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.
I asked a simple question for which that rant is totally useless. Relax, before you suffer a meltdown.........
I find it amazing that they can even attempt to claim a CIC has not already occurred when in reality all the evidence indicates that it clearly has.
This is like a person confessing to a crime and providing details only the perpetrator would know and the prosecutor requesting a trial to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty.
I don't see any way the ?LT/FDIC? could claim that the Employee's CIC Clause was not triggered when JPM acquired the operations of WMB.
This all seems to me to be yet another issue being conveniently used to prolong the bankruptcy even further. It makes absolutely no sense imo.
Why the need for a "change in control" hearing in Feb 2019 re the Employee claims issue if this is an already settled issue? Is it that the employees are attempting to show this CIC clause was triggered or that it did not or has not yet happened.
Re the other issue...I welcome any such attempt. It will be dealt with accordingly!!!
See posts 528024 and 528029 and the link contained within the former as to why I believe your assertion is incorrect.
Also research FASB Rule 140 as applicable for 2008 which showed that qualified assets of NON BANKRUPTCY REMOTE entities such as WMI and WMIIC also qualified for Safe Harbor protection.
That being proven, can you still claim the Debtors sole successor, the WMILT, does not control these protected assets???
Safe Harbor is not a bankruptcy exempt process as some have claimed since assets of non bankruptcy remote entities also qualify for protection.
This means that Participating or Beneficial Interests (assets) owned by WMI that were possibly ""sold"" to WMIIC also qualified for SH protection.
That would also mean any such SH assets could be distributed by the WMILT to our "Markers" via the issuance of LTI's since those assets are controlled by the LT.
This is why, IMO, LT Assets were deemed to be ALL assets of the Debtors (WMI + WMIIC) and as such only "certain" assets were transferred to the LT on the ED.
Meaning, any Debtor owned interests in assets being held in Legal Isolation by Safe Harbor can be returned, once all current impediments to liquidation are resolved.
The amendments proposed by WAMU to existing Safe Harbor rules for revision and clarification. They plainly show that Safe Harbor was in no way a bankruptcy exempt process, but in fact bankruptcy processes were included.
27A. A transfer of a financial asset, a group of financial assets, or a participating interest in an individual financial asset (which are referred to collectively in this Statement as transferred financial assets) is considered to have isolated the transferred financial assets only if a legal analysis would support the following conclusions under the laws in the
applicable jurisdiction:
a. The transfer is legally a sale~ (only applicable to transferors subject to the U.S. bankruptcy code).
b. III the event of bankruptcy, receivership, or other insolvency of the transferor or any consolidated affiliate of the transferor that is not a bankruptcy-remote entity, the transferred asset would not be deemed to be part of the estate of the transferor or its consolidated affiliate. For a banking entity not subject to the U.S. bankruptcy code an FDIC receivership opinion would serve as acceptable evidence of legal isolation for securitization transactions in place of a legal true sale opinion.
27B(a) A true sale opinion is an attorney's conclusion that, under
U.S. bankruptcy law or the Federal Deposit insurance Act, as applicable, the transferred financial assets have been sold and are beyond the reach of the transferor's creditors and that a court would conclude that the transferred assets would not be included in the transferor's bankruptcy estate. That opinion should relate to the transferor and transferee and should also consider the provisions of paragraphs 9(d) and 9(e).
We believe that these amendments would more accurately reflect the principals of legal isolation under Statement 140.
I respectfully suggest you reread from whom the "Securitization Rule" ie Safe Harbor/Legal Isolation protects assets.
Where's the language that states Safe Harbor assets are shielded from the bankruptcy court once the bankruptcy is closed???
On the ED "certain assets" were transferred to the LT, ie bankruptcy assets pwned by WMI.
Any SH assets/interests owned by WMI could not have been transferred since they are....Bankruptcy Remote!!!
This does not mean that Debtor owned SH assets can revert to CANCELLED equity ie Commons as is being claimed.
The only existing claimants are our Markers and they are governed by the POR's 75%/25% ratio, as is the Debtors and the FDIC.
The FDIC being the most influential since they are the likely entity holding/managing any available Safe Harbor assets.
Quote 1: "The transferred financial assets have been isolated from the transferor (WMB or WMI)-put presumptively beyond the reach of the transferor and its creditors, even in bankruptcy or other receivership.
The above quote clearly shows that Safe Harbor is meant to protect investors assets from being sold by the Debtor, Creditors or the FDIC to pay debts. It does not fully exempt the assets from the bankruptcy process or the actions of the court.
Quote 2: "In the event of bankruptcy, receivership, or other insolvency of the transferor or any consolidated affiliate of the transferor that is not a bankruptcy-remote entity, the transferred asset would not be deemed to be part of the estate of the transferor or its consolidated affiliate."
Hence the transfer of "certain assets" to the LT on the ED since any such assets would also qualify for Safe Harbor protection even though the Debtors (WMI + WMIIC) were in bankruptcy.
Safe Harbor is "NOT BANKRUPTCY REMOTE" as is being claimed!!!
FASB Doc pgs 4-6
Quote: "WMI was the safe harbor for WMB and hundreds of other subsidiaries! Joint Administration" protected WMI from the seizure of WMB!"
WMB was a BANK therefore it was seized by the FDIC, WMI was not because it was a HOLDING COMPANY and not regulated by the OTS/FDIC.
Safe Harbor or "The Securitization Rule" are FDIC procedures for dealing with securitized assets, nothing to do with WMI since WMI NEVER securitized any assets.
LOLOLOLOLOL...how do you come up with this rubbish?
Amazing!!!
No reason to since that is clearly not the case. Whether we see $100M or $10B, 75/25 applies and no amount of posted nonsense will change that. Your explanations of JA and Part(BS) are the silliest claims on this board.
How many posts does it take you to share all of your """crucial info"""? LOLOL
Anyone who held WAMU shares either sold out or ignored them after they became worthless. Nobody is to blame but themselves for not keeping up to date with developments. "No access to a computer"???...utter bs!
That's all I was trying to show, in that common sense dictates that if Wamuq's were the most valuable, their releases would have been more than 70%, like those of the Preferred which were obviously owned primarily by the HF's.
What are you even talking about??? The claim is Commons are the most valuable of all the old WMI stock. Logically that makes no sense since the HF's whom were "in the know" obviously did not own them. This was proven by the low release percentage of Commons and the 90%+ release rate for Prefs. Simple application of common sense and logic rather than baseless postings.
I clearly stated that an ownership change had to do with 5% owners, not 51% control of WMIH. In any event the "3 year test" has passed which allows for KKR and Fortress to acquire controlling interests without affecting the NOLS. That's most likely why they delayed this process for so long. The notion that we need to maintain 51% control is wrong and is in no way validated. Making up new rules and theories won't change anything or make S4V true.
Why did KQ, REITS and PQ release between 90-95% respectively while only 70% of Commons did? That doesn't seem logical based on the claims being made.
Change In Ownership has nothing to do with 51% ownership by those who released. CIO has to do with those holders who hold 5% or greater in WMIH shares.
These fallacies that you guys keep purporting are grossly wrong. A simple reading of any filing related to this issue, which was clearly not done, will prove as much.
All holders who hold <5% are classed as a single 5% holder. After the dilution from the merger, once all 5% holders remain at those levels no CIO will occur and the NOLS are secured.
You have to wonder why theories where documented evidence exists are constantly ignored in favor of discussing the unsupported and unrealistic S4V issue.
For eg how the abandonment of WMB stock/interests was only for the bankruptcy estate and not the Debtor, or the FDIC Statement seemingly showing Billions in assets still held by them.
These issues are backed by compelling evidence and actually make sense but are usually ignored or mildly discussed when the issue is raised periodically.
To each his own!!!
Correct and that's what the judge did with regard to what I believe were not SH assets. That's not what you said before, where you claimed Debtors assets "CAN NOT be commingled."
All equity received shares despite Piers being not paid in full because APR was voided as anyone who understands this would know. You keep conflating issues and make your posts look inane.
It's quite obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read and understand what took place that you don't fully understand what you're posting about, thus making these most basic mistakes.
Oh ok...the LT would ""facilitate"" the distribution of SH assets but not apply it's own rules to that ""facilitation""!!!
They will instead apply rules that no longer applies ie APR or some made up rules generated by Ihub posters.
That theory would make sense in some alternate universe yet to be discovered...not in the real world!
Then obviously Safe Harbor assets could not have been transferred to the LT on the ED since they are bankruptcy remote.
Therefore they stated only "certain" assets were transferred, not ALL assets.
This means the LT, as the sole Successor in Interest to ALL WMI and WMIIC assets, controls these assets on our behalf.
At some point the LT can go after or reclaim these assets once the bankruptcy is closed.
If the "bankruptcy" is closed tomorrow, what then prevents the WMILT from reclaiming any estate Safe Harbor assets???
So "certain" assets being transferred to the LT couldn't have meant that Safe Harbor assets were not be transferred since they are bankruptcy remote? We know the LT assets comprise "ALL" assets of WMI and WMIIC, therefore what other assets are you referring to that will elude the WMILT. All you post about is JA and Part(BS) but have never explained how it even applies today and this is because it does not, no matter how much you attempt to make it relevant.
Yes,...for years and even more so now due to recently seen info .
What have I ever posted that would cause you to question that?
This is the continuous problem that I face here with many posters. I have NEVER said everything AZ posts is incorrect...NEVER!!! What I do say is that on some core issues he is 100% wrong and it's backed by irrefutable evidence. On these specific issues there has also, NEVER, been posted any info that rebuts my claims. They are usually casually dismissed as due to "lack of experience or misunderstandings".
Take for example my last posts challenging the claim that Preferred and Commons were supported by Mortgage Trusts. When has this ever been shown to be true?..yet there are those here who will never acknowledge this. I just posted a Prospectus that stated clearly, in basic English, this is false,...how is that an OPINION, as claimed by fwh? Seems partisanship on issues is the norm rather than the exception, which doesn't bode well for open discussions.
As I said, no complex interpretation is required, it's written so clearly a child could understand. It's really not that difficult for anyone who can read and comprehend. Just more of the feeble excuses all to protect failed and false theories.
Well if that's the case those that present the actual info, instead of being "fanboys" trying to protect the lies being posted maybe they should educate themselves before attacking those they don't agree with. That is all that comes from "your side" and as such your advice would better suit them. I'm not the one throwing fits daily on the board when info is posted that "crushes" their fantasies. It's embarrassing!
When documents state,.."payment of Preferred dividends depend on the performance of WMI based on distributions from it's subs", that's not an opinion, it's a stated fact. No publically traded Common shares in the history of Wall Street has ever been directly backed by Mortgage Trusts. For anyone to make that claim shows complete ignorance of how a business works.
Yes, and the info is easily available in the PQ and KQ prospectus's which the same poster claimed he read. It stated quite clearly that Prefs and Commons were supported by the financial performance of WMI, not directly from any specific Trusts. It's a complete lie.
Are you seriously asking that question??? Just more foolish associations of other companies money with us.
I may come across like I totally disagree with everything AZ posts,...this is not the case at all. My disagreements are related solely to the Commons owning the estate and the non existent Preferred participating Trusts nonsense. I've posted the documents on many occasions and not one of that "posse" has ever attempted to refute them. His posts about owning the WMB Bonds I take at face value and actually hope they are true. This would be a major signal that our theories have some truth to them. Hopefully as more info become available, the hysterics and attacks from some will cease.
Apart from the WMB Bonds which he claims is "updating" (no proof yet), it would be great if just one of his Commons and Preferred claims were true. They aren't and the posse of cheerleaders doesn't help the situation one bit. In fact it only feeds the hubris..........
The SH assets, if they exist, are being managed by the FDIC and serviced by external entities such as JPM on our behalf, until distributions can be made.
My confidence will increase regarding when we will see distributions is the WMB Bonds receiving payments or having their claims resolved by the FDIC.
Resolution of the "Employee Claims" litigation is also an indicator for the imminent closure of the bankruptcy and possible distributions to us.
Yes you are correct in that this is the most contentious issue surrounding the 75%/25% split.
I am yet to see anyone explain how Old Common and Preferred stock can revert to their prior rights.
This meaning Wampq, Wamkq and Reits getting paid FV + interest and Wamuq the remainder of the asset value as per APR.
How this happens when we know these stocks were eliminated and replaced with new ownership markers that provide us with an alternate avenue for payment.
If anyone could make an even slightly compelling argument for this scenario then maybe I could start taking those claims a bit more seriously.
Calm down.........eom
I reiterate, tranquilo, tranquilo!!! LOLOL
It's similar to the situation where the FDIC seized WMB's assets and WMI was left with the stock which they abandoned to create the NOLS. 100% of 0 = 0. The major difference between WMI/WMB and WMIH/WMIIC is that rule 554 of the Bk Code (mordacai's post) protected WMI's Debtors interests in WMB assets. That does not apply imo to WMIH being a non-Debtor and non-bankrupt entity.
WMIH is not and never has been the Debtor...they are the Reorganized Debtors ie a brand new entity. Huge difference. That's why "YOU" should read well.
1) YES
2) YES
3)(i) YES
3)(ii) WMIH received the equity interests in WMIIC, from which ALL assets were already contributed to the LT as per the POR 7 and the LT Agreement. Basically WMIH inherited WMIIC's asset-less shell whose corporate structure imo was reused to create the Wand merger Corp. In every WMIH filing where WMIIC was mentioned they stated that it has "NO ASSETS".
Quote: "2. What are the Liquidating Trust Assets?
The assets that are to be held and distributed by the Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust Assets”) comprise all of the assets of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and WMI Investment Corp. (“WMI Investment” and together with WMI, the “Debtors”)) as of March 19, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), other than:
(e) the equity interests in (i) WMI Investment (all the assets of which shall be contributed to the Liquidating Trust, including any Intercompany Claims)
Seems pretty self explanatory, to me at least. Also note that any issuance of shares from WMIH's A/S will have to be publically announced and gain shareholder approval before it's done as legally required. There can be no secretive, last minute S4V deal, it would have to be announced long before it could ever occur.
What I'm saying is why use shares that are only valued at $1.40 to purchase "WMI assets" at close to premium, when cash could be used to leverage government assets for a fraction of the cost.
When the WMIH pps increases to $5, $10 etc those 2.4B shares will now be worth $12-$24B instead of the utilized value of $3.4B which was wasted on the S4V.
At the higher pps WMIH would be able to attract larger target companies by using this increased stock value for effecting mergers or leveraged buyouts.
Not one Marker holder would sanction any of ""OUR"" WMI assets being sold at a huge discount to WMIH, which very soon will be for the greater benefit of KKR and Fortress, not those who released.
You're severely missing the point............
This was my point in a recent post about the FED liquidating Trillions in distressed assets it picked up since the 2008 crisis.
Why would WMIH pay a higher premium for WMI assets using it's A/S(hares) when they could purchase similar assets from the government at hugely discounted prices. T
The premise makes no sense because using shares would severely limit WMIH'spotential for future expansion when the pps increases to multiples of it's present value.
I am very open to the idea that WMIH could purchase former WMB distressed assets from JPM and/or the FDIC at discounted prices.
What I'm almost 100% unconvinced of is WMIH issuing 100's of millions of shares to purchase these assets ie the S4V.
That strictly depends on whether 75%/25% applies to all future distributions or not. If it does then Preferred would be the desired Marker to be holding.