According to FXCM sales support, the hearing for the REFCO FX auction is yet delayed again until December 15, ???? I Forgot to ask what year.
The next step is an auction of the firm and that date will be decided on the 15th. ( a quote from the other thread )
Can I buy their bloomy subscription for one workstation at 10 cents on the dollar at the auction....? Michael B. P.S. To all you clients of Refco, please excuse this post. I know this is a serious matter, and I would not wish what is happening to you, on any trader.
The good news is that these are small delays of a week or so, not months. And I did read somewhere that it won't be until January that we will know anything (I think it was one of the interviews with the FXCM ceo).
Remember that the point of this auction is to benefit the creditors as much as possible. The dates are being changed so the most qualified parties can attend, around the holidays that always tough. Considering the fact that this scandal is only a few months old they are moving at light speed. Enron is still going... Trader/God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Res ipsa loquitur..... .....is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "The thing speaks for itself". The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. It is most useful to plaintiffs in negligence cases. Under the old common law rule, to use res ipsa loquitur in the context of negligence the plaintiff must prove that: 1. The harm would not ordinarily have occurred without someone's negligence 2. The instrumentality of the harm was under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time of the likely negligent act 3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm by his own negligence. The "exclusive control" element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation, where the plaintiff must prove that other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. As a consequence, the third element, that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury, is subsumed by the new formulation. In addition, it is important to note that contributory negligence is, in modern case law, reckoned in "comparison" to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, the plaintiff's slight fault will not negate the negligence of the other. * For instance, plaintiff Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly. * Roe Corporation built, and is responsible for maintaining, the elevator. * Doe sues Roe and during the proceedings, Roe claims that Doe's complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved, or for that matter even offered, a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Roe, there is no evidence that they were at fault in the incident. * The court may hold that Doe does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself. * The elevator malfunctioned, Roe was responsible for the elevator in every respect, so they are responsible for the fall. * The thing speaks for itself.
Umm, its not really necessary to let us know everytime you use google, but thanks. If there was no reason to delay, the date of the auction would be determined today, it wasn't so....well you got it now I think. Trader/God
How about the tchotchkes -- logo'd mousepads and coffee mugs and, of course, the tee shirts emblazoned "I opened an account with RefcoFX and all I got was this tee shirt"?