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.
It looks like we are getting shafted again.
Our ltw were worth about $2.50 in Anchor litigation.
7th Amended plan allocates 30% of Newcorp stock to WAMU and LTW split pari passu (see page 12and page 153) I think it means equally. Than we get 15% of Necorp.
It is contemplated to issue 200million new shares representing $200mill in capital.
If I am correct, than we get 30Million shares of Newcorp (15% of 200mil) or .26 shares worth $.26.
This is only the proposal, Steinberg has not been consulted and the judge has not ruled and there were caveats in the agreement that defer our fate to the outcome of the final judgement by Judge Block. Interesting, there is no reference to the $337million reserved for us. As I said, looking like Rosen is hosing us thru the back door. I doubt that it will hold.
Alas, I see panic selling this morning.
Thanks TWAcowfca. I accept you logic. and that of Grudge as well.
Now .65 = .775 Spread. Bid looks better than five minutes ago. The WAMU issues are moving up as well. Oops! not so fast.
Could be a sign that something is coming down. Hoping for the best.
Now... what happens if Ltws wash-out in mediation?
Can Judge Walrath re-instate us?
Failing that. Can we go to D and O policy?
Failing that. Don't we still have a live case with Judge Block?
In other words... if mediation excludes us, is this THE END?
I re-read post #4965 Judge Block's decision. Is JPM speaking from both sides of its mouth?
If I understood it correctly, JPM wants the Judge to assign the Anchor case to JPM.
In BK court they claim that WMI owns it, so JPM is not liable.
Could this be right?
That JPM is the owner of the Anchor litigation was my understanding as well. Over time, I was convinced by this board, that WMI was the successor in bankruptcy. That is why we needed a trial, to assure that we are classified as debtors, in order to collect our claim.
I put it to the Judge that if JPM was responsible,how could they represent the LTW when JPM and the FDIC were in cahoots? This is still an unanswered issue.
So, I accepted the thesis that WMI was given the Ltws, thru a Breach of Contract, and that the Ltw are now a claimant against the WMI as a result of that Breach.
Nice work goldcanyon341. I've been claiming this argument all along. I finally yielded to the group thinking that wmi are successors. Now Judge Block will decide who is the successor to the Anchor Litigation.
Why? After two years of hearings and a set-aside of $337 Mil,do you possibly think that LTWs are equal to WAMUQ?
Were you not aware of the raging debate as to whether the LTWs are debt or equity?
McDeth and others are telling you to pull up posts from 2800 upwards and get the Court's position. Or, as you have demonstrated before, listen to the three or four court debates with Rosen and Steinberg.
No one is claiming that WAMUQ is entitled to receive any distributions from the BK. Not that they don't deserve it. It is just that JPM is an 800 lb guerrilla and its clout is omniscient in the BK court.
The shame of it all is that it makes perfect sense to me.
It's more like a "Simon Sez" exercise.
Thanks, you have done it again. Now I understand the difference between a Pro and a novice.
Let me take a crack at it. Rosen says the terms and conditions listed for the LTWs use the wording "may", as in, "The Board may make payment in kind" when there is no stock to be issued for the redemption of the LTWs. The terminology "may", is an open option on the part of the Board and not an "obligation" on them.
Steinberg contends that the term "may" in the context of our LTWs is a substitution for the word "shall" as, "is required to" issue a substitute security transferring "value", such as cash.
He offered as evidence a similar LTW that used the term "may" interchangeably in one part of the offer and "shall" in another to convey the same thought.
That was my understanding, I hope that I explained it correctly.
Thanks MrchntDeth.
I have been reading this Board for some time and lately I seem to get lost, what with new bloggers spitting venom and spreading rumors and snippets of bickering that seem to lose continuity, it's about time someone put the picture into focus.
This is a dangerous time for all WAMU classes of debt and equity as the mediation is still being hashed out and Judge Walrath's decision about to be announced.
From the discussion I gather that all bets are off regarding the leeway that BK judges have in awarding or terminating entire classes of claimants. So those who say we don't have a hope and a prayer are as ignorant as we are regarding the final outcome.
If you have followed the hearings carefully, Steinberg hasn't missed a beat while Debtors are flailing all over the place. If reason prevails than we have a chance. Our case is well reasoned. If politics are at play, than we have problems because judges do not work in a vacuum. The powers that are playing here are the same that caused the economic debacle. And none of them has faced a jury of their peers.
REALtime64
Many of us have been on this Board since 2008 and are well acquainted with the real possibility that our DIMEQ will, in one instant, be worthless by decree. So don't scare us now, not after we experienced a $.01 price.
I am fully committed to the strong power of Justice that exists in this great land. Yet,I am not naive to ignore the power of money and influence. These are what I fear most.
JPM, FDIC and the Gotchels have more power and influence than any force on this land. Let's hope that we are not "toast", for the omen will be fatal to our society at large.Here will be the great testing ground that will either redeem society or drown it.
NEW American CAPITALISM:
Start a new company and run to congress to protect you from competition.
Rely on heavy government subsidies to grow the company like a weed. Give generous pay packages to employees, but make sure that they don't receive immediate cash, all benefits are to be paid in the future.
Load the company with huge debt.
Make sure management gets humongous cash bonuses.
Go to Chapter 11.
Screw the Bond holders, Screw the stockholders and screw the employees.
What a country?!@#$%!@#$?&^%*!!!
Thanks THE GRUDGE. At last, a post that I can understand.
to SIDEDRAFT:
KUDOS, and again, thanks.
sdstyle1 you say it with style.
I have made this point in filing with the Court last year. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with the Bankruptcy code and section 510(b) or 503(b) that is constantly referred to by Debtors.
I am trusting that justice will prevail, although, sadly, I have experienced too many instances where it failed.
I have now fully read the entire brief by Debtors and am convinced that it is pure BS. Well written, since it fooled me into thinking that there was substance to the arguments. Alas, the arguments were well stated, but anchored in lies and half truths, totally bereft of facts. Steinberg has already addressed all the issues and his style is far superior and easy to read and understand.
Sorry for the panic attack earlier. The BS stench was too great to ignore.
IMO, now is NOT the time to thin out any positions.
That's just it.
This particular presentation paints a cogent, coherent argument. Not at all like Rosen's previous bellicose pronouncements.
The witnesses remarks are polished and erudite, nothing like what we heard at trial.
Still reeling from the text. Nothing like what was said at trial.
The "clowns" are now the "geniuses". Nevertheless, this document has to be studied and refuted ASAP.
I just finished reading defendants' reply. Looks like we got "serious pondering" to consider. This stuff is well written and could be damaging. I suggest that one of the legal experts read and explain it. As it stands, it is rather foreboding.
Read the filing at this site:Our board, sideraft (thanks) posted #4365 11/4/2011
hilarious!
correct!!!!! wallstreet61
They don't have to be any more coherent than Lady ChaCha. Just file and bill away.
I like your explanation!
I'm of the opinion that we get to level 12.
However, even if we are not recognized at all by the POR and the judge let's it stand, (a very slim chance), nothing to despair about. As I repeatedly remind everyone, our claim is with the FDIC at the US Court of Claims.We have a rock solid case there.
With the new foundation laid in A. Stienberg's argument, we now have further claims of BREACH of contract. This could result in an even greater award than the $362 mil..
Hang in here! We got a tiger by he tail!!!!
For further revelations of my thoughts please open file on post 2867 at this board.
hi login,
very interesting plays. Both sound appealing.
Trouble is, I'm deep into DIMEQ and it looks like the FDIC is a bunch of reprehensible P@#$%s that have cushioney Gov't jobs to protect. There is no amount of money that they lack nor any oversight to force them to be accountable. So, these cases may go on for ten more years,or, until one of the lead lawyers at FDIC is ready to retire.
We should all unite and write our congressmen about this obstinate gov't relic. Maybe the Budget oversight committee should investigate the waste in this division.
Nevertheless, these stock choices are very promising. Thanks
Further thought on post 4226 by me.
What if LTW loses in Judge Walrath's court. Could we invoke the Supreme Court's decision for our cause?
Article in WSJ Deals, Sept. 27 2011, "Connecting Anna Nicole Smith to Lehman Bankruptcy" by Shira Ovide.
JPM (defendant) request, that based on Supreme Court decision in ANS's case that BKy court has limited jurisdiction to BKy itself, it cannot reach to settle issues beyond the BKy itself. JPM wants Lehman case taken out of NY Supreme Court to Federal court.
This may have bearing on our case as ... JPM, realizing that it will lose the LTW argument, may shift course and request that LTW awards cannot be decide by our BKy judge.
Just thinking out loud.
One of the lawyers on our team should investigate consequences.
Some one please post NYT Sunday Business section Article Oct 2 2011 "The Bank Case That Refuses to Die" Gretchen Morgenson.
I don't know how to download into this site.
Story about Cartaret Savings and Loan of NJ, 1992 seizure by the FDIC. Gov't losses case after 20 years. Judge Loren S Smith of US Claim Court issued scathing indictment of Gov't lawyers' obstruction. Calls for further action to reclaim Tax consequences of claiming award by bank.
Pretty good results, very similar to ours and this might apply to LTW and expedite our case in that Court.
Recently heard a lawyer say that two kinds of witness he fears the most. The salesman who would lie his head off to impress his boss and the engineer who could never lie and may spill more truth than the boss would want.
Guess we got the engineer.
Thanks CATZ. I frankly don't understand the jibberish language used by FDIC group. I had a chance to listen to JA Shunk, the trial attorney for FDIC, he sounds like a street gangster in court. Some piece of work. He asserted the FDIC rights to the LTW in the 6th confirmation hearing. I didn't get his point then either.
Seems to me that FDIC is claiming that they never conveyed Anchor Case to JPM and it is theirs (the FDIC's) right to assign ownership to Anchor. If this is what they claim, then what are we doing in this court. Also, who are they to assign the ownership of Anchor? The FDIC is the defendant in the Anchor case, how do they presume to have an ownership right to it?
On an earlier post I noted that our claim is against FDIC, not the Bankrupt estate.
I believe that JPM is trying to obviate our claim by denying the validity of the LTW as a financial instrument and thereby absolving the FDIC liability to us. The point being, that if the LTW are de-legitimatized as a claimants, than there would be no one to claim the Anchor "award" and the FDIC would be off the hook to pony up and bury the whole nasty black eye episode that they earned in Judge Block's court.
Let me know how this analysis sits with you.
I agree with everything you say.
The Question still lingers. Why waste all this effort on small fries like us. There are so many huge issues for the attorneys to fight over?
I pinned my hopes that JPM was bluffing and this case would never be tried. Was I wrong?
OK, let’s try to figure out why JPM is putting its top law firm in harm’s way by jousting against a relative minnow in its pending humongous confrontation with a generation of lawsuit backlog.
Here it is:
JPM is confronting the WAMU estate demanding $7-8 Billion.
The FHA has a lawsuit pending that may reach $33 Billion
There are tens of thousands of defective mortgages that can tie up the legal department for a generation and cost billions more.
James Dimon has publicly admitted that the annual legal expense at JPM is $7 Billion.
The LTW claim is a piddling $347 million, or about a week’s worth of profit at JPM.
So it’s quite mysterious to me that Weil Gotshall should squander valuable time and energy in fighting a relatively obscure battle with the LTWs.
With all of that energy diverted to this insignificant suit, one would think that the whole bank is battling for its very survival.
But the paltry sum that the LTWs represent is not even JPM’s dough. It’s the FDIC’s money. Moreover, if JPM treats the LTWs as creditors, it can still stand to pocket about $52 million as its 15% of the award.
There we have it. A multi-billion dollar bank facing some $50-60 Billion in lawsuits, and probably an equal amount in legal expenses. This case simply doesn’t sound like a prudent venue to put your chips on. Especially when it is established that the LTWs won in Federal Court, and, will hopefully also win in Federal Claims Court.
There has got to be something here that I am missing. Was there a secret agreement with the FDIC to extinguish the LTW? What’s the big deal, the FDIC paid out in all the other similar cases.
Discussion welcomed.
It occurs to me that the pending litigation with WMI,JPM, FDIC is hinging on all sorts of definitions and conditions included in the original LTW issuance.
Why are they litigating this issue now, when there is voluminous Court documents relating to the original Anchor Litigation, now in its 12th year,where the issue of the legitimacy of our claim is clearly articulated?
Why after 12 years of successful defense do we have to again assert our rights?
The issue now should rest on whether the BK affected any of our already proven claim.
great summation!!
My deepest condolences to Ralph's family.
Ralph has always responded in a respectful and informative
manner to my posts on this board.
Way back in 2001 I held it at $1.15 where it stayed for a long time until Dime merged with WAMU. It started to fall when Judge Block held up his decision for longer than a year. Jared got the rest of the story.
Thanks MrchntDeth, for shedding some light on the voting qualifications.
I am wondering why we should have to vote right now. No one knows When the distribution will be made and What will constitute the capitalization of the new bank (WMI?). Who will be in charge? etc. etc...
Seems to me if Rosen wants us to lock up our positions in a blackout, then he should offer some financial incentives to do so. Say $.25 additional consideration if you lock-up. Otherwise, it seem suicidal to lock-up our position and possibly end up with nothing but air.
Isn't it a little too early in game to force us to give up some very important ammunition to force a favorable settlement to us. By exonerating the thieves at JPM,FDIC & WAMU and their Attorneys from criminal charges is giving a "get-out-of-jail" card for nothing.
There seems to be some confusion about who gets the voting package. If we all don't receive it, then it may relate to the often referred item that Rosen wants only the timely filed holders (due in 2007) to receive proceeds. So, it's important to find out if we all received the vote package.
Secondly, how or whether to fill them out? There is a one year deadline. This should give us all time to vett out the process. I hope that Steinberg and his group will give us some guidelines so that we are all on one page.
By signing off on this paper we may be giving criminals a free pass. I know that we have a selfish agenda to collect on our "claim", but, does this give us the moral authority to exonerate a group of very guilty criminals to one of the most egrgious theft of this millennium?
I seems to me that "if Justice prevails" , and that's a big "IF", than we should get our fair share and the criminals be punished. But as a realist, I don't expect that. Yet,I can't vote for the "exculpation" clause no matter what. I want our justice system to play some role in preserving the veil of "rule of law" in this country. So, I have a year to think it over.
Hi BK,
Generally, mediation is confidential as both parties are required to "put the cards on the table". It is none-binding, so anything said at the hearing is off the record. The mediator's job is to jaw-bone the opponents into some kind of an agreed give-and-take.
The only fulcrum that the mediator posses is his ability to report to the Judge that one side or the other is recalcitrant. The Judge might or might not accept the mediator's suggestions.
In complicated cases (such as the WAMU BK) it might take a week or longer just to hear each side's story...and that takes place after the mediator had already immersed himself in studying the case for a month or more. At that point he may become more familiar with the case than even the Judge herself and his recommendations will carry a lot of weight.