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 Chaleco, thanks New & Swami
there are some numbers on the balance sheet also in that link, fwiw, but none of this situation makes sense and I'm not keeping up with the details anymore post Scotus remand to the 10th...saw the etrade thing which caught my attention and remembered something about where "we s/h" are in this mess.
thanks New and nice note Swami, curious to read updates and response.
shares
because we are ch 11, there aren't any shares because there isn't any bank...and there won't be (under ch 11), so no need to chase regulatory procedure imo
basically what im saying is Etrade or whoever, is removing them per procedure and probably added a statement about getting the shares back for you if ever a transfer agent/etc was assigned...back to first statement.
Years ago I remember reading something about a secured claim, #8 perhaps, for the shareholders; anyone have details which claimants have/not received a dividend??
12.5% remaining...
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/unitedwestern.html#dividends
Backup:
Claimants
A “claim” is an assertion of indebtedness of a failed institution to a depositor or to a party which has a non-deposit liability such as a general creditor, subordinated debt holder, or shareholder.
3/17/2022
settle
ya'll didnt want this going to scotus in the first place -- not a proper vehicle for Bob Richards -- and poof, bye Bob.
the first and (arguably most important ruling) was the bk, applying state law -- so one year, three years, this case, that case, new case; matters not.
Chaleco - yes subject to what you mean by automatically
cause there is manual work required...I recommend "procedurally" in liu of
nonetheless, it is remanded down (full or partial w/e, see wiki below) which either requires re-trial or re-evaluation based on the already submitted docs. No relator BS, we're in the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia excellence
When the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses a decision of a state supreme court or a Federal appeals court, it may remand the case... A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial.
Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a different legal standard when considering facts already entered at trial.
pls hold my beers
thanks, this will be swift...
Bruddah: does the relationship, per the first-ish line of TAA, meet the state law criteria, power and control??
settle
settle
don't let it go back; with Bob gone, the 10th will/may side with Bk based on STATE LAW and set p r e c e d e n c e.
Its one thing to lose Bob Richards.
Its another (bigger) thing to have have precedence set based on lost Bob.
Unless, that is what is wanted...
spin class
I don't want a judgement of affirmed - that's in favor of the FDIC!
Respectfully, pls stop spinning the BS to prove superiority; I'm not a lawyer but I can read and apply.
"Affirmed" - the judgment of the lower court is correct and should stand.
MR. HUSTON: I'm perfectly comfortable
to the Court to write that opinion, Your Honor,
but the last line of it has got to be that the
judgment is affirmed --
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, no, what --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: In your --
MR. HUSTON: -- make clear --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: -- in your answer
to Justice Alito where you said it should be
affirmed, should it be affirmed on the basis of
the IRS reg or affirmed on the basis of state
law?
I don't disagree
with ya there, dude, no clear cut way and must be polished and clarified.
Tis why I am still somewhere between vacated and overturned, leaning to vacated because of Kavanuahgs response to Huston re: lets find out.
But both sides made it clear that an opinion here is wanted to affirm or overturn, not vacate and send down...
Sure would be funny if vacated and sent down only to be ruled on and appealed to come back up to scotus!
DIG and remand?
No sir - the decision will be vacated if remanded.
A DIG just tosses our case out and will uphold the lower courts ruling.
IMO, this is unlikely here...
agency
the closing is very interesting to me
Huston argues earlier that its easy to establish an agency, and must create an agency, and that creation doesn't give the parent equitable rights - a large part of his argument rests on this point.
Reich closes with a statement addressing Sotomayors question, that its more difficult to create an agency relationship under state law.
Much is stacked against an affirmation
scotus
justices must decide if the lower courts 'judgement' is affirmed, vacated, or overturned.
FDIC argued that it couldn't be vacated / highly unusual / and if they did, the 10th would just re-issue the current judgement.
...and, get this..."overturned" was not said one time, not once, in the hearing.
ok ill go along
then what is the significance of the 2/4/20 date?
sept 2019
is the most recent financial statement, per the numbers I quoted, and yes I agree they are from the fdic bank unaudited as submitted to the BK.
there is the possibility that within the BK but not pertaining to the Bank, there are more monies, however; if this resulted from the Bank - as in the 280M recoveries - it would be captured in those financials.
agree and disagree
WHY we went this far was, imo, because we could.
And I don't see why the FDIC, with all due respect, would risk it - unless they are extremely confident of affirmation, which it didn't appear per the read.
Now as for whats in the BK - I see $201.4M remaining in Deposit Claims with a FDIC claim against it. Oh, and the 4.2M tax refund, not including. And 42.6M in cash/investments.
If anyone is also curious, the BK appears to have received 1.6B in total claims.
Where I do not follow you, sir, is if we/shareholders are entitled to some amount via 510b, where are these monies are held currently? You say they are in the BK...
why - imo
Holdco: leverage Bob Richards in hopes of settling; if no settle, opportunity for 4M add to BK - and I would be surprised if any unsecured creditors are paid more than pennies - plus a win or settlement covers court costs, etc. Basically, weigh the pros / cons where half ITR + Time may yield large returns.
HL: per above + 35% + scotus appearance + rookie development
FDIC: do not settle because not defending Bob Richards because it doesn't need to defended because it doesn't apply.
Justices: granted case based on Bob Richards, and they understand the circuit split using Bob Richards
there are several aspects
we need to consider historically for what happens next
1) Bk said holdco is owner, legal and equitable because check in name and contract clear that no agency relationship because no control under state law
2) the lower courts ruling overturned this and introduced Bob Richards framework, and the contract language ambiguous which is in favor of bank **this is the ruling in question per which certiorari was granted**
3) the fdic modifies argument at scotus: Bob Jr, contract language, AND agency no matter what per IRS using word agency
so yes as I said, I can potentially see this being overturned because if BK is the state law expert (per Kavanaugh), and Bob Richards shouldn't be applied (per Roberts, agreement spin from Huston), and possession is 9/10s of law, and agency label is insufficient - then the BK court got the it correct and the 10th ruling should be overturned. However the justices seemed keen on sending it back to the 10th for interpretation of state law.
alternatively, because contract law appears to be governed at the 10th, and in-light of the aforementioned, the justices - as stated several times - could vacate the decision based on no Bob Richards, only use state and contract law and remand back to the 10th.
here ya go pt 2
1) settlement before scotus - days / $
already argued - and I don't expect a settlement before opinion either
2) scotus DIGs the case - weeks / no$
least likely, justices understand lower court conflict
3) scotus overturns - months / $$$
Justice Breyer said possession is 9/10ths of the law
4) scotus overturns and remands - months / years / $$ - $$$
Justice Kavanaugh said Bob Richards. Federal common law.
We don't do that. That's not a good rule.
That's all we're going to say about this. Send
it back
5) scotus upholds - months / no$
Justice Breyer said just writing "affirmed" overlooks a significant dispute
6) scotus upholds and remands - years / no$
if they uphold which I think is unlikely, they uphold - most likely with clarifications - but won't remand it back down
7) scotus vacate and remand, for the 10th to retrial based on scotus clarification - months and years / no$ - $$
per Kavanaugh above
LOL
there are decades of opposition to the Bob Sr and now Jr -- there is no defense; they will definitely not strengthen imo.
the "federal common law question, why the case came up to the SCOTUS level and why there wasn't a lawyer on the other side" is why I think a DIG is possible.
Let's see the transcript and hear the audio.
closure is a win
agree
i think a DIG is the least likely outcome but the justices considered this by spending time understanding if they could rule, and why the FDIC wasn't defending Bob.
sending to lower courts was hopefully addressed by the circular argument and large monies at stake - we/all need an opinion here.
I don't see them upholding the 10th because they disagreed with Bob (on the surface) and again, no defense
first glance - good news
so it appears that that FDIC winning is out!
and its either DIG, sent back down with clarifications, or overturned
in the press, hearing updates
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-skeptical-of-judge-made-rule-in-tax-refund-fight
"It seems like it would be a material benefit to lower courts to know the Bob Richards rule isn’t good law if that is the case, said Justice Neil Gorsuch"
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether it would be enough for the justices to say the Bob Richards rule isn’t a good rule and send the fight back to a lower court."
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed some concern about addressing the rule when the government’s lawyer—for whom the rule is beneficial—wasn’t actively defending it, asking whether it was a problem to have had no adversarial presentation on this issue."
"Justice Elena Kagan said she thought the court might have appointed another lawyer to defend the rule if it had known the government didn’t intend to do so. But she too questioned the rule, asking the government lawyer what federal law—as opposed to state law—has to do with the dispute."
transcripts should be avail tomorrow
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2019
audio recording should be avail friday
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2019
yes they can pull it at anytime
even after the verbals but before the opinion / order
however its not polite
5 days until verbals at scotus
reposting: below is a good article about our situation and potential outcomes
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/argument-preview-whose-refund-is-it-anyway/
agree Bob
that the parties should settle, and 200-400 is cheap comparatively, but they've had many opportunities...
There's more to the story than we see; HL aint playing for (just) 4M, neither is the FDIC...
here ya go
1) settlement before scotus - days / $
2) scotus DIGs the case - weeks / no$
3) scotus overturns - months / $$$
4) scotus overturns and remands - years / $$ - $$$
5) scotus upholds - months / no$
6) scotus upholds and remands - years / no$
I supposed there is also this possibility:
7) scotus DIG and remand, for the 10th to retrial based on scotus clarification - weeks and years / no$ - $$
fwiw, I think this is going back to the 10th....years / no$ - $$
this can go six ways
1) settlement before scotus
2) scotus DIGs the case
3) scotus overturns
4) scotus overturns and remands
5) scotus upholds
6) scotus upholds and remands
well the orals should be interesting
and good chance we remand back to 10th imo; if then, hopefully with a sctous overturned judgement and the 10th uses that, instead of Bob, to evaluate the situation.
One week countdown!
in 7 days from today, we are scheduled for orals at SCOTUS.
(3 business days). There is a chance we see a request for dismissal, today/tomorrow/friday. Very long shot monday.
If dismissed, we'll see a filing like this:
Stipulation to dismiss the writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received.
If we are heard, we'll see it reflected on the scotus site something like:
Argued. For petitioner: Rodriguez / HL , Washington, D. C. For respondent: Solicitor General / FDIC Team, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
We won't know much more until the Friday after, when we can listen to the hearing.
agree and disagree
agree on most of the case-law points, but they've changed over time.
Relator? more like Revelator!
Legal vs equitable rights is simply answered by looking to state law. Done.
its a straight highway, no traffic
Here is FDIC logic: When an affiliated group agrees that a refund
is “ultimately payable to a subsidiary,” that means
that the subsidiary is “ultimately entitled” to the
refund itself.
Here is OUR logic: Agreeing that a subsidiary will receive “pay[ment]” in the amount of a refund does not necessarily vest the subsidiary with “ultimate entitlement” to the refund itself. That payment obligation may be a debt, in which case title to the refund resides exclusively with the parent
10th ruling is no longer applicable
see, FDIC changed position and is no longer arguing those points about Bob Sr from the 10th F/D/C.
I care about technicalities because what the FDIC IS arguing is that no matter what, the refund goes to Bank (or any non-HoldCo), regardless of TSA, state law -- it always goes to Bank, interim and ultimate.
Remember, this is about INTERIM ownership - because we called BK
Only now, when pressed to defend the rule’s insurmountable legal defects, does the FDIC claim that
the Bob Richards rule never had anything to do with
ownership in the first place.
This Court granted certiorari to
determine whether “the federal common law ‘Bob
Richards rule’ ” employed by “three Circuits” is valid.
Pet. i. The FDIC identifies no court, ever, that has
understood there to be two Bob Richards rules. And,
as far as we can tell, the FDIC itself has never
previously taken this position—including in its brief
in opposition, where it bore an “obligation” to identify
“any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the
petition.”
Uphold what?
Bob Richards Jr.?
They already said Bob Sr. doesn't apply here (TSA).
Instead, the FDIC claims, this case concerns a previously undiscovered second holding of
Bob Richards—supposedly grounded in the IRS
regulations—which holds that a parent does not
obtain “interim ownership” of a tax refund that “is
ultimately payable to a subsidiary.
ruth is ok..
UPDATED: The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office reported on Sunday afternoon that Ginsburg had been discharged from the hospital; she is “home and doing well.”
looking forward to hearing her comments soon