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.
That why they all register in Delaware, to take advantage of the lax rules and will get a generic address without having to open a physical office. Still absolutely nothing to do with WAMU. CSC Trusts provide services to 100's if not 1000's of companies, that's what they do.
Yes (NDT's link) I did that's why I stated it has nothing to do with WAMU. There was never a WMI or WMB sub called WMB holdings inc nor could WAMU own a private sub being a publicly traded company. That company was formed in 1989 and is PRIVATELY owned. Just because a company's name includes WMB does not mean it's affiliated with us. There's a trucking co called WMB Holdings Ltd., does that mean they were a sub of WAMU also?...no it does not.
LIQUIDATE:
to wind up the affairs of (a business) by ascertaining liabilities and apportioning assets.
synonyms:
close down, wind up, put into liquidation, dissolve, break up, disband, terminate
This is why the LT ensured that they stated clearly what the assets would be liquidated into, ie CASH...Period! If you choose to dance around the meaning of words to fit the S4V narrative that's your choice. I don't even need to go into how WMIH IR has already denied any involvement with former WMI assets or subs or how such a deal would need to be addressed by a filing. The only one being "blindsided" here is you by promoting a theory with zero credibility.
As I've stated from day one and you nor any other S4V proponent has ever addressed....(1) Liquidate, (2) CONVERT TO CASH AND (3) Distribute assets. That is the sole function of the LT.
lodas if you do a basic google search on WMB Holdings inc you could plainly see that company has NOTHING to do with us. That company was founded in 1989 and is privately owned. Again, absolutely nothing to do with us.
Quote: "STATUTES of DELAWARE have been repeatedly shown here validating such a transaction is not only perfectly legal , but almost every buy out in history in the market includes SHARES and or DOLLARS"
Doesn't the LT Agreement prohibit the LT from engaging in any such "trade or business" arrangement since it would threaten their tax status???
If that's the Cusip # representing WAMPQ then yes, that's all I have. I saw PQ's as best return of all the available options.
I do have some empathy for WAMU pre-bankruptcy holders but as with any investment, an investor is not absolved from monitoring and paying attention to what was transpiring.
The only ones to blame for not releasing are the individual investors and Group Funds for being negligent,...not the Debtors, AAOC or post-bankruptcy retail investors.
There is compelling evidence via documents which shows how the $32B in assets were arrived at and involves the Debtors claiming the stock loss from WMB as an asset. We can't argue in one breath that SH assets are bankruptcy remote and then again claim that the $32B includes those very SH assets. IMO, the $32B bankruptcy assets filing does not account for anything outside of bankruptcy estate assets.
I believe we could be right but I personally need to see much more evidence before i'm fully convinced this is accurate.
Too many times in the past we've "jumped the gun" on critical issues, only to be proven wrong after the true facts are revealed.
Yes it is possible these assets are not Trust held assets but rather the Available For Sale Securities reported by WAMU in it's 2008 10Q and held by the company.
However, since the majority of these assets were MBS or MBS investments they may still be considered SH assets once a "true sale" was completed.
The WMB Bonds could be paid from SH assets "IF" there were revenue sharing agreements between WMI and WMB. This would entitle WMB to a share of the cash generated by any BI's held by it's SPE subs.
This is very plausible since WMB, being an OTS regulated entity, required funding guarantees that were meant to limit it's exposure to liquidity issues and maintain capital ratio requirements.
Also the FDIC holding these assets as a conservator (FDIC-C) does not constitute a seizure of SH assets. As long as the assets or liquidated benefits return to their rightful owners, this is not an issue.
SH rules would have been broken if these assets were sold to JPM by the FDIC or they were allowed to be seized and sold to pay WMI's Creditors.
NOTE: Since there is no breakdown of what these assets are or if they are actual assets and not just an "asset write-down", it is difficult to make any reliable assertions. In addition to this, the Trusts could be holding assets in which WMI/WMB may hold a stake in the form of Notes/Paper that returns cash. All being sequestered until they can be legally released. We just don't know either way for sure and anyone who claims they do is not being forthright!!!
By doing exactly what they agreed to in the GSA/POR7. If not the agreement can be voided and litigation pursued.
Per any SH assets, I see some evidence, in post 518718, of the FDIC holding $40.2B in assets from the WMB Receivership. If we are correct that could see us receiving ~$24B back.
Whether these are illegally seized WMI assets or assets in which WNI holds interests i'm not sure.
WAMU was the collective company composed of WMI and WMB plus all their respective subsidiaries.
Eclipsed? lol. I only own PQ's, I would hardly call that a shoddy investment. I will be receiving 75% of ALL assets of the WMI estate.
Wrong again, JPM did not assume ALL WMB bonds, it seems you don't read anything.
Quote: "Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired."
Misinformation is not DD!
We are likely to see ~$40M from the bankruptcy estate once the Employee Claims are finally dismissed and Piers are paid in full.
""IF"" there are additional Safe Harbor assets/cash returned to the LT for distribution, we will see much more depending on the amount.
This info is not currently available to us.
See post 536889 for a breakdown of how much we will receive if $40M is distributed.
When WMIIC filed for bankruptcy they indicated that they held investments valued (undervalued???) at $1B with no Creditors. When the plan was approved $266M worth of WMIIC assets were contributed to pay WMI Creditors. In an early filing the Debtors intended to liquidate ?some or all? of WMIIC's assets but this was objected to by a female ex-WAMU employee (name eludes me). The bankruptcy court ordered that any such sale would have to be court approved before any such sale was effected. What happened to the remaining asset value, "~$750M", that was not liquidated???
NOTE: Despite the claims made by a certain poster that the WMI and WMIIC bankruptcies were "Jointly Administered" for procedural purposes only, some WMIIC assets were for a fact used to pay WMI's Creditors.
Not sure how that number was arrived at...it would mean PQ receives $6.80/share. That would mean the LT has $68M to distribute instead of $40M.
The Debtor's estate did not have sufficient bankruptcy assets to pay WAMPQ, WAMKQ and the REITS in full ie $7.5B. According to APR and all of their Prospectus's they are higher in priority to Commons and must be paid first. In the event of a failure of WMI, they must be paid off before Commons see a dime. This did not happen because a compromise was reached where distributions would be made simultaneously. Commons owning the estate is IRRELEVANT if there are not sufficient assets to satisfy those higher in priority. It was because the EC represented Preferred and Commons, and the REITS being convinced to allow Commons to receive a 25% stake is the reason they were allowed to survive. This is what occurred whether you want to accept it or not!
The WMILT uses Liquidation Basis of Accounting (LBA). This means that only when the liquidation of an asset is imminent will the value be accounted for. If there are SH assets owned by the former WMI estate that have not yet been accessed by the LT, those assets cannot be liquidated and reported until those assets are in the LT's possession. I believe the bankruptcy "temporarily" removed those assets from the Debtor's estate but they will be restored once the bankruptcy is closed. The article below basically explains how LBA works.
Liquidation basis accounting is concerned with preparing the financial statements of a business in a different way if its liquidation is considered to be imminent. Imminent refers to one of the following two conditions:
-Liquidation plan. A plan for liquidation has been approved, and is likely to be achieved....ie the WMILT
-Forced liquidation. A third party is forcing the business into liquidation, and is likely to achieve this goal.
The accounting under the liquidation basis of accounting differs in several respects from normal accrual basis accounting. The key differences are:
-Recognize any assets that had not previously been recognized, but which you expect to either sell in liquidation or use to pay off liabilities. This means it is possible to recognize internally generated intangible assets – which would not normally be the case. The main point is to only recognize items if they are actually worth something in liquidation.
-It is allowable to recognize in aggregate those assets that had not been previously recognized, rather than individually.
-Accrue for the expected disposal costs of assets that will be liquidated.
-Accrue for those income and expense items that will be earned or incurred through the end of the expected liquidation period. An example of such an income item is the expected profits from orders that have not yet been fulfilled. An example of such an expense item is wage and salary costs expected to be incurred.
I do not engage in such wishful thinking or conspiracy theories. Commons are the first to be cancelled in every bankruptcy. Were it not for the EC representing both Commons and Prefs, they would be gone. The compromise made was the 75%/25% split...deal with it!
I was asked directly about Escrow Cusips. I'm not sure what article you're referring to and it's significance.
That ""insignificant post"" explains that Escrow Cusips are for shares only and if we are to receive cash we will have to be issued LTI's. All highlighted especially for those who don't read anything.
That's not correct...smh
The exact figures will vary depending on how many shares were released in each case.
$10B returning would give PQ $1000/share
$1B returning would give PQ $100/share
$100M returning would give PQ $10/share
So obviously $40M returning, based on accurate releasing numbers, would give....
PQ ~$4.23/share
TPS ~4.23/share
KQ ~$0.11/share
UQ ~$0.0084/share
Read this entire statement from the WMILT, paying special attention to the highlighted text. Escrow Cusips are for distributing SHARES only. We will have to be issued LTI's once Piers are paid in full to receive cash.
WMI LIQUIDATING TRUST ISSUES STATEMENT ON ESCROW CUSIPS
SEATTLE, March 16, 2017 – WMI Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”), formed pursuant to the confirmed Seventh Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (as modified, the “Plan”) of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”), today issued a statement regarding certain Escrow CUSIPs issued to eligible former shareholders of WMI. Eligible former shareholders are those who timely submitted relevant documentation, including the release required under
Section 41.6 of the Plan.
The Trust has received inquiries regarding the status of “Escrow CUSIPs” issued on the Effective Date in accordance with the Plan. As has been stated in the past, such Escrow CUSIPs were issued solely to facilitate potential future distributions, if any, to eligible former shareholders of WMI if Claims involving Disputed Equity Interests are disallowed.
By way of background, as of the Effective Date of the Plan, the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) established and maintains positions in the aforementioned Escrow CUSIPs. These Escrow CUSIPs represent nominees’ positions that would be used to make future distributions, if any, of common stock issued by WMIH Corp. (formerly known as WMI Holdings Corp. (“WMIHC”)). Pursuant to the Plan, such shares of WMIHC’s common stock were deposited in the Disputed Equity Escrow established in accordance with the Plan and are to be maintained in the Disputed Equity Escrow until such time as Claims involving Disputed Equity Interests are either allowed or disallowed.
Upon resolution of those Claims, the related portion of the shares maintained in the Disputed Equity Escrow will be distributed to claimants holding the newly allowed claim or, if the claim is disallowed, the related portion of the shares will be redistributed to beneficiaries of the Trust in accordance with the distribution mechanics set forth in the Plan. In the event any future distributions of WMIHC common stock are made from the Disputed Equity Reserve, DTC will be instructed to allocate such common stock to each of the Escrow CUSIPs on a pro rata basis.
In June 2015, several Claims were disallowed and 1.4 million shares were subsequently distributed to holders of Escrow CUSIPs on a pro rata basis; however, a holder received such a distribution solely to the extent such holder’s ownership position resulted in a distribution of at least one share. Since that date, no additional disallowances with respect to those relevant Claims have occurred. On that basis, former positions represented by the Escrow CUSIPs are not currently entitled to receive any distributions under the terms of the Plan.
As stated above, the Escrow CUSIPS were established solely to facilitate potential distributions, if any, of shares of WMIHC common stock. The only source of common stock available for any such a distribution would be from the 1.5 million of shares remaining on deposit in the Disputed Equity Escrow. Specifically, the Escrow CUSIPS do not, in and of themselves, represent an entitlement to any possible future cash distributions from the Trust, WMIHC or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (either in its corporate capacity or as the receiver for Washington Mutual Bank), as the case may be.
In accordance with the Plan, the Trust will issue Liquidating Trust Interests to WMI’s former shareholders if, and only if, the Trust is able to monetize Liquidating Trust Assets in amounts sufficient to pay-in-full claims held by beneficiaries of the Trust who are senior to members of Classes 19 and 22, and then, only if a shareholder had satisfied timely all conditions applicable to receiving any such Liquidating Trust Interests. There can be no assurances that the Trust will be able to monetize assets in a manner sufficient to give effect to the foregoing.
75%/25% has only to do with the fact that APR was consensually violated to allow Commons to receive distributions together with the higher priority Preferred.
The idea that old WMI Commons and Preferred stock can be brought back to receive their former rights, ie Preferred's $1000 and $25/share and Commons "ownership of the estate" is just silly.
It makes no sense when you look at the norm that Equity is usually cancelled in most bankruptcies and receive nothing. In those cases Commons are not paid if assets are returned.
The difference with us is that the POR CANCELLED old Commons and Preferred along with all the documents outlining their rights and we were reissued new Equity with new rights that state all returns will be divided 75%/25%.
I am yet to seen anyone explain how APR could still apply to stocks that were clearly cancelled.
What does that have to do with the WMB Notes and Covered Bonds? The Notes are unsecured, ie NO SUPPORTING ASSETS. The Covered Bonds and their overfunded supporting assets were assumed by JPM. Relevance???
ron: "YES...ECLIPSE IS WMIIC"
How did that work out?...LOLOL
ron: "OTS/FDIC only monitored WMB, but had NO authority to Seize WMB."
WAMU: "For example, Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB"), a subsidiary of the Company, is a federal savings association that is regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, the deposits of which are insured within applicable limits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC").
Who should I believe??? SMH
Loans held by WMB were sold to JPM...they are gone.
MBS's held by TRUSTS in which PI/BI's were possibly held will return the interest stated in the PSA document.
There is no one general interest rate, each PSA will define such and must be read to glean the rate.
Again, WMB owned/held mortgages or loans are gone...they belong to JPM.
That's the purpose of SH, to remove assets from the threat of seizure.
MBS's that WMI MAY have interests in are held by TRUSTS.
NOT WMB!!!!!!!!!
I have no issue answering anyone's questions based on what I've read...i'm no "expert"!!!
My issue is being asked the same reworded question that I've already addressed.
Yes...as the FDIC plainly stated. AZ's opinion is totally wrong but I don't expect any admittal of such.
Quote: "So WMB has the assets directly or indirectly through the MBS."
What part of the irrelevance of WMB or JPM possibly servicing WMI assets do you not get??? Yet again, you're asking the same irrelevant questions over and over. Responding is tedious and apparently a waste of my time!!!
oooookkkk, so an official FDIC document states that Notes are unsecured and Covered Bonds are secured but we shouldn't take it literally but believe in nonsense. A O K!!! LOLOL
Seems that ED cash is lost somewhere in the twilight zone...LOL
This is why IMO the FDIC retained $40.2B in WMB assets, this means there will be no "Final Payment" from JPM since they reserved sufficient WMB assets to resolve all claims against the Receivership,...including Equity. Whether these assets will be returned to the LT, being former WMI property or directly liquidated and distributed by the FDIC remains to be determined.
Agreed...I believe the employee claimants saw the writing on the wall when judge Sleet "punted" any judgement on the case back to JMW's bankruptcy court.
Couple that with the additional expense of defending against the LT's adversarial proceeding, they hopefully won't file any objections. They will IMO never prevail against the FDIC's objections.
Quote: "~ LP, No In My Opinion The Class 17’ Supporting Trusts, Are Overfunded and In Fine Shape ~"
Class 17 ($13.8B in Snr and Sub Notes) are not backed by any Trust assets, they are UNSECURED DEBT. The Covered Bonds were overfunded but were acquired by JPM in the purchase of WMB.
Quote: "Quote: "VII. Possible Claims Against the Failed Institution.
On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual Bank was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was named receiver. Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired."
This is why we will always have issues here. The PSA states where Trust assets should go and supposedly is outside of the bankruptcy.
I took an excerpt from a WAMU PSA that shows investor rights in the assets are indeed protected in the PSA by the bankruptcy code.
Also, it's 2018, we're way past whether it should have occurred or not since what has already transpired will never be reversed.
The $13.8B claim held by Snr and Sub Bond/Note holders against the FDIC are NOT backed by any Trust mortgage assets. That debt is unsecured debt as clearly stated by the FDIC below. The Covered Bonds which were overfunded, ie secured debt, were acquired by JPM in 2008. Both are totally different types of WMB issued debt.
Quote: "VII. Possible Claims Against the Failed Institution
On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual Bank was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was named receiver. Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired."
Seems Pooling and Servicing Agreements are also subject to the Bankruptcy Code after all, ie The WMILT will receive any assets we own.
WaMu Asset-Backed Certificates, WaMu Series 2007-HE3
From the PSA documents.....
(ii) Bankruptcy Code. Subject to Part 5(m), without limiting the applicability if any, of any other provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as amended (the “Bankruptcy Code”) (including without limitation Sections 362, 546, 556, and 560 thereof and the applicable definitions in Section 101 thereof), the parties acknowledge and agree that all Transactions entered into hereunder will constitute “forward contracts” or “swap agreements” as defined in Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code or “commodity contracts” as defined in Section 761 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the rights of the parties under Section 6 of this Agreement will constitute contractual rights to liquidate Transactions, that any margin or collateral provided under any margin, collateral, security, pledge, or similar agreement related hereto will constitute a “margin payment” as defined in Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code, and that the parties are entities entitled to the rights under, and protections afforded by, Sections 362, 546, 556, and 560 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code
In United States bankruptcy law, an automatic stay is an automatic injunction that halts actions by creditors, with certain exceptions, to collect debts from a debtor who has declared bankruptcy. Under section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the stay begins at the moment the bankruptcy petition is filed.
Escrows = WAMUQ shares owned before releasing
Only when converted to newco WMIH shares was a factor used
ie 10000 Wamuq = 10000 Markers/Escrows
If an asset is distribute $5B in principal + interest, to be paid over a 5 yr period and the owner receives $2B in payments over the first two years. Explain how the remaining $3B owed over the remaining 3 yrs could be sold to another investor for $3B if it's only worth $3B??? The expected profit for selling early will obviously be less than if they held the asset for the entire 5 yrs. That's basic common sense.
Is it possible that the trust have to hang on to the BI for more than 6 years to generate enough money to pay us?
The Trust's role is to liquidate, not keep extending it's life to manage assets. Unless assets are held up from other sources I see no reason for them to hold onto any assets to generate ""enough"" money to pay us. What ever they generate will be distributed, they don't owe anyone else. That's it!
How much money do you think WMI may have left at WMB that were not transferred yet?
This is like the 3rd time you've asked about WMB/JPM holding our assets. For the last time, WMB holds nothing owned by WMI, JPM may be servicing MBS's but they do not control their disposition. IF there are assets/interests control lies with the FDIC, Delaware Trusts or the Trusts created by the SPE's prior to 2008.
The filing said that WMI abandoned WMB stock but not its claims. How much are those claims?
About $6B-$10B, i'm not sure. It's in the filing.
How about the money that WMI transferred to WMB just prior to the seizure to avert a seizure...? Is it lost because there was a lawsuit against ex WAMU exec which they settled afterward?
Those are the Creditor claims WMI filed against the FDIC and did not release. Nothing to do with the D&O claims you're referring to.
Are there any Safe Harbor assets that sit over WMB or are they all at WMI? I suppose that those SH assets cannot be seized.
That's the 4th...Any assets belonging to the former WMI estate would be controlled by the FDIC, Delaware Trusts or the SPE Trusts. WMB is owned by JPM and holds no former WMI property and WMI filed bankruptcy and now no longer exists. The LT at this point holds no such assets. JPM servicing loan assets does not constitute control of said assets, the Trustees or the FDIC control them.
The period between Sep 24th-Oct 16th should provide us with much needed answers about the closure of the bankruptcy. Hopefully only good news about how much remains follows.
They certainly did since they stated so and recorded such investments in their last Form 10Q dated June 30, 2008.
Their Investment assets portfolio consisting of Available for sale securities, Trading assets and other various investments totaled ~$30B. (pg 21)
So as a pre-seizure holder does it matter if I did or did not sign a release?
Yes it seems it does. Based on the quote I posted in my last message, a prerequisite for being issued an LTI was signing the releases.
It's very easy to determine if you signed or not, just check your brokerage account for Cusip numbers that contain numbers and letters and show how many old WAMU shares you formerly held.
Here's an example of one 9392ESC, it will also show the amount of shares you owned prior to releasing.