Considering not paying for your shares - read this first

Posts: 81 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 81

Quote:

Talk is cheap - Vonage can now shout from the mountain tops that everyone has to pay, but given that we all know the company has to cover their underwriters for any shares not paid for - since it was clearly stated in the prospectus - I'll just sit tight and wait for a formal legal request before I complete my purchase (if the stock totally tanks and I have to pay, it'll be a nice capital loss come tax time). Given that Vonage would appear to have much bigger and more pressing issues at this time, other than a few thousand of us balking at completing our purchase given the cluster#$%^ this IPO has become, I'll wait 'til they get around to "me".

When the prospectus says that underwriters will be covered for shares not paid for, they mean shares not sold. It's standard language. i.e. if the company issued 40 million shares, and 1 million shares remained unsold, the company will buy those 1 million shares from the underwriters. It does NOT mean that the company will compensate the underwiters for people who stiff the underwriter on the contract to purchase. You signed a contract with Citi, UBS or SSB, not Vonage to purchase stock at a set price. When you don't pay, it will be the underwriter who will persue you, not Vonage. Read what you signed. You promised to pay and don't have a leg to stand on. Vonage did NOT promise you would make money or that you wouldn't loose money.

Posts: 7 · New Forum Member Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 7

So they can pursue me - Again, the F'ing underwriters dropped the ball in several areas, namely the fact that people couldn't access their accounts to sell the stock once it became apparent it wasn't going to hold it's price (I didn't say sky rocket, because a fair amount of us didn't expect this stock to do an eBay or Google) - so if people were losing excessive money because the underwriters' online systems failed, well then there's good cause for a class action suit - and secondly that it is typically the underwriters' job to bolster the stock on opening day, to ensure people know it is worth it's opening value... Did you see any of the three firms doing this, in any fashion? Umm, no - and on that front it should be Vonage suing their @$$e$.

Again, like it or not, and maybe only for the short-term, Vonage is in a bit of a pickle... If us non-payers are that big of a concern for them, then I suggest anyone still holding shares to dump them ASAP - because this company is in trouble.

Now - how many more of you naysayers, who neither own shares nor took part in the IPO at all, are going wag your fingers at us? Hmm... C'mon now preachers - preach to us some more.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

[quote="ShelChgo"]

Quote:

It does NOT mean that the company will compensate the underwiters for people who stiff the underwriter on the contract to purchase.

You are 100% wrong...It says precisely that Vonage will make sure the underwriters are not left with renegs.

Posts: 476 · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Good God Man

OK, enough beating the dead horse and trying to look into the crystal ball. Only time will tell what happens with those DSP participants who refuse to pay.

hustow wrote:

and secondly that it is typically the underwriters' job to bolster the stock on opening day, to ensure people know it is worth it's opening value... Did you see any of the three firms doing this, in any fashion? Umm, no - and on that front it should be Vonage suing their @$$e$.

This is interesting - and it's not just you who have stated this, I've seen it on other threads/forums as well. Am I reading this right that those of you who cite this information believe it was the underwriters' jobs to ensure the stock stayed at or above the IPO price on opening day? That in essence it was the underwriters' jobs to not necessarily guarantee a profit for the IPO buyers, but at least minimize losses? I understand they may have been off in their pricing, but everyone involved knew the price was going to be somewhere between $16-18 going into this whole thing. Of course hind sight is 20/20, but all the DSP participants at least believed that the stock was worth $16 on the low end. When it turns out that it wasn't everyone points the finger at the underwriters for overpricing the stock, but even if they did, it was only by $1.

Posts: 75 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 75

hustow wrote:

Additionally, a simple letter to the reporting agencies stating the suspect occurences with the IPO (not being able to access the online limited brokerage accounts to sell quickly, before losing my @$$) were why I chose not to pay would suffice...

but feel free to be led like sheep if it fits you...

Let me see if I get this straight... (theoretically, of course) Vonage sells your debt to a collection agency because you refused to pay, and you think that by using the excuse of "it wasn't my fault. My brokerage had a crappy website so I couldn't sell my shares (that I hadn't yet paid for) right away", they'll let you off the hook? Do you think any collection agency gives a damn about your reasons? Besides, you're a powerful telecom consultant. At most you've lost $6700 on this. Suck it up.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

fanninja wrote:

hustow wrote:

Additionally, a simple letter to the reporting agencies stating the suspect occurences with the IPO (not being able to access the online limited brokerage accounts to sell quickly, before losing my @$$) were why I chose not to pay would suffice...

but feel free to be led like sheep if it fits you...

Let me see if I get this straight... (theoretically, of course) Vonage sells your debt to a collection agency because you refused to pay, and you think that by using the excuse of "it wasn't my fault. My brokerage had a crappy website so I couldn't sell my shares (that I hadn't yet paid for) right away", they'll let you off the hook? Do you think any collection agency gives a damn about your reasons? Besides, you're a powerful telecom consultant. At most you've lost $6700 on this. Suck it up.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.... A judgement will be required to hit your credit report (depending on your jurisdiction) -

Suck it up? Why? We got the shaft... This stock should be HALTED until the SEC and/or NASD decide on the following...

1. Mispricing of the securities
2. Disclosure infractions, as reported about an hour ago on Bloomberg
3. Contradictory statements made to CNBC during the quiet period.
4. Website problems, and liquidity issues involving DSP customer/clients

Posts: 75 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: Apr 26, 2006 Posts: 75

My thoughts...

btrader wrote:

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.... A judgement will be required to hit your credit report (depending on your jurisdiction) -

Suck it up? Why? We got the shaft... This stock should be HALTED until the SEC and/or NASD decide on the following...

1. Mispricing of the securities

There is only so much that can be done to support a stock price once trading starts. Even on an oversubscribed IPO if there are more sellers of the stock than buyers, the price is going to go down when trading starts. Bad, but not illegal or a reason to halt trading.

btrader wrote:

2. Disclosure infractions, as reported about an hour ago on Bloomberg

What took Bloomberg so long? This was disclosed in the prospectus last week!

btrader wrote:

3. Contradictory statements made to CNBC during the quiet period.

I never saw any statements from Vonage that were contradictory. I did see contradictory reporting from CNBC.

btrader wrote:

4. Website problems, and liquidity issues involving DSP customer/clients

I agree this is a problem for individuals that were told they were allocated 0, then later were told a number. That didn't happen to everyone (because it didn't happen to me)

Posts: 2 · New Forum Member Joined: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 2

Dude - since when does ANY company need a JUDGEMENT before reporting you to the credit bureaus? Depending on jurisdiction? There is NOTHING that makes this distinction - anywhere. Any company at any time can report you to the credit bureaus - now if the reporting is false or done with prejudice - it's up to you to monitor your report and dispute false items. If you do get a judgement - that goes on your credit report - as a Judgment - and it is counted very badly against you. Companies routinely report people late or delinquent on any account that you owe them money on - and in no way does a judge have to approve that report. If it goes to court - which is what you don't want to have happen - then it's a double-dinger - your credit is screwed.

So let's relate this all to this won't pay for my share nonsense. If you don't pay - you will get reported to the credit buroes - and then if you go to court - or get into a legal dispute - and you lose - which you probably will because I doubt the underwriters allowed you to accept documents which weren't enforcable - then you not only have to pay Vonage or the underwriters - or whoever - you have a judgement on your credit report. You agreed to pay - you need to accept your obligation. Your thinking is just like buying a car - not liking it - taking it back a couple months later - telling the dealer to shove it - and expecting you won't have to make good on your commitment. What in the world makes ANY of you think that it's OK - or you are within your rights to get away with not paying - when you KNOW you agreed to pay - and you are thinking that Vonage is too sick or too busy to mess with you. If they do end up selling the debt to a collection agency - same difference - the can report you - take you to court - you still pay - and your credit is ruined. No difference in the contract to buy a house, car, pay rent - whatever - you are an ADULT (at least in theory - though you guys SOUND like cry babies) and you need to own up to your obligations like big boys and girls. Amazing. This is what America has come to - a bunch of whining idiots. Congtrats!

btrader wrote:

fanninja wrote:

hustow wrote:

Additionally, a simple letter to the reporting agencies stating the suspect occurences with the IPO (not being able to access the online limited brokerage accounts to sell quickly, before losing my @$$) were why I chose not to pay would suffice...

but feel free to be led like sheep if it fits you...

Let me see if I get this straight... (theoretically, of course) Vonage sells your debt to a collection agency because you refused to pay, and you think that by using the excuse of "it wasn't my fault. My brokerage had a crappy website so I couldn't sell my shares (that I hadn't yet paid for) right away", they'll let you off the hook? Do you think any collection agency gives a damn about your reasons? Besides, you're a powerful telecom consultant. At most you've lost $6700 on this. Suck it up.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.... A judgement will be required to hit your credit report (depending on your jurisdiction) -

Suck it up? Why? We got the shaft... This stock should be HALTED until the SEC and/or NASTY decide on the following...

1. Misprizing of the securities
2. Disclosure infractions, as reported about an hour ago on Blomberg
3. Contradictory statements made to CNBC during the quiet period.
4. Website problems, and liquidity issues involving ASP customer/clients

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: May 22, 2006 Posts: 4

Don't people know how to pick up a phone? Why does the brokerage website not working right keep you from selling over the phone?

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

DuVader wrote:

You agreed to pay - you need to accept your obligation. ..... No difference in the contract to buy a house, car, pay rent - whatever - you are an ADULT (at least in theory - though you guys SOUND like cry babies) and you need to own up to your obligations like big boys and girls. Amazing. This is what America has come to - a bunch of whining idiots. Congtrats!

You think being a victim and accepting it makes you a great American? Makes you more adult?

Do you think when the mega-wealthy get scr~wed that they just take it? I fight for my money - And when I see an out, I press it to the limit. TRUST me if the shoe was on the other foot, those underwriters would be doing the same thing. You are very naive about the way the real world works.

I agree we are small timers, but if we band together - we are not collectively small. I have made my complaints known. If you are proud of yourself for being a "model" victim...good for you. But save the 'crybaby' lectures...nobody cares.