Mark Nordlicht updates his offer

Mark Nordlicht has updated his tender offer and filed it with the SEC. You can view the updated tender offer here: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1303433/000114420411038180/v227390_sctota.htm

I am an Optionable shareholder, so I'm just going to re-post the "Good Part" here, and bold the "Best Parts" and not offer any comments for now.

==== start Quote of Nordlicht's updated tender offer =============

The Purchaser is making the Offer because he wants to increase his ownership of Optionable’s outstanding Shares to the maximum extent possible pursuant to the Offer. The Purchaser understands that Optionable has a valuable legal claim for damages against Bank of Montreal (“BMO”), NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (now CME Group NYMEX, Inc.) (“NYMEX”) and others, and that time is of the essence to initiate and preserve the claims. The Purchaser understands that initiating legal actions against BMO, NYMEX and others would involve significant legal costs and that Optionable may not have the ability to fully support the claims without capital investment from its significant stockholders such as the Purchaser. The Purchaser understands he has sufficient resources to finance vigorous legal actions by Optionable against BMO, NYMEX and others but seeks to increase his ownership percentage of Optionable to justify any such investment he may make.

The Purchaser believes that BMO repeatedly in its public filings and on analyst conference calls represented that it was running a "client driven" book of business. In fact, the Purchaser believes BMO was running a book engaged heavily in market making and proprietary trading. As part of what the Purchaser believes to be a cover-up of this fraud, the Purchaser believes BMO knowingly blamed Optionable for trading losses in order to divert attention from this fraud and BMO’s general lack of risk management controls. The Purchaser believes Optionable should seek monetary damages from BMO of no less than $500 million representing the market valuation of Optionable at the outset of what the Purcahser believes to constitute BMO’s fraudulent activities.

As part of its agreement with Optionable, NYMEX agreed to joint marketing and technology cooperation. The Purchaser believes that not only did NYMEX knowingly breach its agreement with Optionable, but it deliberately listed a competitive product on the CME trading platform, thereby preparing for its own $10 billion or more merger with the competing company. The Purchaser believes that Optionable should seek monetary damages from NYMEX of no less than $500 million representing the market valuation of Optionable at the time of what Purchaser believes to constitute NYMEX’s misconduct.

==== end Quote of Nordlicht's updated tender offer =================

Mark Nordlicht makes an offer

Mark Nordlicht has filed an offer with the SEC to buy all the outstanding shares of Optionable for 3.5 cents a share. Optionable management has 10 days from June 13th to reply to the offer.

You can read more about this on the SEC website: here

Options are not a Buy & Hold investment

BMO claims that David Lee mismarked (lied about the value of) their portfolio under his management for 4 years - and that this deception was successful in fooling them.

One of the things that bothers me about BMO's statement though is that Options are not a "Buy & Hold" investment. Options expire. David Lee wasn't able to just hold the options he bought for BMO and then lie about their value. He had to trade them. David Lee's marks were his estimation of the portfolio's value, but his trades were for real money.

Note: Neither the Government nor BMO is claiming that Lee's trades were ever falsely reported.

David Lee was either able to monetize the portfolio from 2003 until 2007 for roughly what he marked it at - or he wasn't. If he was monetizing the portfolio for roughly what he marked it at, then ummmmmm.... the books weren't really mismarked in the first place?? (am I right? Do you follow this?) And, if he could not monetize the portfolio for what he marked it at, consistently, over a period of four years, and nobody said anything to him about the discrepancy, then was there really anyone monitoring this guy?

How can BMO claim that they were truly fooled by Lee's daily valuations, or Cassidy's twice-monthly reports, which were at best an estimation of the portfolio's worth, when they had the cold hard numbers generated by Lee's actual trades?