recommendations and should not be viewed as such. Individual investors should consider speaking with a professional investment adviser before making any investment decisions.)
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hastings, NE
    Posts
    655

    Default ACE Merger Litigation Settlement

    As I opened my mail today I found that there was a letter from Berdon Claims Administration saing that the Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Famly Foundation Trust has filed a class action lawsuit aganist ACE Cash Express for the way it was taken private.Was just woundering if anybody else received this letter and what it realy means. Marlin
    GO BIG RED!!!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,907

    Angry One more dividend from AACE?

    Looks like the lawsuit against AACE for $15M plus court costs may have been settled, so you can expect $1-5M to go towards paying for some lawyers' kids to go to law school, and a check for $0.002 or so (per share of AACE you owned) coming from the cheapos who stole this company from us and broke $$MM's streak.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060626/aace8-k.html

    Form 8-K for ACE CASH EXPRESS INC/TX 26-Jun-2006
    Other Events

    Item 8.01 Other Events.
    Termination of HSR Waiting Period
    In accordance with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 6, 2006 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Ace Cash Express, Inc., a Texas corporation (the "Company"), Ace Holdings I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Ace Holdings") and Ranger Merger Sub, Inc., a Texas corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings (the "Merger"), on June 20, 2006, each of the Company and Ace Holdings filed a Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions (the "Filings") under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act") with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The Filings are subject to a 30-day initial waiting period under the HSR Act. On June 23, 2006, the Company received notice of early termination of the waiting period.
    Shareholder Litigation
    On June 21, 2006, The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust (the "Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Court") on behalf of itself and all other public shareholders (together with the Plaintiff, the "Class") of the Company, against the Company, Ace Holdings and each of Jay B. Shipowitz, Robert P. Allyn, J.M. Haggar, III, Marshall B. Payne, Michael S. Rawlings, Charles Daniel Yost, Raymond C. Hemmig and Edward W. Rose, III (collectively, the "Directors" and with the Company and Ace Holdings, the "Defendants").
    The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, honesty and fair dealing to the Class because the Plaintiff alleges that the consideration payable to Company shareholders is at an unfair price and is a result of unfair dealing.
    In its complaint, the Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the Class. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks:
    � to enjoin the Company, Ace Holdings and the Directors from proceeding with or consummating the Merger; � to invalidate and set aside the $15 million break-up fee;
    � to rescind, set aside or award rescissory and/or compensatory damages to the Class if the Merger is consummated;
    � punitive damages;
    � costs and disbursements of the class action and reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and
    � other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
    The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this action.


    See also:

    http://www.bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/060904.mbx

    C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R

    Monday, September 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 176

    Headlines

    ACE CASH: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
    ACE CASH: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Ace Holdings Merger
    ACE CASH: Stay Lifted in Fla. Litigation Over Check Cashing
    AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Chiropractors Drop Lawsuit Over Fees
    ANCHOR GLASS: Objects to 127 WARN Act Claims by Pa. Employees

    ANNTAYLOR STORES: Settles Various Labor-Related Suits in Calif.
    BLACK & DECKER: Expands Recall of Cordless Electric Lawnmowers
    CERUS CORP: Enters Agreements to Settle Calif. Securities Suit
    COURT SOUTH: Fitness Centers Sued Over Membership Rule Changes
    COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses Claim Over Private Placements

    COWEN GROUP: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Arbinet-thexchange Suit
    COWEN GROUP: "Focus" Lawsuits in N.Y. Enter Discovery Phase
    COWEN GROUP: To Pay $1.7M to Settle Adelphia Stock Suit Claims
    DANA CORP: SEIU Fund Files Lawsuit Against Dana Execs in Ohio
    DILLARD'S INC: Court Grants Final Approval to Data Theft Suit

    DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Status Sought for FLSA Violations Suit
    EBAY INC: May Face Suit by Australian Traders Over Fee Increases
    ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Class Action in N.Y.
    FUTURE FOOD: Expands Recall of Dips at Risk of Contamination
    FUTURE MEDIA: Court Agrees to Name Silver & Freedman as Counsel

    ITT WATER: Recalls Pumps to Check on Attachment of Certain Part
    MERCK & CO: La. Court Throws Out Two Products Liability Lawsuit
    MICROSOFT CORP: Expects Cost to Settle Suits of Up to $1.7B
    OHIO: Former Bengal Mulls Suit Over Police Arrest in July
    PARMALAT SPA: To Appeal Against Inclusion in Stock Fraud Lawsuit

    PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
    RICART AUTOMOTIVE: Daimler to Help Pay Consumer Suit Settlement
    SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls Science Kits Posing Burn Risk to Kids
    US TRUST: N.Y. High Court Certifies Suit Against Campbell Unit
    VICORP RESTAURANTS: Faces Labor-Related Litigations in Calif.

    YOUR FINANCIAL: Dismissed from Calif. Consumer Fraud Litigation


    New Securities Fraud Cases

    PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit
    ZALE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set September 18


    *********


    ACE CASH: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Ace Cash Express, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
    action filed in the Superior Court for the city and county of
    Alameda in California over meal periods and rest breaks.

    On Nov. 10, 2005, Latoya Jackson filed a putative class action
    against the company and some of its subsidiaries, alleging that
    it failed to provide adequate meal periods and rest breaks to
    employees as required under California law.

    According to the company, because the suit purports to be class
    action, the amount of damages for which the company might be
    responsible is uncertain. In addition, it said that any such
    amount depends upon proof of the allegations and on the number
    of persons who constitute the class of plaintiffs if permitted
    by the court.

    Irving, Texas-based ACE Cash Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: AACE) --
    http://www.acecashexpress.com/-- is a retailer of financial
    services, including check cashing, short-term consumer loans and
    bill payment services.


    ACE CASH: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Ace Holdings Merger
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    ACE Cash Express, Inc. is a defendant in a purported shareholder
    class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
    District of Texas in relation to a June 6 merger agreement with
    Ace Holdings I, LLC.

    The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
    Ace Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed by JLL
    Partners Fund V, L.P., and Ranger Merger Sub, Inc., a Texas
    corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings
    (Merger Sub), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with
    and into the company. The company will continue as the
    surviving corporation and be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ace
    Holdings.

    Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time
    of the merger, each outstanding share of the company's common
    stock will be converted into the right to receive $30.00 in
    cash.

    On June 21, The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
    filed a purported class action on behalf of itself and all of
    the company's other public shareholders against:

    -- the company,
    -- Ace Holdings I, LLC,
    -- Mr. Shipowitz,
    -- Robert P. Allyn,
    -- J. M. Haggar, III,
    -- Marshall B. Payne,
    -- Michael S. Rawlings,
    -- Charles Daniel Yost,
    -- Raymond C. Hemmig, and
    -- Edward W. Rose III

    Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
    duties of loyalty, honesty and fair dealing to the shareholders
    because the consideration payable to the shareholders under the
    merger is at an unfair price and is a result of unfair dealing.

    In its complaint, the plaintiff requested that the court certify
    the class. In addition, the plaintiff seeks:

    -- to enjoin the company, Ace Holdings and the directors
    from proceeding with or consummating the merger;

    -- to invalidate and set aside the $15 million break-up
    fee;

    -- to rescind, set aside or award rescissory and/or
    compensatory damages to the class if the merger is
    consummated;

    -- punitive damages;

    -- costs and disbursements of the class action and
    reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and

    -- other relief as the court deems just and proper.

    The suit is "The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
    v. Ace Cash Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100," filed
    in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
    under Judge A. Joe Fish.

    Representing the plaintiff are Roger L. Mandel and Martin
    Woodward of Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite
    750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4302 and 214/443-4304, E-
    mail: rmandel@smi-law.com and mwoodward@smi-law.com.

    Representing the defendants is Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump
    Strauss Hauer & Feld - Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100,
    Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E-
    mail: pbessette@akingump.com.


    ACE CASH: Stay Lifted in Fla. Litigation Over Check Cashing
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    The stay has been lifted in a lawsuit against ACE Cash Express,
    Inc. that was filed in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County,
    Florida in relation to its deferred check cashing transactions.

    On Aug. 19, 2004, Donna Reuter filed a putative class action
    seeking damages against the company, one of its subsidiaries and
    some of its current and former officers alleging, among other
    things that certain deferred check cashing transactions
    conducted by the company and its subsidiary at stores in Florida
    prior to Oct. 1, 2002 violated Florida lending practices and
    usury statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
    Act and the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.

    The lawsuit is substantially similar to a lawsuit previously
    filed by Wendy Betts and other individuals against the same
    defendants in a different judicial district in Florida in which
    the trial court granted summary judgment in the company's favor
    and the district court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.

    Ms. Betts filed a similar lawsuit against defendants unrelated
    to the company, in the same judicial district as the current
    lawsuit brought by Ms. Reuter, in which the trial court granted
    summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the district
    court of appeals reversed such ruling.

    Because the decision of the district court of appeals in favor
    of Ms. Betts was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and in
    conflict with the prior decision in the company's favor, Ms.
    Reuter and defendants agreed to stay her lawsuit against the
    company until the Florida Supreme Court rendered a decision.

    On April 27, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the decision
    in favor of Ms. Betts. As a result of the recent Florida
    Supreme Court decision, the stay has been lifted.

    Irving, Texas-based ACE Cash Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: AACE) --
    http://www.acecashexpress.com/-- is a retailer of financial
    services, including check cashing, short-term consumer loans and
    bill payment services.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,907

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by jiesen View Post


    ACE CASH: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Ace Cash Express, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
    action filed in the Superior Court for the city and county of
    Alameda in California over meal periods and rest breaks.

    On Nov. 10, 2005, Latoya Jackson filed a putative class action
    against the company and some of its subsidiaries, alleging that
    it failed to provide adequate meal periods and rest breaks to
    employees as required under California law.


    unavailable for comment

  4. #4

    Default

    Quick..someone do the math...if I add up what I get from this lawsuit to my selling price, does that get me to a 15% gain?
    =============================

    I am HUGE! Bring me your finest meats and cheeses.

    - $$$MR. MARKET$$$

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hastings, NE
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Thanks for your input. You must get up pretty early in the morning to find all of this info in such order. Did you realy call Latoya his morn., if so she wasn't in bed becuse she needs know beauty sleep, The reason she didn't answer was becuse she sensed a rat on the other end of the line.
    Earnie, how many pacos short of 15% were you. Marlin
    GO BIG RED!!!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,907

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by MEA_1956 View Post
    Thanks for your input. You must get up pretty early in the morning to find all of this info in such order. Did you realy call Latoya his morn., if so she wasn't in bed becuse she needs know beauty sleep, The reason she didn't answer was becuse she sensed a rat on the other end of the line.
    Earnie, how many pacos short of 15% were you. Marlin
    Nope, I found those stories within 5 min of reading your post last night. Google is your friend! But yeah, it did piss Latoya off pretty bad when I gave her that call at midnight. It might have been the heavy breathing that did it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,907

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by mrmarket View Post
    Quick..someone do the math...if I add up what I get from this lawsuit to my selling price, does that get me to a 15% gain?
    I can't say definitively, as I don't have the settlement details, but I can pretty much guarantee that the settlement is not going to give you your 15% gain. Since you lost 4% on AACE, you'd need around 19% (minus the dividends you got) to get to 15%. The buyout was for $420M, and 19% of that is $80M. I'm pretty sure they aren't sending the shareholders a check for $6/share. More likely it's a settlement for 0.06 or below, and >80% goes to the lawyers.

    Now, in court, that may have been a different story. They probably did have a case against those bastards who snapped your streak, and very well could have won $80M. That's probably why they took the settlement for a million or whatever those lawyers got.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ParkTwain's Parlor
    By mrmarket in forum Discussion
    Replies: 591
    Last Post: 07-15-2012, 12:46 PM
  2. AACE ==> The March Madness Winner!
    By mrmarket in forum Discussion
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Do you like this site?

Take a look at the homepage
of $$$ MR. MARKET $$$