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.
A simple direction to that post would have sufficed and that would have been the end of it. All this confusion could have been avoided if you had posted the content of your convo yourself instead of it being transmitted via "third hand" knowledge.
Will that put an end to the LTI if this would be the last distribution????
No because all cash distributions by the LT has to be made via LTI's. Even if we do not receive an LTI for Bk estate assets they will have to be issued for any residual Trust interests.
"That would also satisfy the DB settlement of money distribution by the EOY"
What is this DB "1 year limit" in reference to since i'm not familiar with such a provision?
I am of the opinion that part of the $600M+ DB received as partial settlement from the FDIC could be distributed to our Markers for WMI's ownership of residual interests in Trusts controlled by DB.
Throughout this case WMI received it's "fair" portion of assets in which they held interests, eg Tax returns, Sub assets etc, so I see no reason why this should be any different for residual interests in Trust assets it held.
That's not what I asked...why avoid answering the questions? You spoke to Rosen, it should be much easier than the usual nonsense you post.
I'm optimistically hoping that the delay is to give additional time to prepare for the closure of the bankruptcy soon after the last Creditor, Piers, is paid off. Not very likely but u never know.
Why ignore the questions I posed to instead post this bs that no one believes or takes seriously.
Certainly possible but not yet 100% confirmed as you seem to constantly insinuate.
Re your conversation with B. Rosen could you answer the following via a short summary of what was said.
1) Did you ask him about possible WMI owned residual Trust interests (Safe Harbor?) that could return after the bankruptcy is closed?
2) The likelihood of Equity being compensated from estate assets?
3) Any idea how/why the person with whom you spoke could have totally mischaracterized your conversation when it was relayed to CSNY???
TIA
The "surviving claims" will be paid since both the court and the FDIC deemed them as valid. See link below (pgs 2-6)
WMILT Doc 12549
This IMO is how things should progress from this point...
1) JMW signs the LT motion denying employee general claims and allows surviving claims. Case for lawyer fees for work on failed employee claims are deferred to later date.
2) LT announces and makes final payment to Piers creditor + post petition interest claims and general unsecured claims (~$51M).
3) Class 18, allowed subordinated claims ($38.2M) are next in line to be paid.
4) Class 18, disputed subordinated claims ($??) to be litigated or settled. If litigation ensues expect further delays.
5) Tranche 6 (Classes 19, 21 + 22) to receive any remaining bankruptcy cash left, IF ANY!!! After full payment to all Class 18 claimants the LT cash should be depleted, meaning no distribution to Tranche 6 from the bankruptcy estate.
6) Closure of bankruptcy case and hopefully the release of any Debtor(s) residual Trust interests to the WMILT. **Could possibly occur as soon as last Creditor, Piers, are paid in full**
7) Issuance of additional LTI's to our Markers for cash received from residual Trust interests based on each individual's holdings.
These are the 4 "Surviving Claims" as listed......seems to be worth $1-$2 Million max so i'm puzzled as to why JMW hasn't signed yet.
i... Anthony Vuoto – Claim No. 997: the ETRIP Base Component Claim in the amount of $72,049.06, and Attorneys’ Fees Claim related to the payment of the ETRIP Base Component Claim.
ii... Attorneys’ Fees Claims related to recovery of allowed ETRIP Base Component Claims or Base SERAP Component Claims for the following Claimants: 22 employees listed in link (pgs 4-5)
iii... Steven F. Stein – Claim No. 2601: The asserted claim for vested guaranteed salary and bonus under the terms of his April 11, 2008 agreement with WaMu (the “April 11, 2008 Agreement”), and Attorneys’ Fees Claim related to the payment of salary and bonus under the April 11, 2008 Agreement.
iv... Any Claims of the Claimants as holders of vested equity interests which, pursuant to the Plan, are entitled to receive a distribution.
WMILT Motion Doc 12563-1
Look for It right under the articles detailing the S4V and COOP's NOLS being gone.
Nobody's buying this S4V theory simply because it not allowed under the LT's rules and makes no sense.
Just another attempt to validate the S4V fantasy by linking COOP with any remaining legacy WMI assets.
Just like COOP's not entitled to share in legacy assets, there will also be no S4V.
I don't know...if there are residual assets it will be distributed after the last Creditor is paid in full ie Piers remaining claims plus post petition interest and possibly Class 18 holders also.
Agreed...that's why IMO the female ex WAMU employee filed an objection to limit how the Debtors treated with WMIIC assets, which the Bk court eventually agreed to.
She may have had knowledge of WMIIC's asset portfolio and sought to prevent the Debtors from dissipating those assets without just compensation to the estate.
Could there be WMI owned residual interests in the DB trusts the FDIC settled last year, meaning we could receive a distribution from the $600M settlement?
And what exactly does that have to do with Escrows or the WMILT? Seriously, get some help re staying on the topic of discussion. Constantly reposting the same rhetoric doesn't make it relevant.
This section almost perfectly describes WMIIC where certain assets were liquidated / sold with the permission of the bankruptcy court and contributed to payments of Creditor claims.
It was reported that WMIIC owned ~$1B in various security assets and investments, of which about $260M were liquidated and contributed to the WMILT.
A former WAMU employee objected to the Bk court about the sale of WMIIC's assets and JMW ruled that the Debtors had to seek court approval before any WMIIC assets were liquidated / sold in the future.
Not sure what document it was but I clearly remember reading it sometime in early 2017.
What was WMIIC considered to be, just another WMI Sub or was it a WMI SPV, hence it's declaration of having NO CREDITORS???
Assets of a Bankruptcy Remote Entity May be Sold
Once the assets of a bankruptcy remote entity are within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court can authorize the sale of the lender’s collateral under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, free and clear of the lender’s liens. The requirements for selling assets free and clear of a lender’s security interests are easily satisfied and a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to conduct a sale in the manner it deems most appropriate. Because the goal of a bankruptcy sale is to realize the highest value for assets, a bundled offer to purchase assets of the SPV together with assets of affiliated debtors could be held to be higher and better than a credit bid of the SPV lender under section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code, which would leave the lender with a lien on the proceeds of sale.
I do not post on the other board and therefore have no contact with CSNY.
Wait, so we're not going to receive billions from the Royal Bank of Scotland??? What a bummer!!! LOL
Yes most would see an issue with two extremely pro-escrow posters giving totally opposite versions of the same call with a major player in this case who could provide actual answers to our questions.
When one poster claims Rosen said he is "not aware" of assets and another says he stated it is "pure fantasy" and both are posted for everyone to see that doesn't constitute a conspiracy, the proof is there. I suggest you revisit your interpretation of what conspiracy actually means!!!
Seems the "Chain of Custody" process is a bit much for some to grasp. Cash generated by WMI and/or it's many subs were pledged all or in part to the parent company. When WMI filed for bankruptcy is seems any such interests were put on hold. Now that WMI is no longer a viable entity it's "successor in interest", the WMILT is now the recipient of these rights. How COOP, a totally distinct and new company holds any rights re former WMI assets is beyond any belief, yet this opinion is constantly peddled as ""DD"". Such defective theories have zero merit since they are not based on facts.
Getting back to the question at hand, why the vast discrepancy in both accounts of the same call? Instead of the posturing an actual answer would be preferable.
Based on RD's claim that he called Rosen his account is in stark contrast to what CSNY posted.
Why the gross mischaracterization of what was actually said during the call!!!
Both RD's and CSNY's account of what Rosen stated does correspond at all.
The LT has $102M in total assets of which $15M is set aside for the operation of the Trust thus leaving $87M to distribute to LTI's.
Of that $87M the DCR comprises $67M which leaves only $20M for Piers and other Creditor debt.
This falls about $30M short of what is owed to those claimants and is the reason those claims remain unpaid.
The employee claims must be fully denied which would free up the $67M allowing the Piers debt to be fully paid.
The signature of JMW is required on the LT's revised motion to move the process forward towards resolution.
Once Piers and other allowed Creditor debt is paid the LT will move onto Class 18 allowed ($38.2M) and disputed subordinated claims ($???).
Still a ways to go before we get some definitive answers IMO.
Emailed the FDIC this question earlier...How could the FDIC who's mandate is to maximize the value of a Receivership's assets apparently "gift" JPM over $30B in highly rated commercial loans?. Not sure I used the proper email address but will post any response I receive.
Piers: $39,338,961 (Tranche 4)
Piers Post Petition Interest Claims: $10,204,431 (Tranche 4)
Allowed General Unsecured Claims: $565,227 (Tranches 2-4)
Total owed: $50,108,619
Plus Disputed General Unsecured Claims: $448,505 (possible)
So every bank that issues bonds to raise cash for their own activities means we get paid from them? Those posts have ZERO to do with the LT, the DTC or fiduciary responsibility period. They are so nonsensical it's sad to think posters actually take them seriously.
Btw...seems fwh can't take a hint or be relevant!
The posts about other banks money are more entertaining instead of this conspiratorial trash.
It's so refreshing to read the same useless info repeated over and over each day that literally states nothing new.
That would make a great question for the FDIC citing the link to that story. How could the FDIC who's mandate is to maximize the value of a Receivership's assets apparently "gift" JPM over $30B in highly rated commercial loans? An honest answer to that question would be very interesting.
All those posts about JPM, BofA, WF, Citi etc are nothing but pure rubbish.
What part of Escrow Markers do you not understand??? You keep talking about hedge funds holding COOP. What do they have to do with what our Markers receive from the LT? Try to keep up already!!!
The 363 sale you keep referring to was done within the bankruptcy so any proceeds had to be reported. Nothing so far has been so it did not generate Billions as you claim.
How would anyone outside the professionals know how much money is in those accounts. How do you know the accounts holds multiple billions??? What a nonsensical premise which shows how fake info and inane opinions are purported as DD.
All those accounts are within the bankruptcy so why are they not being reported??? If they are Safe Harbor they would not be recognized in this case, Again more wishful thinking.
Even if JPM is required to pay additional funds to the Receivership, the FDIC must still find $13.8B to cover the Bond liability before equity sees a penny. I honestly don't see JPM having to fork out an additional $14B for WMB.
IMO the questions should be based on info that's available and backed by documents re any residual interests in WAMU securitized loans and the disparity in assets seized by the FDIC ($300B) and what was actually transferred to JPM ($258B). When they refer to vague board theories it gives the FDIC room to obfuscate and not be forthcoming.
Just a suggestion.
What does COOP have to do with Escrows?...WTH are you even talking about. Enough with this circuitous garbage already.
Settlement reached, POR approved, Releases signed....there is nothing to be litigated. Good luck with that theory.
The FDIC didn't have to tell me the unamended P&AA expired in 2014 ie JPM owes the estate nothing more than the $1.88B they already paid for WMB.