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.
Blusie2, I heard the Court proceedings on 11/14/10 and Arthur Steinberg laced it in to Rosen in much harsher terms than the footnote. The Judge abruptly interrupted before he could really let him have it.
(he practically accused Rosen of out right lying in his presentation to the Court).
Received same. Can't make heads-or-tails from this.
...76 notifies us that we cannot vote.
Notice ...75 lets debt holders (creditors) vote, but in doing so they accept the plan as submitted by Gotchel (sic), and agree to hold all debtors (JPM FDIC WMI etc) free from culpability in any capacity.
Another words, all the shinanigans, duplicity, cheating, lying and stealing are buried with the vote. Great! I'll save that paragraph for my future victims. It's neat clean and leaves no finger-prints.
what a country??@#$%$@#@
Thanks BKshadow, your analysis appeals to my understanding of the situation.
PS I've owned these LTWs since they were first issued.
Thanks loginusername, I thought I lost it with the last question. try this formula for valuation.
http://www.scribd.com/full/31453669?access_key=key-18wspnc6xjee400t0e6o
Adamante you are 100% right.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessments and have a TDA to follow the market. I too do not like the fancy bells and whistles on the Sink-or-Swim platform.
I sent many many customers to Fidelity in my capacity as a financial professional. They are staffed with well trained, knowledgeable and courteous professionals who respond responsibly to every request.
The rate are now $7.95 per trade on any quantity without limitations. The research and market-watch features are the only shortcomings. I use TDA for that purpose.
So, it seems we both came to the same conclusion.
I beleive Broadbill is changing the motion to a class action status. So future individual filings will be obviated.
Stay tuned.
I was perusing the latest Bk Court filings and I found a bunch of different lawyers posting monthly billing with the Court for reimbursements of all kinds of charges.
It looks like $5 million per month in total. How long will it take them to drain the pond?
Got any attorney friends? Let 'em all join the party. It looks like bedlam to me.Everyone scores but the Stockholders!
What if Litigation Tracking Warrants, LTW(tm) are not securities of the Bankrupt entity at all and should never haver been listed as such?
Consider this. The LTW(s)(tm) are a product designed by Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and trademarked by them as a proprietary product defined by CSFB as "first claim rights to litigation award from the Winstar suite". Similar instruments were first distributed to Glendale Bank stockholders in 1995 and were redeemed after the bank won a huge settlement from the FDIC. They were issued to DME holders with the anticipation that the Anchor Trial would end in a fast settlement, just as the numerous (115) Winstar suits were settled.
This, perhaps, can explain why the Warrant agent (if there was one ,EquiServe Trust Co was the Warrant agent at time of issue) never filed with the BK Court as it is definitely NOT A WARRANT.
It was clearly shorn away from DME in Dec 2000 for ever. Why would anyone, other that our litigators, want to include this as an asset of a BK entity?
The 15% override is an contingent entitlement to WMI, or whomever, undertakes the claim in Federal Claims Court. Period.
you are exactly right.
The Cut-off date is not a Court Order, It is a suggestion put forth by the Debtors. The Court has to rule on it as far as I understand.
As a matter of fact, almost all the deadlines have been dictated by Debtors. They submit "an Omnibus" (whatever that is) and they stipulate the response date.
This is why the deadlines keep getting pushed forward. The Court decides these issues not the Debtors.
Anyway your point as to ownership date and amount is correct. At a certain point the Court will impose a deadline date just like x-dividend date and that will determine the ownership rights.
I recently mailed in my objections to Debtors Motion to Deny LTW holders Claim.
Other than to change the spelling of Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation the filing is identical.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
------------------------------------------------------x
in re :
: Chapter 11
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al., :
Debtors in Possession :
:
vs. :
LITIGATION TRACKING WARRANTS : : : Case No 08-12229 (MFW)
J. Philip Max et al- Plaintive :
Claimant - per se :
------------------------------------------------------x Hearing July 20, 2010 Amount claimed: Excess of $400,000,000.00 File 4750
To be distributed to holders of approximately 112,000,000 LTW(tm)
Rebuttal to Debtors’ Forty-Third and Forty Fourth
OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS
The Honorable Mary F. Walrath
United States Bankruptcy Court
Your Honor:
May it Please the Court, I am a registered owner of DIMEZ certificates referred to as DIME LTW in this Court. I am hereby petitioning the Court, on my behalf and on behalf of all LTW(tm) holders, to deny Debtors’ claim to, any and all, net proceeds from any awards granted or to be granted by the US Court of Claims in an action referred to “Anchor Litigation”, the trial of which is still in progress.
A very excellent and meritorious defense and rebuttal to Debtors claims against the LTW(tm) rights was submitted in briefs by Broadbill, Nantahala and others to this Court. This petition is an addendum to, and complementary to, other rebuttal filings, as I, a layman, have no competence to cite the numerous legal jargons used. My contribution here, if any, is to highlight some features of this case with information that, I hope, Your Honor will find beneficial in deciding the outcome of this Bankruptcy hearing.
Debtors rely on various manipulations and interpretations of Bankruptcy Law to deny the merits of LTW(tm). Specifically, a long and convoluted description of the US Bankruptcy code is cited to discredit LTW(tm) claims...yet, they offer no proof of claim on their own behalf, as there are none.
The LTW(tm) are, by intent and deed, secured in their right to collect any Court Award and no other existing assets belonging to the creditors of the Bank are herein claimed. The assets claim by LTW(tm) are earmarked awards that may be won thru LITIGATION.
From all that I read, so far, the troubling aspect of our claim, is the unfortunate construction in the terminology of the LTW(tm). Forgetting that there are prefix words LITIGATION TRACKING, Counsel has honed in on usage of the term WARRANT.
Let me put the issue to rest once and for all. The term LTW(tm) is a trademark product owned by the Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. (See Dime Bancorp Inc ,S-3/A -12/15/10 locator: http/www.secinfo.com/dsvrt.56gn.htm.) (See Attachment A). This instrument is designed as a conduit for the equitable distribution of net proceeds from the Litigation. The owner of this trademark rightfully defines its meaning, not the Attorneys from Weil, Gotshal. To isolate and redefine the meaning of a single word out of context, “Warrant” in this case, by citing the Bankruptcy Code as its only legal definition is as idiotic as defining Band-Aid(tm) as a band ( ribbon or an instrumental group) that is an aid (helper or first-aiders ), and than cite detailed FDA regulations that affect the application of such an appliance - resulting in a ridiculous conclusion - as to prohibit, outright, the use of Band-Aid(tm) by an unlicensed person.
The divestiture of this contingent asset was specifically intended to divorce all future activities of the Bank from the constant speculation as to the outcome of this Litigation as it TRACKED its way thru the US Court of Claims. The reason was clearly stated, to reduce the vicissitudes of market fluctuations on the price of the Bank stock based on market speculation of the than pending outcome of the Trial. It may be recalled that Dime Bancorp (DME) stock was trading at approximately $1.25; yet, the potential LITIGATION award was $2.50+/- per share. Thus, it was a situation where the “tail was wagging the dog”. The spin-off was, therefore, a benefit to the Bank, insofar, as it minimized unwarranted volatility in the stock price of the Bank.
The WARRANTS do not represent an interest in, or rights to, any profits or distributions from the future activities of the Bank or its successors.
Please note that the warrants here confer “a right to receive the net proceeds thereof” (85% in this specific instance) of the Litigation outcome and only that. This, ipso facto means, that no one else has a claim to that portion of net proceeds dedicated to the warrant holders.
These dedicated financial instruments, the LTW(tm), are not securities as defined by any conventional definition of “securities”. The LTW(tm) are neither bonds, in that they do not guarantee a “repayment of principal” or “interest”. The LTW(tm) are not “warrants”, in that they do confer the “right to convert” or “the right to sell or purchase” stocks bond or other “securities” of the Bank. The LTW(tm) are not options, in that they are not dependent on the Bank stock price fluctuations for exercise. Nor, do they have a time limit, a necessary component of warrants and options, as the warrants were to exist to the year 2059 which was defined as “indefinite”. The warrant is a “claim to” or “chit” against the Award.
The LTW(tm) are simply and wholly, rights to the net proceeds dependent on fulfilment of a specific act, namely, the settlement award which Triggers the payout to its holders. Thus, they are totally contingent upon the positive award settlement from a specific US Court case. This was meant to be effective, regardless of the present and future successes or failures of the activities of the issuing Bank (or its successor(s)). There are similar instruments in the market-place that allow the holder to claim a percentage of future insurance proceeds or litigation outcome from tort claims. And let us not forget the famous Credit Default Swaps, that got us into this mess in the first place, these instruments practically demand the demise of an institution before they accrue any value.
Having defined the LTW(tm) in its original intent, let us proceed next, to issues with Debtors claims to possession.
The Dime Bancorp Inc ( later WMI) was appointed to prosecute its case against the FDIC. That was, and is, its only connection to the LTW(tm). It is therefore, a FIDUCIARY AGENT to the interests of the LTW(tm). In consideration of this responsibility, it was granted a right to 15% of the proceeds from any recovery. By Debtors refusal to act in this Fiduciary role, and instead, confiscate the rightful assets of the LTW(tm), it is as though they are refusing to process mortgages payments, received on behalf of third parties owners, just because the Bank filed for bankruptcy, and instead pocket the proceeds for themselves.
Now, the successor Bank, WMI, is in Bankruptcy Court. This should have no affect on the Bank’s Fiduciary responsibilities to the LTW(tm) and should be of no concern to the LTW(tm) holders, as their rights to the proceeds from the LITIGATION have not been altered in any way. The new successor Bank, JPM, is attempting to strong-arm the Bankruptcy Court to deny LTW(tm) holders their rightful claim in order to purloin the proceeds of the LITIGATION for its own purse. There can be no rationale in Law, Reason, or Equity to deny the rights of the LTW(tm) to their rightful claim, by awarding claim-jumpers this right. This is an affront to the legal system and an insult to every American. Legally it is called conversion, I prefer the conventional usage, “STEALING”
The fact remains that the LTW(tm), BY DEFINITION, are rightfully the only ones in line to receive the balance of the proceeds from the LITIGATION WARRANTS as none of the denials to the LTW(tm) intrinsic rights to this claim have been demonstrated to this Court or altered by the sale and subsequent Bankruptcy of the Bank.
Any action that adversely affects the outcome of the Litigation due to malfeasance on the part of the Bank will be actionable by the LTW(tm) holders. Indeed, it may well be argued that JPM should be stripped of it successor rights to administer the LITIGATION as its action in this Court demonstrate that its interests are inimical to the interests of the LTW(tm).
Therefore, I pray the Court to deny Debtors any claim to benefit from the long and arduous process that the LTW(tm) holders were subjected to, and to grant the LTW(tm) their just claim to the future Awards in their Litigation proceedings.
END
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: Thursday July 8, 2010
J. Philip Max ____________________________
Beneficial owner of Dime LTW(tm)
J. Philip Max et al
46 Maple Ave
Cedarhurst NY 11516-2222
Telephone: 516-569-1623
Let's face it. we're not going to be paid in the immediate future. WAMU does not exist anymore. All that exists is WMI which has not been released from Bankruptcy and therefore cannot issue stock. In filings that I read (thank you -each one of you who posts them), WMI will be capitalized as a stand alone entity once there is a global agreement (of which we are frozen out of at this time).
Should Judge Block order an immediate payout,we may get he cash. But don't hang your hat on it, I am only speculating,just like the rest of you.
So everyone, keep your day job until the dust settles.
I agree with Bluzie 2. We must do something for the the entire class 113million shares. The BK Court could be easily swayed by the high priced lawyers. Keep in mind that these lawyers troll the Courthouse for a living and there is an "old boy network" within the system.
So, starting with the premise that Broadbill and Nah... will represent themselves, we have to form some kind of representation. Alas, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been to Court numerous times only to discover that you can't be a self-made lawyer when playing with the Big Boyz(sic). They'll wipe the floor with you if you miss even one comma in your presentation.
I received a Court filing in the mail answerable by July 6 2010. I have my own take on this case and would like some feedback as to its viability. I am very happy with the current representaion by Broadbill et al. I just think there may be another angle here.
In re Washington Mutual et al. Debtors Notice of Debtors’ Forty -Third Omnibus (substantive) Objection to Claims Chapter 11 Case No. 08-12229 Hearing Date July 20, 2010
The Debtors allege that under bankruptcy code, the LTWs - Dime Warrant Claims - (the Creditors) - are
securities in nature and are therefore null and void.
To prove their point, Attorneys Marcia Goldstein and Brian Rosen for Weil, Gotchal & Manges LLP and Attorneys M. Collins,C Jang and T. McRoberts for Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. debtor Attorneys for WMB and WMI, assert that the Litigation Tracking Warrants (LTWs) are by law, and definition “equity securities”, which puts them at the end of the recovery line at Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Period.
They than produce a longwinded definition of “Warrants” and “options” as well as conditional statements as “not exercisable unless and until” and “rights to purchase”, with sufficient negation citations to deny the validity of the LTWs claims to any recovery. ¶ 28 states emphatically “although the LTWs are, as a matter of law, equity interest...such claims would be subject to mandatory subordination pursuant to section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code...”
Here we have it ... black and white proof of worthlessness.
But, wait!
Why were the LITIGATION TRACKING “warrants” so worthless in the event of WMB Bankruptcy? What does the demise of WMB have to do with the LTWs? Why are the LTWs standing in line at Bankruptcy Court?
Simple, because they were deliberately mis-classified and mis-represented by Debtors! By classifying the LTWs as creditors and denying their legitimacy both the bank and the FDIC are off the hook.
The unfortunate use of the term “warrant” is misconstrued above to evince the conventional conclusion. But, this is not a “security” by any stretch of the imagination. If we consider the entire term "Litigation Tracking Warrants", we can see that this is not meant in the traditional financial definition of warrants, as it conveys no value by its exercise. Here the term must mean to “endow with the rights to - until resolved” . This instrument is uniquely designed to empower its holder to Track and receive proceeds from the Litigation - or fail to do so - should this Litigation fail. Other definitions can’t be ascribed here as there is no other benefit to owning this instrument. The common usage of the term “warrant” is inapplicable as here it promises nothing more. And since it confers no present or future rights to :
A) Vote for BOD.
B) Share in the fortunes of the Bank.
C) Receive interest or dividends.
D) Convert to stock or bonds - except as dictated by the FDIC.
It cannot be properly classed a warrant in the conventional sense.
What we own, is the rights to any recoveries which the Anchor Litigation yield. That same “ Litigation” is the Trial that is working its way thru the United States Court of Federal Claims. Yes! THAT TRIAL! Not the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. “LITIGATION TRACKING WARRANTS” are simply a method adopted at the beginning of the Trial to guarantee each shareholder a portion of the proceeds from that Trial. The LTWs were specifically detached from the Dime Bancorp securities to identify specific claim, unrelated to all other bank issues at the time of issue, or since.
The LTWs should NEVER HAVE BEEN listed as WMB WMI creditors. We are not creditors to the Bank. We are claimants waiting to get the proceeds from a long and convoluted legerdemain engineered by the FDIC to deny our rightful claim against them, not the bank.
The Washington Mutual Bank OR ITS SUCCESSOR, are merely the conduit entity thru which we are to be awarded the proceeds when we win. The FDIC has declared that, should it lose this case, it would rather pay the bank the cash and the bank would then distribute the proceeds in the form of its shares. The LTWs holders had no say in this matter. It was the result of the dictate of the FDIC.
WMB was the designated coordinator to lead in the Anchor Litigation case. For this activity it was to be reimbursed a percentage of the proceeds.
Now, this clearly sets the bank as AN AGENCY for the interest of LTWs. It is vested with the Fiduciary duty to represent “our” interest in the claim. In no way can the LTWs relationship be described as “security holders” in WMB. This relationship is no different than when the bank acts as a collection agent for Fanny Mea and other mortgagors. This agency is NOT SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF BANKRUPTCY.
Which brings me to the point - we should never have been lumped together with the creditors as we are not creditors to the bank we are likely creditors to the FDIC. The Bank has to proceed to finalize the Anchor Litigation as a Fiduciary and to disburse the proceed according to term of the LTWs. A motion to change our status from creditors to that of an agency arrangement should be made to the Bankruptcy Court at once.
P.S. I am NOT A LAWYER and don’t purport to be one. I am just a frustrated original issue LTW owner who is disgusted by the proceedings at hand.
PPS: Someone, please check to see if LTWs were registered with the SEC as securities. Lack of such is pivotal to the case.
on November 2008 during the height of the banking collapse I blogged on "Seeking-Alpha" a financial blog site the following:
Did JPMorgan Almost Fail? [View article]
"It’s just about the Centennial of the infamous “Panic of ought eight”. It was a painful moment in American history and a poignant lesson for today.
By 1907 John Pierpont Morgan was the richest and most powerful Oligarch in the world. In the age of the Robber Barons, through J.P. Morgan & Company he had formed the most formidable array of industrial concentration imaginable. He controlled the US Steel Corporation, the largest entity on earth, as well as the American Telephone & Telegraph Company and General Electric Company and United Electric utility, which, together with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company and Vanderbilt’s Railroads controlled 95% of the industrial base of the United States.
The Federal Reserve Bank did not yet exist and the currency was directly linked to the gold and silver circulating in the economy. J.P. Morgan & Company was the at the spigot.
By 1907, US Steel was a huge juggernaut of vertically integrated interconnected companies that not only owned and controlled steel production but also vast tracts of natural resources, as well as, a bewildering network of railroads to transport the raw and finished products. With all the resources at its command, it nevertheless, found it necessary to covet the assets of the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, a small, yet strategic, company that would add another nugget to this vast enterprise. The problem was that the stock of this company was controlled by two New York entities who were reluctant to part with the stock.
Now, JP Morgan was a generous Plutocrat. He would ask the seller to name his price and rarely haggled as he stood to make even more millions by adding his percentage mark-up when he marketed securities to raise additional capital. When he asked Andrew Carnegie to name his price for his vast steel empire, Carnegie replied that $700 Million was the magic number and was delighted to find that Morgan promptly issued a check for that exact amount...only to be greatly distressed when Morgan told him that he was prepared to ante $1 Billion.
So, when Morgan approached the principals at Moore and Schley, a small stock brokerage firm that happened to own, together with the owners of the Trust Company of America, a dominating control of the Tennessee Coal Company, he expected to pay a high price. To his chagrin, they both refused to sell to him at any price.
The result was the” Panic of 07". JP Morgan & Company, through his agents, caused a run on the deposits at the Trust Company forcing it out of business. At the same time, he refused to extend credit and created a credit crunch that was particularly aimed at the customers of Moore and Schley forcing that company out business and in the process acquired the shares of Tennessee coal for pennies on a dollar.
Immediately after the fall of his “enemies” J.P. Morgan famously gathered his buddies to announce that the panic was over.
I retell this incident here because I have a strong suspicion that history is repeating itself on the Centennial of that fateful event.
For 75 years the SEC had a rule that prevented runs on companies’ stock by prohibiting the “naked short” sales (selling stock without possessing the borrowed shares) prevalent before the Depression. After the 1987 debacle, the exchanges instituted the up-tick rule (sale price of the target company’s stock must register a rise in its price immediately before the short sale is executed} that made programed short selling harder to execute. These tools were instituted as a safeguard against ruinous bear raids that could decimate viable companies in days.
Early this summer, without any outcry or demand by the public for change, the exchanges quickly and without fanfare eliminated both of these safeguards in a matter-of-fact fashion that barely elicited any comment.
In quick succession Bear Stearns was decimated in just days, and was quickly snapped up by JP Morgan. A few short months later Lehman Brothers was exterminated with great dispatch that lasted just days. And later that same week the Trillion Dollar giant A.I.G. was brought to its knees in just seventy two hours.
Within a week of this epic American tragedy, the “short rules” were re-instated with stringent “no short sale” list covering 1000 companies.
WOW!!!!!
I will patiently wait for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs & Co., or Warren Buffett to pick up the “nuggets” left behind by Lehman’s demise and the breakup of A.I.G."
Bluzie2 "a bombshell" INDEED!!!
In addition to conspiracy,duplicity,outright lies and deception, JPMC lawyers are guilty of malpractice and should be subjected to disciplinary measures by their peers, censure, debarment, and even criminal prosecution.
We have a huge financial stake in the outcome of this bankruptcy and are rightfully watching, and contributing to, the proceedings.
More importantly;
In paragraph 6 page 14 of the filing you referred us to, it clearly points a smoking gun at JPMC and the FDIC conspiring to the defraud WMB shareholders
A more sinister plot is unfolding that should shock and dismay everyone in this Nation; not only at the high handed manner that we are being treated, but also, at the historic conspiracy to commit outright theft by our Governmental agency, the FDIC, and "well connected" power brokers, to rape the shareholders of Washington Mutual, AND TO GET AWAY WITH IT. This watershed moment of openly disgraceful public thievery "will live in infamy"!
As the above brief stated, this is not an academic case study. This is a real and present danger to Americas' legal and moral heritage.
Thanks Jared (I've been following your great input for months )
Like others on this board, I am suspicious of the powerful forces against us, namely, JPM and the FDIC.
None of us would be in this pickle if the FDIC abided by the original Court ruling of Judge Block. We won on Appeal (not a small feat by any means).
Now that we have the Law, The Facts, and the Logic on our side, I still suspect fowl play. We are fighting both, Goliath and the Gov't.
I therefore think that it might not be a bad idea if Broadbill and others put in for Tax Credit adjustments, just in case. It can't hurt. It might even put a spin on the argumen, changing it from denial, to "negotiations on the fine points".
WMI posted new proposals with the Bankruptcy Court to give WAMU secured holders a greater share of distribution in exchange for JPM getting 80 of the tax loss benefits in the BK bank.
I have not seen anyone recalculate the payout on DIMEQ as adjusted for the tax "CREDIT" that is due on distribution calculations.
i.e. on the original distribution calculation, the FDIC was to pay the bank the court award $363 Mil.to WAMU bank. The bank was to deduct it's share of the take, then the lawyers were to get theirs, then the remainder was to be "adjusted for income tax". This meant that there was to be an additional deduction from proceeds to account for the fact that the CONDUIT ENTITY (Wamu) was liable to pay tax on the total settlement amount and the DIMEQ (holders of the rights to the proceeds from the lawsuit) had to reduce their net as a result.
A funny thing happened on the way to BK Court. Wamu has a TAX CREDIT coming to it, therefore the "tax adjustment" is either negated or better still, becomes a credit to DIMEQ and therefore has to be added to the net proceeds from the lawsuit.
Any comments?