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.
Wasn't 3,571,820 roughly the volume at that time? The volume doesn't reflect those trades. Probably just an Ihub L2 error?
Thanks! Good info.
That link is for a private message. I am unable to read it.
Info on Michael Willingham?
Does anybody have any info they can share about the EC chairman? I didn't see anything in the Ibox.
I am starting to do some extra DD on him. He purchased 1mil shares of only wamuq(no preferred) at around $0.20 average($200k). It is safe to say they he strongly believes wamuq will get more than $0.20/share.
Most of us know he was instrumental in getting the Mirant shareholders a payout.
Here is some info that I have collected so far today:
That witness, Michael Willingham, is an MC Asset Recovery part-time manager who never worked for Mirant, Southern alleged. MC Asset Recovery countered that Willingham is the best person to be deposed because he is functionally a bankruptcy trustee whose past experience includes working as an investigator for the Enron trustee.
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1201082539180
A good article to read:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292511/posts
Another expert, University of California law professor Lynn LoPucki, put it succinctly: "If you get a committee, and the committee gets a lawyer, you're going to get something."
Lynn LoPucki:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1646
<face it, she cant put u in jail, thats for damn sure.>
Don't be sure about that. A judge's power to hold a party in contempt should not be taken lightly.
Ever hear about the man that was thrown in jail last year for 6 months for yawning in court?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/clifton-williams-gets-6-m_n_255399.html
You may just be thrown out of court by the bailiff.
Or, the judge may finally rule on something......contempt of court. lol
It was refreshing to listen to the last hearing and not hear Rosen say, "equity is out of the money".
Rosen did allude to "working" with the EC on the next POR, and that was definitely a promising revelation.
Of course, Rosen did announce a "global settlement" that was far from global.
I do not expect Rosen to give commons anything in the next POR. He might give preferred another percentage or two, which is still worthless.
We have so many promising motions in the works; shareholder meeting, examiner, 2004 discovery, valuation. I do not want to get anyone's hopes up (mine included) to think that we need to see something for commons in the next POR.
As a few posters have already discussed, Rosen can not give commons a bone because it would open up a huge can of worms.
We will soon see.
<somebody knows something about the new POR and it looks like it may not be good for equity>
Rosen has been calling for equity to be wiped out and has said that equity will be "out of the money" for many months.
It is very misleading for anyone to suggest that Rosen will throw equity(commons) a bone in the next POR.
<WE know that the funds are there but Rosen has consistently stated that equity, particularly commons, are out of the money!>
Yes, we know that the funds are there.
Rosen gave most of them away to FDIC and JPM.(NOLs)
The extra monies will be "found" when FDIC and JPM graciously agree to take less or none of the NOLs for themselves. This would be the consideration for the dropped claims against them.
With this scenario, Rosen will not be a "liar" for consistently saying that commons were "out of the money".
Assuming the TPS are a wash, WMB bonds claims against WMI are rejected, and WMI receives the 4bil deposit and $5.6bil NOLs, commons are suddenly "in the money". Throw in the estimated $26bil worthless stock loss for the WMB stock, and roughly $9bil in additional NOLs would be available to the estate.
IMO
The fact that Stoll said what he did, and Rosen didn't retort with, "equity is out of the money" is pretty huge IMO.
You are right Uzual, this is the first time that anyone in court has specifically said that equity was part of settlement discussions, and there was no disagreement from any other party.
Here is what TPS attorney James Stoll said in the hearing:
"....As of last night, of course, we heard that there is planned settlement discussions with the EC. Of course, we have not been involved with those, we haven't been approached. We don't know how they are going to settle with equity, if they could, and jump our priority, but I could envision if they do reach some sort of settlement, yet another approach to the court saying Ah!, now we have the EC on board, let's have an August 2nd settlement date. Again I still don't have any documents and I still don't know for sure if what they're going to produce is actually responsive....."
Rosen responds:
......With respect to the timing issue, as the court is aware, we already approached the court's chambers yesterday to talk about the possibility for a confirmation hearing on a particular date. As we indicated in the meet and confer sessions, we weren't looking to jam any of the people by pushing one thing back and giving limited access. So we were going to open access to the depository and push back the confirmation hearing so that there would be an opportunity for people to not only review all of the documents in the depository but as well take whatever depositions are appropriate.....(Rosen then says) September 27,28,29 (for confirmation hearing date?), and Rosen says that TPS will have plenty of time to look in the depository.
Yes, Rosen just said that they were going to amend the plan.
No, the TPS attorney said he didn't know how equity would take priority over TPS. So, it wasn't about the docs only.
that is what I heard
Settlement discussions with EC-TPS counsel?
OBJECTION OF APPALOOSA, AURELIUS, CENTERBRIDGE AND
OWL CREEK TO THE MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF
EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DIRECTING
APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER UNDER 11 U.S.C. SECTION 1104(C)
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100614000000000010.pdf
Page 4.
11. Since the Petition Date, the Debtors, the Creditors Committee and the Objecting Creditors have spent significant time investigating the myriad of competing claims of ownership to the various assets in the Debtors’ estates.
Really? LOL
They spent "significant time investigating", and yet not one deposition was taken.
That is JPM's objection to the first examiner motion.
Their objection to the second examiner motion is here:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100614000000000006.pdf
We should probably wait until we hear what the EC has to say about this "agreement" before we form any conclusions.
I seem to remember a certain "global agreement" from a Mr. Rosen that turned out to be a dud.
"The Creditors’ Committee understands that the Debtors and the Equity Committee also have reached an agreement, and that the Debtors will be sharing attorney work product and other certain privileged materials with the Equity Committee pursuant to a common interest privilege and a Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order."
Page 3. http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100614000000000004.pdf
Delay, delay, delay.....
IMO
We can only hope. We don't need this ping-ponging back and forth lol.
Next week will be an eventful week.
It was hard to hear him at the end, but it sounds like he is going to take everything under advisement and issue his written ruling next week.
Written ruling next week?
The statement is from the EC's reply to WMI's objection to their motion to shorten.
It was filed just shortly after WMI filed their objection. The EC is on the ball!
The EC in their reply wrote:
"JPMC recently informed the Equity Committee that no governmental agency has opened an investigation into JPMC's conduct during its acquisition of WMB."
"JPMC recently informed the Equity Committee that no governmental agency has opened an investigation into JPMC's conduct during its acquisition ofWMB."
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-4651.pdf
Investigated to death?
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-4651.pdf
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SHORTEN NOTICE AND SCHEDULE
HEARING ON MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY
SECURITY HOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DIRECTING APPOINTMENT OF
AN EXAMINER UNDER 11 U.S.c. § 1104(C)
Do you or anyone else have evidence or proof of "actual fraud, dishonesty or criminal conduct in the management of the debtor or the debtor's financial reporting"?
Weil hasn't really handed over anything that would implicate them in any nefarious activities, AFAIK.
Although most of us "know" there is fraud, dishonesty and criminal conduct, the UST would need actual evidence.
There is undoubtedly evidence in the Debtors "work product", but something tells me Weil/Rosen will never give it up.
I think another possible reason could be that they are trying to show that the EC is their adversary so that they can keep their work product. The judge told them that the EC was on their side. Now he is throwing down the gauntlet and claiming the EC as an adversary, or trying to find proof thereof.
Rosen has to be formulating another loop to throw the judge. He is not dense, and he is definitely not sitting at home crying about the corner he backed himself into. Wachtel was a temporary setback that the judge will deal with. I am sure that was just one of the tricks Rosen has for her.
Hopefully, we shall soon see where Rosen is going with this.
We should be happy. Weil is finally starting their first discovery depositions!
lol?
<the reported "assets" were completely over-stated>
Point taken, and you may be correct.
But, we still do not know what was taken.
There is still no valuation, except the one provided by the good doctor.
Also, you may be stretching it to say that "tens and tens and tens and tens and tens and tens and tens and tens of BILLIONS of dollars worth of assets were complete JUNK".
The PSI investigation focused on the Long Beach loans, which were a very small percentage of the total loans that WMB had booked. There is no proof that, with the exception of Long Beach, WMB had a loan portfolio that was nothing but junk.
<Lawyers said that claims against FDIC/JPMC is potentially worth for $20B!>
They also have not seen any valuation or analysis from the Debtors, so $20bil is all they have to go on so far.
The EC also said that the Debtors had not done a thorough investigation of the claims and had not deposed even one person.
At this time, that valuation filed by Dr. Sankarshan Acharya is the most educated valuation that anyone has provided so far in this case.
"Plan objectors range from stock speculators who bought Washington Mutual shares for pennies in hopes of a big lawsuit payout to major institutions that backed Wamu and paid full price for the debt of the once-thriving thrift."
http://www.americanbanker.com/syndication/wamu-1020156-1.html
Once again, the shareholders are the vultures and the major institutional bondholders are the knights in shining armor that "backed" Wamu.
Moving target?
Didn't Susman tell the judge that it wasn't fair to have a moving target(constantly changing DS)?
"Since, however, the Disclosure Statement remains subject to change, the FDIC-Receiver may have objections with respect to the Disclosure Statement as it is revised prior to, at and possibly after the hearing at which the Court will consider the Debtor's request to approved the Disclosure Statement."
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100601000000000007.pdf
Looks like that target is still moving and FDIC thinks it may still be moving.......AFTER the hearing to approve it!! lol
FDIC thinks the DS may change AFTER the hearing to approve the DS.
Wow.
Well, the debtors already admitted two months ago that it is a debtor-creditor relationship.
"the Debtors believe that, the Tax Sharing Agreement and the reimbursement methodology therein established a debtor-creditor relationship and accordingly, that all Tax Refunds related to taxes that WMI paid for the Tax Group belong to WMI, regardless of which entity’s operating income, losses and/or other tax attributes the Tax Refunds could be attributed to. The Debtors acknowledge, however, that the FDIC Receiver, as a creditor under the Tax Sharing Agreement, would have a substantial claim against WMI’s estate relating to the Tax Refunds pursuant to the Tax Sharing Agreement."
Page 16. http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100326000000000009.pdf
I am still waiting for someone/anyone to include this in their objections to the DS/POR.
Their statement is a required response. This is part of their action to get the shareholder meeting hearing back in Washington State court.
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
Rule 9027. Removal
(e) Procedure after removal.
(3) Any party who has filed a pleading in connection with the removed claim or cause of action, other than the party filing the notice of removal, shall file a statement admitting or denying any allegation in the notice of removal that upon removal of the claim or cause of action the proceeding is core or non- core. If the statement alleges that the proceeding is non-core, it shall state that the party does or does not consent to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy judge. A statement required by this paragraph shall be signed pursuant to Rule 9011 and shall be filed not later than 14 days after the filing of the notice of removal. Any party who files a statement pursuant to this paragraph shall mail a copy to every other party to the removed claim or cause of action.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rules.htm#Rule9027
Exhibit H: Project West Team Leaders
Additional Relevant People:
#29 Jamie Dimon JPMC CEO
Page 107-108
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100525000000000026.pdf
I agree. I am still reading as well, and so far I am very pleased with what I have read.
<It is nice to see something.>
Something?
That something would be the vapor of the settlement.
"Rosen said the deal, which could result in the dismissal of three lawsuits pitting WaMu, JPMorgan and the FDIC against one another, also is contingent on the resolution of claims from holders of billions of dollars of bonds issued by Washington Mutual Bank, or WMB. Without the bondholders' approval, or the disallowance of their claims in their entirety, the settlement could turn to "vapor," Rosen said outside court."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/WaMu-reaches-settlement-with-apf-857239443.html?x=0&.v=5
<The fact that the FDIC has now joined the party is NOT good news.>
It is also not NEW news.
Most people knew that FDIC would sign. It really shouldn't come as a shock, but some "pumpers" have unwittingly turned the signing into a surprise to some people.
I have seen many posts that said things such as, "FDIC won't sign because that will be an admission that they seized a solvent bank."
Well, the FDIC DID seize a solvent bank. They know it and we know it.
Of course JPM and FDIC are on board with this POR. We can also see that the bondholders, with Weil, are trying to cancel out equity and reap the benefits of hidden assets after emerging from Chapter 11.
It is not a surprise. This is common in BK's.
Rosen has said numerous times that there is no money for equity. Rosen has said numerous times that FDIC is on board. So, why is anyone surprised about this POR...which is very similar to the last POR?
There is no guarantee that this POR will approved just because FDIC signed. FDIC is the one that siezed Wamu...come on people think. lol
I usually don't write sensationalist things, but think about this.
What if the POR included a clause where each of the common shareholders had to pay JPM an additional $10000? Would it be valid just because FDIC signed it?
The new POR is just as lacking and "poor" as the last POR.
Rosen is planning for a barrage of appeals from Susman.
Look what was added in the new disclosure statement:
43.17 Withdrawal of Equity Committee Proceedings: On the Effective Date, the Equity Committee Adversary Proceeding and, to the extent it has been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court, the Equity Committee Action to Compel, and any other proceeding or action instituted by the Equity Committee (including any appeal), shall be deemed withdrawn, with prejudice, without any further action.
Page 137:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100521000000000207.pdf
New Disclosure Statement Failure:
Let's just look at the Liquidation Analysis(Chapter 11 vs Chapter 7)
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100521000000000206.pdf Page 739:
Pursuant to section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Best Interest Test”), each holder of an impaired Claim or Equity Interest must either (i) accept the Plan, or (ii) receive or retain under the Plan property of a value, as of the Effective Date, that is not less than the value such nonaccepting holder would receive or retain if the Debtors were to be liquidated under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on the Effective Date. In determining whether the Best Interest Test has been met, the first step is to determine the dollar amount that would be generated from a hypothetical liquidation of the Debtors’ assets in chapter 7.
The Liquidation Analysis (the “Liquidation Analysis”) below reflects the estimated Cash proceeds, net of liquidation-related costs that would be available to the Debtors’ creditors if the Debtors were to be liquidated in a chapter 7 case.
Settlement Agreement: The conversion of the cases to chapter 7 are assumed to delay the consummation of the Global Settlement Agreement while the chapter 7 trustee and its professionals review the Debtors’ major assets and the terms of the Global Settlement Agreement. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a chapter 7 trustee is able to consummate a Global Settlement Agreement on the same terms and conditions as the Debtors propose in its plans. However, the Debtors can provide no assurance that a chapter 7 trustee will be able to execute a Global Settlement Agreement on at least as favorable terms as the current agreement. (LOL?)
(Here is the sticking point)
(d)
In both the chapter 11 and 7 cases, WMI’s portion of future tax refunds equates to 20% of the initial tax refund of approximately $2.9 billion and an additional tax refund of $2.8 billion less
$1,125 million paid to the FDIC and the WMB bondholders, netting a total of $2,255 million.
(WMI would still give away $3.44bil in tax refunds in Chapter 7 Liquidation...what a joke)
(g)
Current filed claims total in excess of $55 billion excluding unliquidated claims. However, the Debtor’s best estimate of eventually allowed claims in both cases will be approximately $375 million.
(WMI admits current claims are GROSSLY overstated...still hopelessly insolvent Rosen?)
Lucky for us, WMI included a caveat to their own Liquidation Analysis:
ACCORDINGLY, THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT THE VALUES REFLECTED IN THE LIQUIDATION ANALYSES WOULD BE REALIZED IF THE DEBTORS WERE, IN FACT, TO UNDERGO SUCH A LIQUIDATION, AND ACTUAL RESULTS COULD VARY MATERIALLY FROM THOSE SHOWN HERE.
Well, there we go. A quick look at the "new" Disclosure Statement.
$3.44bil in tax refunds given away to FDIC, WMB Bondholders, and we can only assume JPM, because it says "20% of the initial tax refund of approximately $2.9 billion" but doesn't say to whom it goes.
On page 742 it also says, "In chapter 7 cases, the Debtors believe they would be forced to sell WMMRC quickly which
would substantially reduce the recovery associated with this asset."
WMMRC has trust assets valued at $460mil, but somehow that is left out of the analysis. On page 75 they had written "As of December 31, 2009, the value of the six remaining Trust assets was
estimated to be $460 million." But, somehow when it was time for the Chapter 7 analysis, that $460mil shrunk down ALOT lol.
Well, to me the Chapter 7 liquidation analysis looks like a joke and WMI would need a miracle to convince the judge that $3.44bil in the estate's money should be given away in a Chapter 7 Liquidation just to keep equity...."out of the money".