Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
No way to know? Eh, MORs every month were published.
Ask your accountant why it's valuable to have a pre-built holding subsidiary for acquisitions.
It cost nothing to keep it. It costs money to dissolve it, and recreate one again later.
..Catz
WMIIC is part of WMIH. That's in the POR/DS. (And subsequent PRs, SEC filings too)
And as stated in PRs, etc has no assets. Is an entity, perhaps as a SPAC, all to be seen what WMIH does with it.
The former assets of WMIIC were liquidated, and already disbursed per the POR/DS.
Follow the MORs and the assets of WMIIC were liquidated, mostly into Citation Holdings, and then disbursed during the POR/DS final saga.
Claims that WMIIC assets remain - well, not according to all the MORs and POR/DS.
The answer is pretty clear, no - WMI did not make such investments.
That type of investment (partial ownership of MBSs sold to third-parties) are a fungible asset. Eg, at any point in time, that "part ownership" (like owning say 1/3 of the value of a house, car, etc - along with other investors) can be sold to anyone else in exchange for cash -- eg, fungible.
Fungible assets show up in several places:
1) In prior annual reports
2) In the filing of bankruptcy (all fungible assets are required to be listed)
And if done to "demonstrate to the potential buyers, the credit worthiness/stability of said investment MBS's" there would have likely been language to that effect in the prospectus and/or inclusion in SEC filings, etc.
Said another way -- it's a nice theory. And of course the response will be that it's somehow "off-books" or "hidden investment" or other.
That's fine.
Not reality. An investment of that type would have pre-bankruptcy mention, documentation, anything that could be pointed to.
...Catz
No addition. Had hypothetically the plaintiffs won, the monies were at JPM from the Anchor litigation. And JPM would be the party to have paid.
I don't think it was the WMILT. It went to BK court as she has jurisdiction over the results of the POR -- including the Anchor litigation.
I believe it was JPM the effective 'defendant' in this instant case.
The recent order dismissig things -- http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160606000000000002
Right at the very beginnings says JPM brings the motion to dismiss.
The related filing asking the judge for the order - http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160603000000000002
Was filed by Sullivan & Cromwell "Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase"
It's been expressed that way, but it's more like 2.5% of the 25% and within that there are restrictions.
I know the full legal language that explains it has been posted numerous times.
There's a bunch of if/this/but-only-that which comprises what 2.5% is of -- and it's not of "everything"
That's fine. Then don't make assumptions that are incorrect, which have easy ways of testing them.
Curiosity not needed. It's just a data-point. Some would care about the Jr Bonds, some wouldn't.
Offer a buck or two for a bond and see.
Good. You get it . And then what's next?
The FDIC-R administrative costs and indemnity to JPM.
Then creditors like AZs WMB junior bonds.
Yes, above all else, protect the Depositors and the DIF fund.
You're counting deposits as assets within the $151b. For every dollar on deposit, is also a liability to pay that dollar back out.
Correct information is like that.
No indication that it would be in excess of $3b to reach past WMB Junior Bonds.
In fact, the trading of WMB JR bonds originally held by institutional "smart money" also belies that same issue. At the trading value of WMB JR's the "smart money" believes little to nothing is going to make it to even those securities, much less back to the WMILT.
(Keep in mind that any settlement with JPM for their many indemnifications comes before everybody else... that's considered an 'administrative cost' and is first in line for any monies/assets at the FDIC)
If you believe that FDIC monies will pay for all administrative costs, indemnifications, and WMB JRs to then reach equity -- you should buy all the WMB Jr's you can as they will get "full before Escrows first penny"
BTW -- That's exactly what AZCowboy did (buy WMB JR Bonds). He owns JRs (as well as Escrows of course)
...Catz
Nah. Blind question. No input to respond to yet.
How do you understand it?
Unfortunately the law allowed for the OTS to seize WMB and deliver it to the FDIC receiver. No compensation for that is due, or ever was. That's what the law is. Subsequently the FDIC sold "substantially all" of WMB to JPM.
It is "theory" that there are residual WMI assets at JPM. However, the POR/DS document exactly what WMI assets are at JPM - and that's basically a small amount of H. F. Ahmanson & Co. loans held at the WMI, not WMB level -- those loans originating pre 1998. The POR/DS documents those as the sole WMI assets at JPM for JPM to service, and remit those funds to WMI (now WMILT as successor in interest)
Assets that are at JPM that they want to "turn back in" to the FDIC, or were not part of "substantially all" of WMB -- are liquidated to follow the FDIC pecking order in waterfall. The waterfall begins with something like $3b of WMB Junior Bonds.
Do I think the laws are wrong, and JPM exploited the situation. Absolutely.
Did it happen? Yup.
...Catz
I'm not sure what you mean by "still" -- as part of the POR, virtually all of the "Intellectual Property" (including domain names) were covered.
POR / GSA - http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229120116000000000004.pdf
WMB and "Unidentified" IP went to JPMC. Basically if it referenced WMI, then it was kept -- but if it referenced WAMU or anything WMB, it went.
1) Yes
2) Yes
However, re #2 I already stated on BP:
My opinion is that you are making a fatally incorrect assumption -- that is to jump to the conclusion that those who might have questions about the method or expectations are - as you put it - apparently is NOT "GENUINELY CONCERNED WITH REALIZING RETURNS ONE DAY"
That is insulting to many. That infers that only the lock-step agreement with ~any~ idea or method will demonstrate camaraderie in that goal.
And that's fascist.
Folks can, and do, and are in question, and disagreement -- with suggestions or queries - and NONE of that means they are AGAINST the goal of "REALIZING RETURNS ONE DAY".
WMIH is a new company not regulated by the bankruptcy court.
Really?
By whom?
Under what standing?
Who is paying the lawyers?
Where are you getting your info from?
Check PACER. KCC is not official.
Got link for that? "JPM bought shares in WMIH"
Of course my reply was read by others - so I included that clarification to avoid confusion.
P's only? Or did you hold any prior commons as well? And did you get any distribution of disputed equity before? There was one other small distribution.
Sorry, perhaps I'm mis-remembering -- there were two distributions. I am pretty sure the first one was for former commons only.
Anyway, they aren't "escrow payments" of any form. They are disputed equity reserves being released.
understood your quantity may be larger than others -- but percentage wise to former shares it was trivial.
If you had commons you got two small distributions of WMIH. From the disputed equity hold back as per the POR
Former P's and K's did not. Never were to.
Waiting, no problem.
Reality, enjoy waiting.
LG -- perhaps if you provided the exact wording of the 2.5% it would be clear to all.
Creditor info, not Equity. Different animals.
It's not complicated.
For every $1, if/when distributed by the WMILT to former equity -- results in:
25 cents to to the pool of common holders, and 75 cents goes to the pool of preferred holders.
That's it.
Doesn't matter if it's $1 or 1 quintillion dollars, follows that math. Former face values have nothing to do with it.
...Catz
Actually Tanj -- that's not "eliminated on consolidation". You are reading something entirely else, titled - "elimination of intercompany revenue and expenses"
-------------------------------
"Eliminated on Consolidation" is a completely different thing:
It's an accounting term.
Please google "eliminated on consolidation" gaap -- and read how it is a term d'art in the accounting world.
It's a reference to summarized reporting. Nothing more.
Go ask an accountant familiar with the GAAP phrase. Or google other examples where it was used, and see if the 'subsidiary' being referenced actually got "eliminated". Nope.
If you're applying dictionary lay-person definitions to "fully" "eliminated" "on" "consolidation" and trying to discern what it means, you're off in left-field.
It's accounting-speak. Just like we know about lawyer-speak phrases that don't mean what the individual words say.
...Catz
Not ~all~.
That's a separate issue and was not the subject of that link.
I'll leave it that all testimony and filings are benign in the AT&T matter -- a creditor who just wants to be paid.
The 'theory' surrounding and inferring nefarious activities of AT&T are based on speculation -- specifically a JPM quote that they were "watching monies fly out of WaMu"
Extrapolating that speculation -- that "watching" meant AT&T somehow nefariously "wired" the BoD offices, or computer systems, of WaMu to allow JPM to conduct industrial espionage. (A feat, that nobody has sued anybody over..)
That has lead speculation that the AT&T filing, wanting to get paid for services rendered during the years prior to filing bankruptcy - is actually some sort of 'smoking gun' being held over JPMs head, somehow.
That, in turn, is further extrapolated into somehow the AT&T filing will force the hand of JPM to do something? Release Billions? K' - whatever.
Now, realities suspended -- that's the theory.
Realities engaged, that's not what the filings say -- nor any court testimony. The filings were for unpaid invoices by AT&T to WMB -- of which, the argument of the WMILT, is those became liabilities of JPM to pay due to JPM acquiring WMB under the PA&A.
...Catz
P.S. If JPM had done industrial espionage-- wouldn't you think they would have paid AT&T in a heartbeat (under the table or otherwise) and never let it show up in a court filing? Yup. But that doesn't fit the story-line.
Sorry. E instead of I, yes.
In either case, that's just ~one~ of the processes whereby CoC is used.
A standing rule, like what you are linking to (Rule 9019-1), are rules the attorneys are to follow unless otherwise guided by the court.
In this case, the CoC process was used (as it had been in the past many times) as a direction by the court.
Not a standing rule.
Apples/oranges. Said another way, your link to a rule, is an example of where CoC is used... But is not the only way it can be used.
But the CoC part is the same.
No, not a direct link. "Under COC" aka "Under Certificate of Counsel" has been used hundreds of times in the case.
Basically, the various attorneys (Counsel) send out the notice of the final ruling, instead of the court having to spend it's time/monies to do it.
I'm having a hard time of remembering any final ruling of the court that wasn't distributed that way.
So, I guess my 'link' is to the KCCLLC website, where the process has been used over and over.