"Now I am become death . . ."
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.
Judas Iscariot style - with a rope and the forty (40) pieces of SILVER that he shilled us out for, laying by his side.
A good story never changes, only the names and actors change.
Go to He11, Judas RosenFRAUD.
JMVHO, of course.
Ps: The metaphorical (and financial) value of SILVER is phenomenal!
Judas (the Betrayer), sells us out in exchange for that which his true master (JPig) wants/needs:
SILVER
Go WAMPQ, Go SILVER!
The REASON the judge threw out the Examiner's report (i.e., did not accept it as evidence), is that it is 100% HEARSAY. An Examiner's Report is not a substitute for putting up real, admissible evidence during a confirmation hearing.
The judge has been giving signals all along (or perhaps I am mis-reading this woman's signals - wouldn't be a first for me to not pick up on what a woman was trying to tell me).
Paraphrasing -
1. "Aren't THEY (i.e., the Equity Holders), your constituents as well?" Why have they been kept outside the loop, not invited to the party?
2. "I don't see how you will be able to get a POR confirmed without an asset valuation analysis (showing what tangible and intangible assets like lawsuits against JPig, Fdick, etc.), showing how much the company is worth dead vs. alive; how much would these assets fetch in an "ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION, and not these phony-baloney "trust me" type valuations like Visa shares for $25 Million, etc.
I get these impression that she is going through this long and tedious procedure to give Weil, Rodent EXACTLY what they asked for:
1. a POR without sharing asset valuation information with real constituents (while having NO problem sharing everything, including OUR money, with the ENEMIES); and
2. a confirmation hearing, where the Burden of Proof is on the Debtor, to show that the plan is Kosher under Chapter 11 (and perhaps 7), and where the only thing that the Debtors gave her was a 2nd rate Comedy Club Act, featuring William "Special K" KosturA$$ and his stooges (or rather, Weil/Rodent's stooges).
I could be completely off base, but I think that this is her way of setting up Bri-Bri Rodent with an "I TOLD YOU SO" as well as a "BYE-BYE, Bri-Bri."
JMVHO
Did the Judge just say that the Equity Committee ("EC") was one of the constituents of the Debtor, and was therefore entitled to share information between Debtor and EC?
If that's the case, then ALL of the documents that WGM and Rodent had should have been turned over to EC, and done away with the phony-baloney game that the Board never received legal advice.
The whole purpose for the Examiner was that Discovery was NOT being complied with (in good faith), by Weil and the Debtor. They were playing "hide the weenie" with the EC and stringing them all along.
WTF?
Here is my response as a criminal defense attorney:
It is not illegal to intentionally lie, deceive, or make misleading statements in your testimony in court . . . SO LONG AS THE STATEMENT MADE DOES NOT RELATE TO A MATERIAL ISSUE AT HAND
This is in a nutshell, of course.
But the testimony given by KosturA$$ was definitely MATERIAL.
The question is whether he did this knowingly and intentionally. And given his ineptness, his incompetence, and his almost complete lack of knowledge regarding any of the "facts" relating to this company, I believe that a Perjury charge would not stick.
Additionally, given that he hedged at the end and waffled on his original answer means that he tried to cover up a mistake in his testimony (as he wasn't that familiar with the 2 year old script).
Perjury against Special K would NEVER stick; however, the BIGGER issue is that "correction" by Bri-Bri Rodent to the judge. Was that a mistatement? Did he try to mislead the judge?
Rodent wasn't under oath so he couldn't be charged with Perjury; he would, however, be in serious hot water for the ethics violations (regarding his Bar Car). And never mind that, if I were the judge, this is something that I would NEVER, EVER forget. You lie once, your word is worth F...-All, Zero, Zip, Nada.
I am from Texas, and here, ANYBODY is allowed to file a complaint with the State Bar for attorney misconduct. Don't know how it works in New York, but certainly, if anybody wants to entertain this issue, perhaps a few hundred (or thousand) letters to the New York State Bar might get them interested in Rodent's tricks, his utter disregard for COI issue, his total COMTEMPT for a portion of his constituents . . . I could go on and on.
Just a thought.
David
No, you are NOT being simple-minded.
You can recover from your insurer or from their insurer, or even from a combination of the two insurers.
But UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would you ever be allowed to double-dip and get more than your total losses. Your insurer would be subrogated and would get to sue to recoup money they paid to you as a result of the other driver's fault. The could sue the driver, and his insurance company would pay up, or have to pay a lawyer to defend its insured (in this case, the other driver).
Insurance is to make you whole, to put you back in the position PRIOR to the accident.
Insurance is NOT a Lotto Ticket where free money just rains itself down upon you.
No double-dipping, no free lunches regarding insurance. Doing so is INSURANCE FRAUD in every sense of the term.
I insist on it.
I am an attorney, and have always said that "lawyers make the best plagiarists."
My dad made that one up years ago (in reference to Brazilian politicians - that's where he was born -and it goes to show you that even third world politicians aren't as dirty as this crew).
So, since I "borrowed" the quote from my dad, I pass it on to you. And with great pleasure.
David
Forget hardball tactics - this is flat out UNETHICAL, and borders on CRIMINAL.
They know full well that there is NO lawful basis for stealing money that is to be held IN TRUST for the benefit of the dimeq holders. End of sentence, end of story.
They are AGENTS for the DIMEQ holders, and have a fuduciary duty to act in the best interests of these holders. They are being paid 15% of net to a act in an ethical manner and to comply with the law. As if a fiduciary needed to be told this.
Rosen/Weil know this yet choose to argue out of both sides off their mouth as well as out of their @$$.
"Please completely disregard our prior motion asking the Court to be complicit in our criminal activity in stealing this money; now that the other side so BUSTED us, and caught us in yet another one of our lies, we think that the NEW and improved motion (arguing the complete opposite of what we first argued), says EXACTLY what we needed to say to steal this money."
Please go along with this crime, your honor. Everything else is correct (unless we get caught again), in which case, we'd like to use our opponents arguments to contradict them.
We are neither for it nor against it, and very much to the contrary.
These guys are amazing (and not in a good way). Weil/Rosen will stop at nothing.
There is an adage in the law that "there is no amount of hard work and preparation that cannot be overcome through trickery and deceit."
Textbook Weil, textbook Rosen type bs.
Since their position is now a fight of the board "may versus shall" (somewhat akin to depending on the definition of "is"), and since their board is saying we MAY, and they aren't, this proves now, more than ever, that we need a NEW BOARD ASAP!!!
PhillipMax, if you have not yet sent your letter to Judge Walrath, I would hope that you would also make reference to my analogy of JPig having no greater right to our Anchor Litigation proceeds than it would to any property contained inside each former WAMU safe deposit box.
This would make a much closer reference/analogy to what JPig is doing to DIMEQ, although the car example is a wonderfully vivid (and personal analogy - and I wish that I had thought of it).
In fact, I only came up with the thousands of former WAMU Safe Deposit Boxes (containing PERSONAL PROPERTY "OWNED" by individuals) analogy after reading your letter.
I hope that you can reference it; otherwise, please let email me with information on sending a letter to the court and I will hammer out a quick letter and cc the appropriate parties.
MrchntDeth [at] aol [dot] com
DIMEQ's versus property inside WAMU SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES:
Someone had given a great analogy wherein a piece of property (in this case, an antique vehicle),is left IN TRUST with a neighbor, and stored in the neighbor's garage. The neighbor is being compensated by the true owner of the car.
A few years pass, and the neighbor's house (WMB/WMBFSB), is foreclosed, and all the property (including the antique DIMEQ's), are taken over by the foreclosing bank (JPig/Fdick).
While JPig may very well foreclose on the property, it is in no way entitled to take over and assume as its own, property belonging to a 3rd party. The fancy legal word for this is "conversion," but we know it better as THEFT.
And for JPig to take over the DIMEQ proceeds, BUT, "relieve itself" of any obligation to the DIMEQ holders not only violates the warrant agreement, but amounts to outright THEFT.
JPig is well aware that WMI was acting as an agent for the warrant holders. The LTWs are not really a warrant, but rather a right or an entitlement to a payment of 85% of net proceeds from the Anchor lawsuits.
My thought is as follows:
For JPig to believe that it is entitled to the Anchor litigation proceeds, it must also believe that it is LEGITIMATELY entitled to all of the property inside of each and everyone of the thousands of safe deposit boxes inside each and everyone of the former WAMU banks. (emphasis added) Not Jamie Dimon type belief, nor Brian Rosen type belief, but that of a SANE, RATIONAL HUMAN BEING (hence the exclusions of Dimon/Rosen).
I can't really fault Wamu management with giving away OUR property to JPM/FDIC while keeping the liabilities with Wamu, knowing full that they can never pay us what we our owed.
This has been their M.O. since Rosen showed us who his bosses really are.
Besides, what else would you expect from a management that hangs on (and remembers), EVERY word that their adversaries' lawyers say, but CANNOT for the life of them remember EVER seeking advice from their OWN lawyers as to what their take is (or what it should be). If you take Special K at his word during the hearings, he's not even sure who is on the board; he probably doesn't even know that the Estate has been been MILKED by WGM for Millions of dollars EACH month, or worse, that Wamu has (and is supposed to rely), it's own counsel).
After all, why bother seeking legal counsel when your opponents have enough legal superpower on their side? That way, you can just take JPM's word for what they should do regarding our assets (which not surprisingly, is that everything that belongs to us should be turned over to our opponents).
Old habits die hard.
One would presume that there would be tangible sanctions for this obstruction to justice. How can you get out of providing full accurate and detailed valuation based on the asset list, and turn around to fast-track the closure of bankruptcy? This makes no sense to me, and no one has the balls to do anything about it.
Well, Judge Mary Walrath certainly does NOT.
Both literally, and more to the point, figuratively.
She is spine-less, to put it lightly.
As a judge, she ought to be selling shoes.
It's post-petition interest from the date of the bankruptcy filing (September 2008).
Hope that helps.
David
Hi h_man, thanks a bunch for answering my questions for me - I truly appreciate your helping out a fellow investor.
I practise Texas Criminal State Law (felony level ), exclusively, been doing it since 1993.
I graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1991 - (Law Review Junior Editor from 1990). I practiced Corporate Law at one of Dallas's biggest law firms. I put up with it for about 2 years, but that's only because we could not open the windows from 30, 40 stories above ground level.
It flat-out SUCKED - too much information/details to go into at the moment, but trust me on this, big city civil law firms are hardly "civil" and there are many moments when you want to jump out of the afore-mentioned skyscrapers, but I guess that the owners don't make it very easy for fear of the ever-present ambulance -chasing attorney.
The only way for you to get me to go back to practicing civil law at a big, downtown legal firm would be for you to put a loaded gun to my head - and even then, I would still probably force you to pull the trigger.
Thank you, friend.
Kindest and Warmest wishes. And best of luck to you.
Sincerely,
David B.
Ps: I truly LOVE the criminal law side of the law - a real joy. My side hobby is following the stock-market, especially in special situations where there is a legal matter that's causing a complete disconnect between the current share price vs. the implied fair market value if the company were busted up.
I'm gonna check the link you sent me and find out what part(s) I missed in my analysis.
TTYL
Thank you, h_man, for the information.
Can you direct me with a link or a reference to where the five (5) conditions are located? The 5 conditions to which you are referring?
I am an attorney (but not a corporate securities lawyer).
I thought that I had read the information covered in the CMA, but I must've skimmed over some part(s), or just assumed them into place where no assumption should've been made. Or rather, NO ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD EVER BE MADE.
Any assistance in pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
David B.
Ps: what are your thoughts on EOSPN as this price (over-valued, under-valued, or fairly priced)? Just curious to get a read on what other investors are thinking.
Again thanks for the help and would love to return the favor if ever given the opportunity.
db
I just called Lloyd Winans' office and left word through his receptionist/gatekeeper. She told me that he is "at a meeting," so I asked for a call-back regarding the OTS Enforcement Orders issued back in 2009.
I intend to ask him if/when any of the Restrictions will be removed, given that Judge Peck (in the Lehman Bankruptcy case), has already approved the Capital Maintenance Agreement ("CMA"), whereby the judge has authorized (and essentially ordered), that Lehman maintain Aurora's (i.e., EOSPN's) Tier 1 Capital level and "At-Risk" Capital levels at or above the amounts stipulated in he CMA.
Secondly, and related to the above issue(s), I would like to know if the cash and non-cash assets have already been transferred to Aurora/EOSPN, and if so, is this the final step in getting the Restrictions removed?
My understanding of the CMA is as follows (and please correct me if you disagree):
Lehman is to inject close to $1 Billion in cash and non-cash assets (around 55/45), in order to keep Aurora from dropping below OTS levels. In fact, the asset transfer would leave Aurora/EOSPN highly capitalized (way above OTS standards), and therefore, "seizure-proof).
Lehman will then market Aurora to interested parties over the next 18 months. If Lehman cannot or does not find a suitable buyer, it is my understanding that Lehman will be buying back in the non-cash assets (i.e., loans, notes, mortgages, etc.), from Aurora (in effect liquidating Aurora), so that it can distribute its (common share) equity in Aurora to Lehman creditors.
The important thing to take note of is that Aurora is NOT part of the Lehman bankruptcy, and the CMA in fact prevents Aurora from even coming close to being seized by the government.
Once Aurora is sold/liquidated, the EOSPN shares are redeemed at par ($25.00/share), and the remaining (SUBSTANTIAL) equity is then given to the common shareholder (i.e., Lehman), which then becomes part of the Lehman estate. This seems to be the plan put forth before Judge Peck, and he seemed to think that it made sense to keep Aurora alive - so much sense that he ordered that Lehman pony up $1 Billion in assets to preserve its existing equity in Aurora. In other words, there is A LOT of equity in Aurora, and a BILLION more on top of that AFTER the transfer as agreed to under the CMA.
I know that there are a lot of moving pieces here, but what I am essentially trying to figure out is whether the OTS has any reason (or standing) to keep the enforcement Orders in effect. If not, EOSPN should be in a position where they would start to declare and pay regular quarterly dividend payments for the next 6 quarters, until Aurora is either sold, or the business is wound down and the EOSPN shares are redeemed at par.
Any ideas, comments, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
David B.
I am glad that the Market Maker(s) are playing games with the "P" shares.
I have been bidding ABOVE the ask, and only getting 15 shares here, 70 shares there, and then my order fills in full after several minutes of this BS. All the while, the MM are showing that there's a 5,000 share over-hang of shares waiting to be dumped at the Asking price. RIIIGHT!
I'll gladly pay "above-market" prices to get into the P shares at anything close to 3 cents on the dollar. Especially after seeing the billing items showing that the Examiner and his team are leaving no stone unturned), and most ironically, with the pricing games that the MM are playing.
You want to pretend that there's a big share over-hang getting ready to be DUMPED onto the market?
Cool! I'll be using that as my opportunity to add more P's whenever/where ever I can. The lower the (artificially set) price, the better. No complaints from me.
In the short-run, the MM can fool most people; in the longer-run, especially after the examiner exposes the FRAUD, the BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES, the CRIMINAL ACTS being committed by Rosen, Weil, JPMC/Dimon, let's see how long the price of $1,000.00 Preferred stays at 3 cents on the dollar.
If they're stupid enough to keep this artificially depressed, then I will be buying (naturally).
Rosen, Dimon/JPM will get F'd in the A.
With all the talk about the Examiner's billing hours (and the detailed notes therein), I decided to look up Brian Olasov (since a lot of the billables related to him), to learn more about him. Here is the Bio I found on him (and it appears that this was a great choice by our Examiner):
http://www.mckennalong.com/professionals-483.html
Kudos to Judge Mary for appointing such an experienced and capable former DOJ prosecutor (Joshua Hochberg), who then put a Hell of a legal and financial team to go through this with a fine-toothed comb. These guys are NO BRIAN ROSENs.
I suspect that the Examiner and his crew are going to make Dimon, Rosen, et al., their BITCHES by the time that all is said and done.
They were appointed by Judge Mary ONLY b/c of the shenanigans being played by Rosen, Weil, JPM, and FDIC (among others). These jokers brought this Examiner onto themselves, and I suspect that this Examiner's report is going to question an awful lot of things, including why it is that we have to pay (give away) Billions of dollars to JPMC to get us to promise NOT to sue JPMC for all of the losses that they inflicted onto Wamu.
This probably wasn't the way that the back-stabbing Rosen (and the Weil firm that was SUPPOSED to be representing the Wamu estate for ALL WAMU parties in interests (including ALL Equity holders), instead of shilling for JPMC), thought that this is the way this would turn out.
After all, this should have been wrapped up last June after a quickie passage of the POR, since Rosen was "so worried" that the EC was trying to "MILK" the Wamu estate.
I am holding a lot (for me) of the P's and just a little bit of H's, and am looking forward to laughing all the way to the BANK; it just sure ain't gonna be a JPIG bank.
I am so grateful to Rosen and the rest of the Weil team for bringing all of this upon themselves. May they get the EFFING that they deserve, for the EFFING that they were trying to give to the equity holders. They were bending over backwards to get US to bend-over for Rosen's new masters.
Karma has a funny way of giving it to you when you thought you were gonna "give it good" to those that you were trying to screw into the ground.
Thank you for taking the time to read this very lengthy post - thoughts, opinions, suggestions would be welcomed and appreciated by me.
Sincerely,
David B.
Has anyone spoken with EOS in the past few days? There were some positive (and very MATERIAL) actions taken by Judge James Peck, the judge handling the LBHI bankruptcy proceedings affecting the future of EOSPN.
I would have expected EOS to have released a Form 8-K, discussing the material impact that Judge Peck's actions will have on our company (and specifically, our EOSPN shares).
Lehman's request to enter into a Capital Maintenance Agreement was granted. LBHI now has the bankruptcy court's permission and blessing to inject close to a Billion Dollars of cash and non-cash assets into Aurora FSB (the old Lehman Brothers Bank FSB). Aurora owns the equity ranking BELOW EOSPN shares. LBHI (and it's creditors) want to sell or wind down Aurora bank.
One of the things that I've seen since last week is that LBHI is committed to either selling Aurora FSB to another bank, or in the alternative, to buy back any/all of Aurora's non-cash assets within the self-imposed 18 month deadline. Obviously, they wouldn't be buying back cash or cash equivalent assets, as those would be valued at 100 cents on the Dollar.
This bank will be sold, one way or another, within 18 months.
Apart from the sure dividend that we'll receive in December, there's a $25.00 pot of gold at the end of this rainbow between now and March 2012. This conservatively assumes no further dividend payments. But with Aurora FSB now super-capitalized, any reason/justification for the OTS to stick its bug nose into our business just disappeared thanks to Judge Peck's granting of the motion - thank you, judge!
So the game as I see it now is that $20 gets you at least $25.53 (if you assume only the one dividend payment in December 2010 and no other dividends thereafter), just to keep things conservative. Not a bad return for an 18 month (or less) wait.
First question: what is the annualized rate of return if you view EOSPN as a Zero-Coupon Bond as described above, including the one dividend for December '10, but assuming no other payments until it is cashed out at $25.00 per share?
Second question: what (if anything) am I missing or over-looking here? I am assuming that Judge Peck, LBHI, and the LBHI creditors want to extract as much equity out of Aurora as they can. They already threw a lot of money into our bank to keep the OTS away. More money is on its way and it appears that we'll be over-capitalized (with an ongoing committment by LBHI to keep Tier 1 and At Risk Capital at/above levels that will keep the OTS far away from us until this company is wound down or sold.
I know that the folks on the bankruptcy side (Judge Peck, LBHI, creditors of LBHI wouldn't be agreeing to throw good money after bad, so it would appear that the 18 month exit strategy is a very high likelihood event. As is our collecting our $25.00 as soon as the company is sold or wound down.
LBHI and it's creditors CANNOT cash out any equity in Aurora FSB until we're made good on our securities.
Again, what am I missing here?
Only genuine comments/opinions, please.
Thank you,
David B.
Judge Peck granted Lehman's Motion to inject Aurora with sufficient Capital to leave it "highly capitalized." Initially, the Tier 1 Capital will be around 20% (way above the amount to be considered highly capitalized.
Additionally, the Capital Maintenance Agreement ("CMA"), Lehman commits to further injection(s) of capital to have a minimum Tier 1 Capital of 11% and an "At Risk" Capital of 15%, IIRC.
Furthermore, the CMA will allow Lehman to shop around a now highly-capitalized Aurora (aka, EOSPN), to a bunch of banks without worrying that regulators will seize the bank and/or worrying about having to dump at fire sale prices.
Bottom-line:
The EOSPN shares WILL be redeeemed within the next 18 months, if not sooner. OTS will back off and allow Aurora/EOSPN to conduct its business without having to say "mother may I?" each time it wants to declare a dividend, etc.
The reason for wanting to redeem CCPCN/EOPSN back in October 2008 is even more compelling now, given that interest rates have fallen even further.
Again, JMHO, but EOSPN will be taken out at $25.00/share, sooner rather than later.
David
Lehman's motion to be approved on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 (re: the "Capital Maintenance Agreement"), will leave Aurora FSB "highly capitalized" as per the motion.
Addtionally, the Agreement calls for Lehman to keep "Tier 1 Capital" at above 11% and "At Risk Capital" at above 15% for the duration (18 months) of the Agreement. In the meantime, Lehman gets to shop around a highly capitalized Aurora FSB to other interested banks over the next 18 months, and not at a fire-sale price.
After the motion is granted by Judge Peck, the initial Tier 1 Capital will be around 20%, IIRC, and should allow Aurora (EOSPN), to resume regular dividend payments. The purpose for the OTS poking its nose into Aurora's business goes away at the moment that the Lehman injects this additional (and substantial) capital into the bank, but this is not part of my equation in buying the shares at these prices; I am assuming no dividends and a redemption within 18 months.
BOTTOM LINE is that the EOSPN Preferred Shares will be taken out at $25.00. Buying them at this price is like buying a zero coupon bond @ $19.00 to $20.00, and having it redeemed @ $25.00 within the next 18 months, perhaps sooner. If dividends resume, it'll be icing on the cake.
I will let somebody else do the APR on this as I am somewhat mathamatically challenged, but I'll bet that the APR will be pretty high. And the sooner that EOSPN is redeemed, the higher the APR will be.
Besides, Lehman has already put in too much capital into Aurora and Woodlands to let these banks get confiscated by the FDIC/OTS; that is why Lehman is begging Judge Peck to allow them to put even more money into the banks, with Aurora getting almost a Billion Dollars more capital into its balance sheet!
Aurora WILL be sold within the next 18 months, and EOSPN shares will get taken out. If Lehman wanted to get rid of the CCPCN/EOSPN shares back in October 2008, the reason to redeem them now is even more compeling given that interest rates have dropped even further.
David
EOSPN
I don't think that the shares will be around that long.
I suspect that the preferred shares (EOSPN), get taken out at $25.00/share.
Less than $40 million to buy out all the shares ($37.5 M, IIRC).
JMHO
Wow . . . many months of patience finally paid off!
Today is a beautiful day.
I began buying shares of EOSPN (previously CCPCN), right after the buyout offer collapsed, buying shares mostly in the $5.00 - $7.00 range, and trading back and force between the wide spreads set by the MM.
db
EOSPN is moving UP today!
I wonder if/when information is coming re: the OTS and their decision to reinstate dividends and/or to allow the sale of the company?
Is the market anticipating a positive response from OTS, or better yet, is information starting to leak regarding reinstatement of dividends, a sale of the company (which would improve the credit worthiness of the preferreds), or better yet, a redemption at $25.00?
A decision should be coming from OTS in the near future.
Any thoughts?