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.
Well, maybe the question wasnt specific enough..
maybe the question should have been "Is Coop servicing loans from SPV remote bankruptcy entities, whose beneficiary included the old Wanu estate?"
The loans didnt directly belong to WMI technically I suppose. But he understood the question.
I suppose we should be thankful this little dusclosure came out. It is the first confirmation of the 99% circumstantial evidence that JPM did not purchase the Wamu loans. only the servicing rights.
Didnt someone on this board ask Jay last year about Coop servicing legacy WMI loans and him denying it? Didnt he openly deny that Coop wasnt servicing or holding any of WMI loans?
Isnt it suspicious that this little disclosure just showed up after bk closed out last quarter?
Can we sue Jay for lying to us last year?
This Hochburg comment is why I wonder if return of remote bk assets to our escrow markers will not be 'automatic'. Maybe we need to file some sort of claim forms to 'go after' those remote bk assets now that the bk is officially closed.
Hochburg's comment in court:
"" I am sure the equity comm would LOVE to know the VALUE of those ASSETS that are left, but ALL THEY NEED to know is that, """THOSE ASSETS will be there for them to go after later!!!!!!!!!!!!"""
Thanks LG. But Coop is not a bank so would that WMIH filing requirement still apply?
Any significance to May 15? I recall someone mentioning awhile back to May 15 being significant with regards to some sort of Coop 8k release deadline related to bk closure??
stox, as long as we are only asking for legal advice from SG regarding if any claim action that we may need to do or sit and wait for a "hypothetical" remote bankruptcy assets, our request should not be in any conflict of interest with SG prior involvement during bk POR litigation.
As long as we are not asking SG to disclose remote bk assets, or litigate anything against LT, JPM, or FDIC we should be fine.
Anyway, we couldnt afford to hire them for litigation...
All we are doing is asking for legal advice on whether our ownership of our tracking markers is enough and we can sit on our asses and continue waiting or do do we need to file some administrative claim now that the bk is over -- assuming there are hypothetical remote bk assets in a DST somewhere.
I clarified in my question that I wasnt asking the LT to disclose existence of any remote bk assets. I just wanted to clarify that if such assets did exist hypothetically, will they return to our markers automatically, or is there sone administrative action that marker owners need to file now that the bk is over.
We are not hiring attorneys to fight some huge litigation, but we should seek out some legal advice to make sure we are not missing some simple administrative action on our behalf to receive those remote bk assets - if they do exist. And to make sure 100% that sitting on our asses is the only action left to do for our tracking markers.
Awesome. Lets keep the momentum going for this. I think we have spent enough time on the board looking for evidence of remote bk assets or what the final distribution may look like. We cant do anything about that now.
However, I hate to miss out on our payout (whatever amount) because we waited too long on some simple administrative action that needed to be done between the close of bk and March 2021 -- when the markers will presumably be deleted.
KK, I've also tried emailing the question to WMILT with no response yet. I've clarified in my question that I'm not asking the LT to disclose any potential remote bankruptcy assets that may be sitting in legal isolation from the bk court...but instead I was asking if such hypothetical remote bk assets existed, do we need to file some additional administrative action now to claim them or will we be paid automatically at some time in the future.
I think this is a fair question.
RD, we wont be asking SG to disclose if there are any remote bankruptcy assets...we just want them to clarify that if such assets do exist, can we just sit on our asses and wait for the markers to get paid automatically or do we need to file some claim forms for those remote bankruptcy assets in addition to ownership of our markers.
The question is to make sure that we are not missing out on any administrative actions that may need to be done now that the bk is over.
Stox, July 1st seems to be about the appropriate time to wait before contacting them. I think it will be dangerous to assume the the markers will be around post 2021 March. I think we need to find out if there are any additional actions that we need to file to claim those remote bankruptcy assets in the DST if they are there.
We need a clarify if return of any remote bankruptcy assets from DST will be automatic for our markers or if there needs to be an additional claim action on our behalf.
I just want us to be organized on this board to pursue this legal investigation -- not for litigation but just to clarify if any additional actions from us is warranted.
If you can find out what sort of legal fees this investigation from SG may cost, I will organize a gofundme page for all of us on the board to contribute.
LG, I would like to believe that but without actually seeing the DST trust agreement, we cannot be 100% sure if any further action is needed by us. Unfortunatelly, I have a feeling that big money like Bonderman has seen those trust agreements so they have a clear advantage over us.
Btw, do you recall what date did LT state that they will 'maintain' our tracking markers until before deletion?
newflow that is an interesting statement...
"What is an escrow CUSIP? A CUSIP number is a unique identifier assigned to a
particular security. An escrow CUSIP is a placeholder representing the amount of shares
held by the former holders of equity interests or the principal amount held by former holders
of notes. An escrow CUSIP is not an “official” security designation, and it is created solely
for record-keeping purposes. The escrow CUSIP number shall only represent the right of
such holder to receive potential future distributions under the Plan on account of the old or
cancelled securities or as holders of beneficial interests in the LBHI Plan Trust."
The markers may give us the right to receive...i.e. proof of beneficial interest to those remote bankruptcy assets in the DST. However, it doesn't say the DST trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to track us down and return those assets after the bk.
The question still needs to be answered by legal counsel familiar with DSTs.
Do we need to file a claim with our escrow markers for those remote bankruptcy assets now that the bk is over?
newflow, thanks I've read that page before. It offers some insight into how DST can isolate and protect the assets in remote bankruptcy from creditors of the beneficial owners (done!) but doesn't say anything about the return process of those assets once the bk is terminated (???)
Has anyone on this board established contact with SG recently? Are they still answering any emails from us?
Anyone on the board living close to their office?
newflow, I understand that DST nature of remote bankruptcy meant the assets were in legal isolation from the bk court and debt holders cannot claim them during the bk.
But now that the bk is over, do we need to file some sort of claim form? What if these bankruptcy remote assets are treated like Lost and Found? Do we need to file some sort of claim form with our tracking markers as proof of ownership?
LG, issuing a subpoena for anyone after the bk is terminated may be lengthy and costly at this time.
We just need to organize a small fund and hire a bk attorney familiar with the legal isolation of remote bankruptcy assets, to answer the question of if a claim action is needed for our tracking markers now or if those assets will return to us automatically at some time in the future.
I prefer if we can hire someone at SG to answer this critical question at this time.
LG, this is the danger in assuming that the money will return to our markers automatically.
Remote bankruptcy assets may not be under anyone's control.
Yes, we have the same entitlement as the big money by owning the same tracking markers as them...
but what if all it takes now is simply filing some claim form at some Delaware court with our tracking markers as proof of entitlement?
Maybe the big money is doing that right now and we are in the dark because we do not have any legal counsel.
newflow, if the assets are considered remote bankruptcy assets, their legal isolation may prevent any acknowledgment or legal access by both the bk court and WMILT. In that case, WMILT may not have fiduciary responsibility to go after them for us.
This is a very important question that we all need to come together to find an answer.
Do we need to perform any additional claim action to claim those remote bankruptcy assets now that the bk is over.
Remote bankruptcy assets return may not be automatic. Do we need to file a claim now that the bk is over?
newflow, if remote bankruptcy assets exist outside of the control of the bk court or the LT, our tracking markers may have beneficial interest to those assets, but do we need to identify and file a claim to those remote bk assets?
Is any further action needed on our part to claim remote bankruptcy assets?
LG, I am not questioning if our tracking markers entitles us to any WMI remote bankruptcy assets that exists outside of the WMI bk court control.
I'm simply looking to answer if we need to follow up with any action in addition to ownership of our tracking markers to identify and claim those remote bankruptcy assets?
We may be entitled to those assets but repatriation of those assets may not be automatic. If any additional action is needed, then we are jeopardizing our entitlement with our inaction...especially now that the bk is over.
LG, its encouraging that a lot of talented people have been following this 12 years after the bank was seized...There is no doubt assets exist in remote bankruptcy.
The only question is does simple ownership of tracking markers (aka escrow markers) automatically guarantee payment in the near future??
or do we need to "follow up" with some sort of claim action , in addition to ownership of the markers, to identify and claim those remote bankruptcy assets?
Since retail does not have access to legal expertise like the big boys to navigate the claim process, if such a process exist, we may be jeopardizing our claim entitlement by our inaction.
I think if we do not hear anything by the end of this month, perhaps the board as a whole needs to come together and hire some legal representation to simply "investigate" if a claim process is required to go after "any remote bankruptcy assets" that exists outside of the jurisdiction of the bk court and LT. I'm not recommending we spend a lot of money for a "legal battle"....just simply paying for legal answer on the following question...
If any remote bankruptcy assets exists outside of the bk court and WMILT control, does our tracking markers entitle us to automatic return of those assets, or do we need to identify and claim those remote bk assets in addition to ownership of the tracking markers?
This is a simple question, and I would like a straight answer from either the LT, the court, or SG. I doubt we will get a straight answer to that question...I think we need this question answered if we don't hear anything by the end of this month. Otherwise, we may be jeopardizing our escrow return with our inaction.
stox, I think you have the right idea.
What if the trustees of the remote bk assets file a notice of "abandonment of assets" in some obscure newpaper (maybe following some minimal legal disclosure requirement), and retail is not aware of this, and we fail to mail in some 'claim form' in time for those remote bk assets?
Then in such a case, the big boys will end up with a bigger share of the pie.
I still suspect that since the remote bk assets are not under the jurisdiction of the bk court or LT, they are not legally required to disclose instructions on how to go after them after the bk closes.
We may need legal representation to navigate the administrative waters at this point. I dont mean we need attorneys to fight very expensive lawsuits. I think we simply need legal representation to file the right claim forms to go after the remote bk assets.
Owning the escrow tracking markers is not enough. In fact, I believe Rosen hinted that in the LT Q&A -- "the tracking markers in itself do not entitle further returns"
I think he is hinting that we may need to file some sort of claim to go after the remote bk assets....of course this is probably known to the big boys -- that's why they have been so quiet. The less retail makes claim to those assets, the bigger the pie for them.
Do you need donations from the board to lead an investigation into this matter with SG?
Thanks
I dont think anyone here doubts that there are billions sitting in remote bankruptcy...99.9% guranteed that they are there and have not be 'stolen' by FDIC or JPM.
The question is will retail tracking marker holders here see a dime of it?
Is there a possible path for the big boys to seize those remote bk assets for themselves - leaving the retail holders here out?
Is ownership of those tracking markers (aka escrow markers) sufficient to access those remote bk assets?
Can there be some sort of abandonment of assets play here that retail is not aware of...but the big boys with their army of attorneys can take advantage of?
Does one need to release and own tracking markers + 'file a claim' to go after the remote bk assets?
Remember, since remote bk assets are not legally addressable by the LT under bk jurisdiction, they have no responsibility of pointing out to retail here on how to 'go after' them after the bk.
I am not an expert in bk plays here so I will leave it to experts on this board to start organizing...do we need to hire an attorney to file claims? not necessarily file lawsuit...but simply filing a class action claim on behalf of tracking markers??
No it hasn't. Please identify the line item from the LT Q&A showing what you claim.
HM, the Libor suit potential recovery was already declared. If money comes back from Libor suit it will come back through the LT. And the FDIC is not holding the funds in Safe Harbor as was declared.
The funds I'm referring to are being held in remote bankruptcy entities.
It is quite simple. Try getting the LT to state the following on the Q&A page.
tracking markers or ex WMI common/preferred shareholders who signed releases will see no financial benefit from any remote bankruptcy entities. Let's see if the LT can state that.
HM, where in the LT Q&A does it specifically state that
"our tracking markers will never financially benefit from any remote bankruptcy entities"
The Q&A "cleverly" states that the tracking marker will see no further benefit from WMI or the LT. I want them to specifically state under legal liability that the tracking markers or ex WMI common/preferred shareholders who signed releases will not see any further benefit from any remote bankruptcy entities. Let's see if the LT can state that.
HM, why dont you get the LT to openly state that our tracking markers will never financially benefit from any remote bankruptcy entities going forward?
This simply states that WMI did not directly participate in the securities. It doesnt state that it or the tracking markers for the original estate equity owners (aka escrow markers) are not a beneficiary of any BK remote trusts that may be holding such securities.
Again, why would the hedgies settle for a $200M WMIH which is now worth even less with the dilution of their original stake after merger with NSM?...when they had billions in claim. They wouldnt have settled for measly WMIH. They could have kept the bk going with the 5th amendment claim.
Also, JPM publicly stated that they only bought the servicing rights in purchasing WMB... So where did the $9B a year net interest profit margin in the Wamu loan portfolio go? Who has it if JPM claims they dont?
Someone has it. There are only 2 logical answers to this. Either 1) FDIC illegally seized it for themselves or 2) they interest profits have been collecting in bk remote trusts for the last 12 years...and hence totally unaccountable to the WMI bk.
The only puzzle here is, who controls when the bk remote entities repatriates the $40B to $80B piggy bank back to our tracking markers.
Why are the big boys so quiet?? Why havent we heard anything from Bonderman or Tepper? I cannot accept that they are willing to surrender billions of dollars of escrow payout without a fight. Why haven't we seen a single peotest from one of the hedgies since the bk close? You would think they would want their cash right now to take advantage of the pandemic discount sale in the market...
AZ, is the FDIC using pending LIBOR settlements as an excuse for not settling class 17? If so, we might be in trouble. I doubt FDIC will lean on any bank right now for LIBOR payment -- LIBOR will probably be settled next year at the earliest.
If FDIC cannot settle class 17, then they will not close the receivership, and I'm starting to believe we will not see our class 19 and 22 markers paid out until receivership closes.
What are your thoughts on this. Are remote bk entities really free to distribute to class 19 and 22 without 17 being settled?
AZ, is it possible that with this latest disclaimer by the LT, perhaps we will need to file some sort of administrative action to go after the remote bankruptcy assets. Perhaps owning the escrow markers is not enough. I recall Brian Rosen mentioning something along the line of "escrow markers by itself are not entitled..."
Perhaps, what he is alluding to is you need to file some sort of claim against the bankruptcy remote assets with evidence of escrow markers ownership now that the bk is over. Perhaps, those assets do not come back to our accounts automatically.
I am 99.999% certain that there has to be something..not zero. Otherwise, why would the underwriters even bother sending attorneys over the last year defending against Alice Griffin? LT basically has been showing zero return for equity over the last few years. So if there is nothing in remote bankruptcy, why wouldn't the underwriters simply declare a loss and simply give up their 1% class 19 stake. Why spend time and effort defending a class 19 stake that is worthless??
With the latest update by the LT, I'm just starting to wonder if we should be pursuing some sort of administrative claim in the "Lost and Found" for those remote bankruptcy assets?
Good morning AZ. Its good to hear your family is doing alright. Thank God, nobody caught the bug in my family. I'm not personally worried for myself but am a little worried for my aging parents and kin. I think a combination of lockdowns, arriving warm weather, and the newly approved therapeutic drugs should put us on the downtrend of this virus in about 2 to 3 weeks. Hopefully the lasting disruption in the economy will be minimal if movement returns to normal by end of April.
Yes, I saw the CFO taking a big bite of Coop around mid 9's. I took a big bite around then too. I wish I had waited another week.
I'm not familiar with the abusive uses of the SEC allowances that you are referring to. I really havent been following the board for a few weeks. Can you clarify?
Is the SEC allowances you are referring to going to cause further delay of our remote bankruptcy assets? How about the pandemic? Will it cause delays in the asset release schedule? Is there still a good chance we might see our markers paid in April?
Also, based on your tracking of the various ABS trusts, have most of the loans backing the securities paid off over the last 12 years? In your estimate, what percentage of the loans have been paid off?
Is there cause to be concern that the remote bankruptcy trusts will use the pandemic as a reason for uncertainty for solvency for the remaining loans and thus withhold cash repatriation to our markers?
AZ, I hope you and your family are staying safe and enjoying some downtime at home...I havent really been checking the board lately. I feel a little guilty worrying about our markers payout when the whole world seems to be suffering with fear. I really hope the newly FDA approved drugs will start bringing down the infected numbers in a few weeks so we can all start enjoying Spring next month...
Boris, where did you read this? Any link? TIA
We should all inundate FDIC with emails asking why Wamu receivership is taking so long to close. What pending issue are they waiting for? If the average time to close out a new receivership is 3 years. Why is Wamu receivership going on the 12th year? 4x longer than normal??? really?
temocat, I feel similarly but I think I will stick around until end of June...maybe even until end of this year...If we dont see anything by then I think I may have to let this one go emotionally. It will be difficult as I believe 100% in my heart that the money is there and isolated in remote bk entities. However, if they dont pay out by end of the year, I just cant emotionally afford to keep up hope that it will happen anytime soon.
You would think so. Why havent they made any noise? I'm sure they are thinking what I'm thinking...great time for a cash windfall to take advantage of this current market panic.
I sure hope they can get the money released by end of this month...
On a bright note, the current lowered interest rate should be beneficial to Coop origination business! I could see Coop reaching $18 in April if the coronavirus panic subsides.