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.
They're still suffering from juris mydiction syndrome. They desparately want in the DC court and 3d District court of appeals?
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-00615/09-00615-0041.pdf
What a pisser JPM is
Are preferred shares currently available? if so what is the symbol for purchasing?
Did i say sellofff,me bad... how about an apparant move from commons to preferreds?
Appreciate your perspective since I have recently read Wamook Posts and Article titled "Washington Mutual's Legal Team Turns on WaMu Shareholders & Equity Committee" Lets hope all share categories are rewarded and future litigation nails those responsible for this corruption
READING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ALONG WITH ALL OF WAMOOK RECENT POSTS HAS BEEN A REAL EYE OPENER...the question still stands, "will the EC be successful in protecting our rights for both commons and preferreds"? Otherwise a continued selloff of commons for preferreds and WAHUQ will continue...any thoughts
yes, the shorts would like to cover as low as possible
Yes, the MM's and their interests loom
Yes, the debtors filed motion to disband the EC and would like to slip us a mickey
yes, the hearing seems like years away
but
my belief for the drop in pps can be directly related to the filing yesterday of Notice of objection to Wamu discovery of documents by the FDIC showing their arrogence and refusal to cooperate. These actions will continue, possibly to the extent of Contempt of court. I expect more objections and refusals from Govt reps and agencies as more and more meet with their attorneys pushing this out even further...as a result MM will have opportunities and excuse to help shorts cover and knock my pps value back and forth, up and down covering their interests IMO and only opinion, but it has served me well
Good to know...would not want to be represented by anything in or near the Public Defender Caliber because this is going to be "One Hell of a Fight" with Govt Agencies pooling their resources and influence
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICES AND PAPERS BY EC
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-2131.pdf
FDIC will fight to last nano-second
Objections and Responses of the FDIC-Receiver to Debtors' First Request for Production of Documents
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-50551/09-50551-0171.pdf
Still it would be better and safer to object to the motion to disband by the Jan 21st date since a motion was filed
So I guess our new EC representatives have their first motion to draft and object to the motion filed to disband the EC by my old bank
Most likely will be included in Agenda for Jan 28th 2010 hearing since Objections are due Jan 21st for Motion to disband..jmo
WE ALL HAVE ECONOMIC INTEREST
Rosen hints at his reason for the motion to disband in the motion, but also feels larger institutional investors protect our interests by extension. I get a kick that Rosen once thought, or still does think, that large institutional investors have our back..
1. Additionally, besides the significant and needless expenditure of the Debtors' assets, the appointment of the Equity Committee will interrupt the administration of these estates to the detriment of those with an actual economic interest. Not only will time be lost while the Equity Committee's sure-to-be retained professionals get up to speed, but the sudden addition of another official committee to the complex litigations and negotiations that have been ongoing could imperil the Debtors' efforts to reach a global resolution with all parties and timely make distributions to creditors. Indeed, almost sixteen (16) months into these chapter US_ACTIVE:\43245934\06\79831.0003 2 11 cases, it is both unfair and unnecessary to foist the expense of an Equity Committee, including their retention oflega1 counsel and financial advisors, on the Debtors, and, ultimately, the Debtors' unsecured creditors - the true parties in interest. To the extent equity holders have any economic interest in these cases, such interests are already being adequately represented in these chapter 11 cases by the Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in these cases (the "Creditors' Committee").
18. As noted above, the Debtors, the Creditors' Committee, JPMorgan, the FDIC, and other significant parties in interest have been, for many months, engaged in arduous negotiations with respect to the settlement of the multitude of outstanding legal disputes and the
formulation of a chapter 11 plan. While many issues remain in flux, as further set forth below, the Debtors believe that the addition of the Equity Committee at this juncture in the cases would disrupt, and possibly even derail, the delicate ongoing negotiations between the parties.
Excerpt from letter written to Trustee dated December 4th 2008
2. Further, the Debtors' equity holders include numerous large institutional investors who possess the resources and the ability to protect their respective interests and, by extension, the interests of all equity holders, without the need for an official
Committee. Mr. Rozenfeld and other equity holders may appear and be heard on any issue in these cases pursuant to section l109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code; therefore, he
and the equity holders he purports to represent will be able to represent their interests in these cases without an official committee. To the extent that the Court later determines
that Mr. Rozenfeld or a similarly situated equity holder provides a substantial contribution to the estates, opportunities exist to be compensated for such results.
Here’s a nice statement
In short, WMI's equity holders are unlikely to receive any recovery and, therefore, have little, if any, economic interest in these chapter II cases.
3. Additionally, besides the significant and needless expenditure of the
Debtors' assets, the appointment of the Equity Committee will interrupt the administration of
these estates to the detriment of those with an actual economic interest. Not only will time be
lost while the Equity Committee's sure-to-be retained professionals get up to speed, but the
sudden addition of another official committee to the complex litigations and negotiations that
have been ongoing could imperil the Debtors' efforts to reach a global resolution with all partiesand timely make distributions to creditors.
I thought we all had an economic interest since we all at one point of time decided to throw our hard earned money at Wamu in the past…
WE ALL HAVE ECONOMIC INTEREST
Thank You...its a coincidence that hearing is scheduled for Jan 28th 2010...same day WAMUQ is scheduled..albeit two different court jurisdictions....
I have a question that might relate to the following statement regarding future lawsuits and the issues defining shareholders of BK and pre-seizure shareholders future concerning lawsuits based on the fraudulent conveyance and theft / shares owned before Sept 2008?
We are equity, debtors are not us, not yet. If the creditors are completely and forced to accept payment for their debts (cramdown), they will not be part of the future litigation awards and cases. Simple as that. Once debts are paid, Weil will represent equity in the lawsuits.
Is it a possibility that the courts might consider two separate categories of shareholder in future lawsuit and criminal proceedings once the BK proceedings are finalized?
Could they in a way decide
1. Pre-Seizure shareholders - investors [wrongfully ripped off and misled]
2. Post-seizure shareholders - Speculators
Or do you think a share is a share and lawsuit damages should completely cover all shareholders
I own both pre and post seizure shares and would like to have an idea as to what to expect
Is there a site to follow document filing for the BK.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20100111&id=10976942
Recently a tax benefit was tucked into legislation late last year that broadened unemployment insurance and extended tax credits for homeowners. The provision allows companies of all sizes to apply losses in 2008 or 2009 to prior income over five years to receive tax refunds. The previous standard allowed them to apply losses back two years.
Chief executives and industry groups representing manufacturers, homebuilders and retailers pressed for that tax benefit, although economists expect businesses from across the economy to reap some gain.
Part of the money paid out as 2010 refunds is expected to be recouped in the next few years when businesses turn a profit and begin paying taxes again.
But some of the companies that plan to seek a refund will never pay tax, because they have no future.
The professionals who are liquidating bankrupt companies including Circuit City Stores Inc and Linens 'n' Things are going through the corporate books in anticipation of getting cash back from Washington. The refund money will be used to pay off creditors.
"What's a genuinely targeted stimulus to one person is a windfall to another," said Jack Butler, a partner in the corporate restructuring practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. He emphasized the law will provide capital and liquidity to many companies that are struggling to avoid bankruptcy.
"Where it becomes a potential windfall is in liquidating situations," said Butler.
IMO too many factors to consider and any attempt to do so would be baseless. Until information about the acquiring company is released there is no reference point to base a prediction from...I wouldnt want to place a limit on its potential nor hype the possibilities. But as I said, there are those that might have an idea where it is going already
With a possible reverse merger on the horizon, is it the opinion of members of this board that a halt in trading will occur precluding the announcement? If so? the pps could go anywhere, that is, wherever the power stockholders desire to manipulate.
A "reverse merger" is a method by which a private company goes public. In a reverse merger, a private company merges with a public listed company with no assets or liabilities. (The public company is also called a "shell" corporation). The publicly traded corporation is called a "shell" since all that exists of the original company is its corporate shell structure. By merging into such an entity, a private company becomes public.
The private company merges into a public company and obtains the majority of its stock (usually 80-90%). The private company normally will change the name of the public corporation (often to its own name) and will appoint and elect its management and Board of Directors. The new public corporation has a base of shareholders sufficient to meet the 300 shareholder requirement for admission to quotation on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market.
The advantages of public trading status, which are outlined in greater detail, notably include the possibility of commanding a higher price for a later offering of the company's securities. Going public through a reverse merger allows a private company to go public typically at a lesser cost and with less stock dilution than through an initial public offering (IPO). While the process of going public and raising capital is combined in an IPO, in a reverse merger these two functions are unbundled; a company can go public without raising additional capital. Through this unbundling operation, the process of going public is simplified greatly.
In a way Reuters still dont get it....This isnt a BK case working out the kinks over who gets what money...This is the stepping stone and fast becoming a Criminal case...the recent discovery motions and requests for all documents from Government Agencies and Regulators screams JUSTICE and full restitution...
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL...I WANT MY BABY BACK
A/S increase was necessary for the strong possibility of "Incentive Shares" being paid out. Although there is a max out to RYU, it doesnt mean more incentive agreements wouldnt be worked out after Feb 2010.... not to mention the possibility of stock options, restricted stock awards, and stock awards to employees, non-employee directors, and outside consultants...
Someone expects to sell a ton of these bulbs…the more the merrier
On
October 14, 2009, the Company filed an amendment to its certificate of incorporation with the Delaware Secretary of State to: increase the Corporation’s authorized common stock from 1,000,000,000 shares to 5,000,000,000 shares. This amendment was unanimously approved by the Company’s board of directors and by a majority of Company stockholders by written consent.
As of
November 11, 2009,
1,173,461,407 shares of common stock outstanding.
On February 24, 2009, the Company entered into an Exclusive License and Sales Agreement whereby the Company has worldwide exclusive rights to manufacture, market use, sell, distribute and advertise certain licensed products. The license is on a year to year basis with automatic renewal subject to the Company re-acquire listing on the OTC BB exchange by February 14, 2010 and files all quarterly and annual reports by due dates, inclusive of allowable extensions.
For the exclusive license for the Ionic Bulb, the Company issued 50,000,000 shares of its common stock. The license was valued at the market price of the underlying security.
Licensing Agreement
The Agreement provides for the retention of Ryu as a non-exclusive independent contractor sales representative to obtain purchase orders for the Licensed Products on our behalf In consideration for his consulting services, we agreed to issue Ryu 750,000 shares of Common Stock for each $100,000 in gross sales of the Licensed Product by Ryu (or any Sales Associate hired by him) on or before February 28, 2010 up to a maximum of 75,000,000 shares of Common Stock (collectively, the “Incentive Shares”). The Incentive Shares shall not vest unless Ryu (or any Sales Associate hired by him) shall have collectively procured gross sales of $5,000,000 for the Licensed Products on or before February 28, 2010 (the “Target”). If Ryu fails to achieve the Target, such Incentive Shares shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. In addition to the Incentive Shares, we also agreed to pay Ryu a commission at the rate 50% of all Net Profits (as defined on the Agreement) recognized by us on sales of the Licensed Products made by Ryu (or Sales Associates hired by Ryu) on our behalf during the period of this Agreement.
On April 29, 2009 the Company entered into a Distribution Agreement with a German distributor pursuant to which the Company granted such distributor the exclusive right (subject to minimum sales in the first year) to advertise, market and sell our ionic bulb product in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Poland (the “Territory”). Upon satisfactory sales of an initial order (in dealer’s reasonable discretion) of 5,000 units of the Company’s ionic bulb product, the distributor agreed to purchase 5,000 units of the Company’s ionic bulb product per month during the first year of the contact to maintain exclusive status in the Territory. The Company also granted distributor a license to use certain marketing material to advertise and sell the ionic bulb product. Such distributor also agreed to maintain general and product liability insurance in an amount of at least $1,000,000 and agreed to name us as an additional insured under such policy. The term of the agreement is for one year and will be automatically renewed for successive 1 year periods if the minimum quantities (5,000/month and 60,000/year) are met.
Someone expects to sell a ton of these bulbs…the more the merrier
On
October 14, 2009, the Company filed an amendment to its certificate of incorporation with the Delaware Secretary of State to: increase the Corporation’s authorized common stock from 1,000,000,000 shares to 5,000,000,000 shares. This amendment was unanimously approved by the Company’s board of directors and by a majority of Company stockholders by written consent.
As of
November 11, 2009,
1,173,461,407 shares of common stock outstanding.
On February 24, 2009, the Company entered into an Exclusive License and Sales Agreement whereby the Company has worldwide exclusive rights to manufacture, market use, sell, distribute and advertise certain licensed products. The license is on a year to year basis with automatic renewal subject to the Company re-acquire listing on the OTC BB exchange by February 14, 2010 and files all quarterly and annual reports by due dates, inclusive of allowable extensions.
For the exclusive license for the Ionic Bulb, the Company issued 50,000,000 shares of its common stock. The license was valued at the market price of the underlying security.
Licensing Agreement
The Agreement provides for the retention of Ryu as a non-exclusive independent contractor sales representative to obtain purchase orders for the Licensed Products on our behalf In consideration for his consulting services, we agreed to issue Ryu 750,000 shares of Common Stock for each $100,000 in gross sales of the Licensed Product by Ryu (or any Sales Associate hired by him) on or before February 28, 2010 up to a maximum of 75,000,000 shares of Common Stock (collectively, the “Incentive Shares”). The Incentive Shares shall not vest unless Ryu (or any Sales Associate hired by him) shall have collectively procured gross sales of $5,000,000 for the Licensed Products on or before February 28, 2010 (the “Target”). If Ryu fails to achieve the Target, such Incentive Shares shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. In addition to the Incentive Shares, we also agreed to pay Ryu a commission at the rate 50% of all Net Profits (as defined on the Agreement) recognized by us on sales of the Licensed Products made by Ryu (or Sales Associates hired by Ryu) on our behalf during the period of this Agreement.
On April 29, 2009 the Company entered into a Distribution Agreement with a German distributor pursuant to which the Company granted such distributor the exclusive right (subject to minimum sales in the first year) to advertise, market and sell our ionic bulb product in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Poland (the “Territory”). Upon satisfactory sales of an initial order (in dealer’s reasonable discretion) of 5,000 units of the Company’s ionic bulb product, the distributor agreed to purchase 5,000 units of the Company’s ionic bulb product per month during the first year of the contact to maintain exclusive status in the Territory. The Company also granted distributor a license to use certain marketing material to advertise and sell the ionic bulb product. Such distributor also agreed to maintain general and product liability insurance in an amount of at least $1,000,000 and agreed to name us as an additional insured under such policy. The term of the agreement is for one year and will be automatically renewed for successive 1 year periods if the minimum quantities (5,000/month and 60,000/year) are met.
paragraph 23 holds the answer
who has access? I cant locate document!
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-01656/09-01656-0012.pdf
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN ITS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER FOR
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
Defendant.
(Judge Collyer)
Case No. 1:09-cv-01656
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
While Deutsche Bank alleges that the FDIC-Receiver is liable for a multi-billion dollar
damages award as a result of the pre-failure breaches by Washington Mutual Bank, Deutsche Bank further alleges that another financial institution [JPM?], not currently a party to the litigation, “has assumed the liabilities related to the Governing Agreements and the Trusts.” Thus, based on Deutsche Bank’s allegations, another entity which is not currently a party to this litigation ultimately will be liable if the complaint’s allegations are deemed to have merit.
Since entry of the Court’s Minute Orders on October 24, 2009, and December 1, 2009,
which allowed the FDIC-Receiver extensions of time to respond to the complaint, counsel for the parties and the non-party referenced in paragraph 23 of the complaint have participated in discussions regarding certain allegations in the complaint [Settle?], most notably the above-discussed allegations in paragraph 23. The FDIC-Receiver requests additional time to allow the parties and the non-party to continue those discussions and related activities resulting from those discussions[Settle?].
Jan 20th 2010 hearing rescheduled to Jan 28th 2010
then Omnibus Hearing on
February 5,2010 at 10:30 a.m. (EST) U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
824 North Market Street, 5ft Floor, Courhoom 4
Wilmington, Delaware I 9801
Very Close…That should make for an interesting week
What we have here in our Government are a group of people, who ,after taking an oath to represent all the people and institutions, decided to play favorites instead of applying the 14th amendment of equal protection under the law regarding the Bank Bailouts. Their conspiracy was to eliminate the competition of their favorite banks so that their friends would be able to reap the rewards produced from an eventual emergence of the recession. I 'm pretty sure the founding fathers didnt have Sheila Bair and others in mind playing God and favorites when they created the banking system...Sheila Bair is the key along with Little Timmy G and Mr. Paulson
Equity Committees - Representation of Shareholders in Bankruptcy Cases
Financier Worldwide's Restructuring and Insolvency Series 2005
by Neil B. Glassman, Jeffrey M. Schlerf and Christopher A. Ward
Much has been written lately regarding directors and officers and their fiduciary duties when the company they manage enters the “zone of insolvency”. Chancellor Allen's footnote in Credit
Lyonnais Bank Nederland N.V. v. Pathe Communications, 1991 WL 277613 (Del. Ch. 1991)heralded a general awareness that directors owe creditors a fiduciary duty under that scenario.
Yet, there has been less discussion regarding equity's lack of representation in a bankruptcy setting when a company enters the “zone of insolvency.” Coincidentally (or perhaps not), in the
years following Credit Lyonnais, an increase in bankruptcy filings by large, publicly-traded companies has been accompanied by an increase in the number of equity committees appointed.
Equity committees have been appointed in a minimum of 30 cases in 12 jurisdictions in the US since 2000.
For example, equity committees were appointed in the bankruptcy cases of Loral Space, Kmart, Mirant Corp., Adelphia Communications Corp., Footstar Inc., Trump Hotel and Casinos, Federal Mogul, Seitel and USG. Could this phenomenon be the logical result of Credit
Lyonnais?
The board of directors of a solvent corporation owes fiduciary duties to its shareholders. As a fiduciary, directors have duties of loyalty, candour and care. However, under Credit Lyonnais
and subsequent case law, once a board of directors determines that the company may not be able to pay its debts as they become due, directors cease being solely a fiduciary for the shareholders
and become a watchdog for all creditors and shareholders. At this moment, equity loses its favoured position in the corporate hierarchy. Moreover, the concerns of shareholders can be
easily forgotten if the directors elect to file for protection under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the US Code (the “Code”). The Code has built in protections for secured and unsecured creditors, and these creditors are actively represented in a bankruptcy. Conversely, the appointment of an official committee of equity holders remains less common in a Chapter 11 case. Consequently,the advent of fi duciary duties owing to all creditors may leave equity in the precarious position
of not being zealously represented. Since in many bankruptcy cases the interests of shareholders run contrary to those of creditors, inevitably there will be disagreements regarding valuations of a company's assets and its chances of survival. The appointment of an equity committee certainly changes the dynamics of these struggles.
The appointment process
A shareholder's first step in requesting the appointment of an official equity committee is sending a letter directly or through an “ad hoc committee” to the Office of the US Trustee (the
“UST”). Then, the UST will attempt to determine the level of interest among shareholders.
“Ad hoc” or informal committees often will already have been formed before such a request, so that equity's concerns may have already been brought to the attention of management or debtor's
counsel (with less than satisfactory results). These committees consist of shareholders who are knowledgeable of the company's condition and typically disenchanted with the attention given to
their interests or management's general intentions regarding equity. These informal committees invariably are represented by counsel. In fact, given the volume of recent equity committee
solicitations, there are a growing number of law firms and financial advisory firms who actively compete to represent such committees. Like professionals for official creditors' committees,
professionals for official equity committees are compensated from assets of the bankruptcy estate.
Realising the objective of an appointment of an “official” equity committee requires immediate action by shareholders. One impediment in the process often will be a cool reception or even opposition by the debtor. One way to expedite the process is to seek support from the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”). With SEC's support of an official equity committee, the UST
may be more receptive to the idea. Otherwise, filing a motion with the Court may be the only other option in a fast moving case.
Applicable legal standard
Under the Code, upon request the Court may order the appointment of a committee of equity security holders if necessary to assure their “adequate representation.” Adequate representation is
determined on a case-by-case basis.1 Courts consider these factors: (1) the number of shareholders; (2) the complexity of the case; (3) the solvency of the debtor; (4) whether the cost
to the estate outweighs the adequate representation interest of shareholders; and (5) whether the interests of shareholders are already represented. 2 No one factor is dispositive and the relative weight afforded to each depends on the circumstances.3 Since the first two factors inevitably are favourable in cases where appointment of a committee is sought, the discussion below is limited to the remaining factors.
Solvency of debtor
In considering the solvency issue, the most frequently applied standard is whether the debtors are “hopelessly insolvent.”4 It is not a question of whether recovery to the debtors' shareholders is guaranteed.5 Economic indicators must demonstrate that there is value for shareholders and
those shareholders are not necessarily “out of the money”.6 Where the debtor is even marginally solvent, shareholders have a meaningful interest in the outcome of the case, and courts find they should have the benefit of an equity committee representing their interests, regardless of the added cost.
Opponents of equity committees seek application of a higher standard than “not hopelessly insolvent”, as set forth In re Williams Communications Group, Inc., 281 B.R. 216 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2002). This standard requires that there is “substantial likelihood” that shareholders will receive a meaningful distribution in the Chapter 11 case under a strict application of the absolute priority rule. However, this standard in Williams does not appear to be supported by prior case law and few courts have followed the decision.
The more prevalent view is that when equity is marginally in the money, shareholders need an equity committee. While there may be substantial debt in a given Chapter 11 case, expert financial testimony can show equity is substantially “in the money”, even if only at $1-$2 per share. For example, in the recent Trump Hotel and Casinos case, there was approximately $2bn in debt, and approximately 30 million shares of common stock equivalents. The equity committee increased the recovery for shareholders from virtually nothing to tens of millions of dollars ($2-$3 per share). This return turned out to be inconsequential to bondholders, who received most of the new equity. One may ask what motivation do directors have to fight for such “scraps” in the absence of official representation of equity holders?
Representation of shareholders
Shareholders seeking the appointment of an equity committee must also demonstrate that their interests will not be adequately protected by any other parties. As a starting point, most
constituencies in a Chapter 11 case have divergent interests. The post-petition lender is out to assure that its post-petition financing is repaid. Pre-petition secured lenders are out to secure a full recovery on their indebtedness, or at least realise the value of their collateral. The creditors'committee wants comfort in the fact that unsecured creditors are, at a minimum, paid prior to any distribution to equity. These considerations, in turn, are the focus of the bankrupt debtor – before
much attention is given to equity. Indeed, the legislative history of the Code reflects that the purpose of an equity committee is to counteract the natural tendency of a debtor in distress to pacify large creditors, with whom the debtor would expect to do business at the expense of small and scattered public investors. The other constituencies have their own interests to protect and cannot reasonably be expected to
protect the interests of equity. Under the proper circumstances, the appointment of an official equity committee may be the only way to ensure a fair process and adequate representation of
equity.
No undue delay or burden to the debtors' estates
The fundamental purpose for the Code's provision for equity committees is to offer a level playing field for public shareholders under the right circumstances. There will obviously be some concomitant costs and delay, but that will be weighed against that purpose. “The potential added cost is not sufficient in itself to deprive the creditors of the formation of an additional committee if one is otherwise appropriate.”
Conclusion
The appointment of an official equity committee will mean equity receives a greater voice in Chapter 11 in cases where equity may be “in the money.” Delay more than anything else may negatively impact the odds for the appointment of an official equity committee. The passage of time before such appointment makes it more difficult to affect the outcome of a case.
Shareholders and professionals must move quickly and convincingly in order to succeed.
1 In re Wang Laboratories, Inc., 149 B.R 1,2 (Bankr. D. Mass 1992).
2 See In re Exide, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27210 (D. Del. 2002).
3 In re Kalvar Microfilm, Inc., 195 B.R. 599, 600 (Bankr. Del. 1996).
4 See In re Exide, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27210 at *4.
5 Id.
6 See In re Mansfield Ferrous Castings, Inc., 96 B.R. 779, 781 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988).
7 See Wang Laboratories, 149 B.R. at 3.
8 See In re Northwestern Corporation, 2004 WL 1077913,*2 (Bankr. D. Del. May 13, 2004).
9 In re Interco, Inc., 141 B.R. 422, 424 (Bankr. E.D.Mo. 1992).
I dont know about that but I think it pretty ironic that the downsizing of my share wealth was actually brought on by the Attorney and Trustee who I thought was suppose to have my back,without the help of JPM, in correlation to the recent rise in PPS through motions and talk of formation of an Equity Committee. Pretty ironic! What's even stranger was the quick drop in PPS before,before the hearing started and how the order of agenda changed placing the EC hearing at the start of the hearing preventing the pps from maybe recovering just a little before that deliberate mention of possible no recovery for Preferreds or commons.....I'm not hinting conspiracy but I am PISSED off at the turn of events, especially since I "gave a tip" to some friends that good things would happen today.....PISSED OFF
Does anyone know how or if we will know the Equity Holders list has been given to the US Trustee on Tuesday...?
True and it is in our best and only interests at this point, but when you have our own attorney from most high using the Bull Horn to announce he doesnt believe, based on supposed current info, there doesnt seem to be recovery for the preferreds and commons and the debtors will excercise their rights you kinda feel like you've taken a slap to the face by the ones you've put your faith in for the past year...Its one thing to hear it from the bashers day to day but from the WMI attorneys? You ask yourself who do you believe!
Fact is no one asked him anything about do you see any recovery, he volunteered that info...my take was "sure you can have the list, but your not gonna get any money nana-nana na -na, your not gonna get any money....totally uncalled for to volunteer his belief...well I'm still here for the class action lawsuit when the truth comes out through the subpoenas, if they are approved by the, whats that judges name again!!!!!
Most significant post I've read all day...dessert is served
Thanks Bopfan, thanks fsshon
AMEN to that
Will there be audio available for tomorrows hearing?
In the real world of big business if the deal of a lifetime came along but the condition was that you had to fug the common holder they might think about it for a second....sure we're useful in the battle cry but on the chess board, pawns are sacrificed so that the King and Queen may live [thats when the trustee comes into the picture to save the day?]...not that I beleive this is going to happen but I'm an original holder who believed my shares held perpetual security. upto this point I've had to accept "anything goes"
100,000 original shares..and i said I feel the Trustee feels there is something to worry about
Jan 4th Motion has been moved to january 20th 2010 with objections due Jan 11th 2010
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091216000000000007.pdf
More time for negotiations? Maybe that is why the Trustee called for an immediate hearing on Dec 18th? Just a guess
If he is as big and bad...he can make his own deal..I wouldnt think he would care about the EC
It also appears the Jan 4th Motion has been moved to january 20th 2010 with objections due Jan 11th 2010
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091216000000000007.pdf
The U.S. Trustee requests that this Court shorten notice so that the Motion can be heard at the December 18, 2009 omnibus hearing. The motion itself relates to a ministerial matter
– specifically, the production of a sortable list of equity security holders – that should be easily
addressed. Further, the U.S. Trustee believes that there are exigent circumstances which require
having the motion heard on December 18. Specifically, the U.S. Trustee’s inability to solicit interest
in forming an official committee of equity security holders, if further delayed, may result in
prejudice to the interests of that constituency, given that there are a number of affirmative claims
the Debtors are asserting that may be the subject of settlement negotiations. The interests of equity
need to be protected with respect to those proceedings. Accordingly, there are grounds for this
Court to shorten notice under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9006-1(e).
IMO the US Trustee believes Settlement discussions are at the table but the commons werent invited ...just my interpretation
could be but I have the bug spray just in case...lol.. although I will admit I read everyones posts