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.
Using your figures, IF, $300B comes back 25% of that goes to commons. That means $75B will be shared between the 1.2B common shares that released. This would give a return of $62.50/share, so with 50000 shares you would end up with $3.125M. No worries though since that amount is not coming back, it's just not possible.
Yes i am because WMI no longer exists since the ED. WMI is now the WMILT which is separate from WMIH. They do not own any legacy assets that may come back, that is a fantasy.
I too for a time promoted these types of wacky, "secret deals" nonsense but as i've read more it became clear that a lot of fraudulent info is posted here as being factual.
I'm off till later..............
Agreed...what you posted is exactly what was contained in POR 6, which failed.
We were issued Preferred and Common Equity Interests which now represent those legacy interests.
If WMIH are to inherit $10's of billions soon, why then are they gifting over one third (1/3) of the company to KKR and Citi etc for a meagre $600M???
Why not wait till they received said assets and then move forward with a plan for expansion as K-Mart did.
WMIH is a new company, separate from WMI and were assigned specified assets to go forward.
They have no claim over the legacy assets of WMI...eg when K-Mart reorganized, they re-emerged as the same K-Mart!!!, not a new entity like WMIH did.
The statements below are made over and over without a single shred of proof, but rather only the opinion of a poster. I have shown without any doubt that (1) Old Commons, Preferred stock and ALL their documents were Cancelled with the OTC since 2012 and, (2) The Preferred shares were NEVER supported by Trusts, according to their Prospectus's.
Two simple questions for the "Beliebers".............
- If 75%/25% does not fully apply, then please explain how Cancelled Commons can be reissued to reclaim any legacy assets of the WMI estate?
- How could non existent Trusts that supposedly backed Prefs now be used to pay Preferred Interests what they were owed under the violated APR?
I won't hold my breath........
QUOTE: "Sorry Guys, But there is NO’, 75/25 to the end’, ... each individual WMI class of original ownership released’ is specific to its original WMI support’"
What does WMI estate assets have to do with WMIH?
They do not own these assets,...they belong to our Equity Interests via the LT or FDIC.
WMIH is not WMI, they are a brand new company that only received the assets stated in the POR, nothing more.
When K-Mart reorganized, they re-emerged as K-MART, not a new company like WMIH did.
What are you talking about?
Separate issues...3.1a was part of the P&AA between the FDIC and JPM, rule 1015 is irrelevant to anything other than how the two bankruptcies were filed. IMO we will receive distributions from the LT for Safe Harbor assets and/or the remains of the FDIC cash once claims are paid off in full. How much?...nobody really knows. SH assets i believe are being hidden by the FDIC using creative accounting to conceal them from the public. It is addressed in posts........
520224
518718
518706
521235
If they are to be removed then that means the 1.5M WMIH shares will be distributed to us or the claimants. Those markers are for SHARES only....LTI's are for CASH payments. We have not been issued LTI's yet. Try keeping up with your acronyms and their purposes!
LOLOLOL.....best post today!
Here is the relevant section of rule 1015.....Here's the problem, WMI stated why they jointly administered the filings and it had to do with administrative issues, duplicating filings and reducing costs. The other fact ignored was that WMIIC filed for bankruptcy with ZERO Creditors, making any potential for conflict of interest moot. WMIIC assets were even liquidated and contributed to the estate to pay WMI Creditor debt. Those facts seem to have eluded matt..........
(b) Cases Involving Two or More Related Debtors. If a joint petition or two or more petitions are pending in the same court by or against (1) spouses, or (2) a partnership and one or more of its general partners, or (3) two or more general partners, or (4) a debtor and an affiliate, the court may order a joint administration of the estates. Prior to entering an order the court shall give consideration to protecting creditors of different estates against potential conflicts of interest. An order directing joint administration of individual cases of spouses shall, if one spouse has elected the exemptions under §522(b)(2) of the Code and the other has elected the exemptions under §522(b)(3), fix a reasonable time within which either may amend the election so that both shall have elected the same exemptions. The order shall notify the debtors that unless they elect the same exemptions within the time fixed by the court, they will be deemed to have elected the exemptions provided by §522(b)(2)
Yes the Effective Date, March 19, 2012...eom
What both ways are you referring to??? A poster stated WMIH were in possession of "cash and assets" that enabled them to qualify for a loan. I responded to that claim and challenged it.
You join the discussion after the fact and want to conveniently change the narrative. As i said before, when responding to a thread, at least understand what the point of discussion is or it's context.
You obviously don't........
$250-$300M worth of WMIIC assets, comprised of "short term" securities were liquidated and transferred to the Debtor/WMILT for payment of estate debt.
Is this true or false?
The Safe Harbor assets were formerly owned by WMI and now it's legal "successor in interest", the WMILT. There is no longer a WMI, a Debtor or Debtor in possession as of the ED. How could SH assets be transferred within the WMI bankruptcy...aren't they supposed to be BK remote?
QUOTE: "Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to know much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them."
Pretty much says it all!
What is Tranche 6 comprised of again??? Common and Preferred Equity Interests??? Not the same as pre 2008 Common and Pref stock since these were CANCELLED.
QUOTE: "23.1 Treatment of Preferred Equity Interests: Commencing on the Effective Date, and subject to the execution and delivery of a release in accordance with the provisions of Section 41.6 of the Plan, each holder of a Preferred Equity Interest, including, without limitation, each holder of a REIT Series"
QUOTE: "25.1 Treatment of Common Equity Interests: Commencing on the Effective Date, and subject to the execution and delivery of a release in accordance with the provisions of Section 41.6 of the Plan, each holder of Common Equity Interests".......POR pgs 58-60
APR was violated, Commons received a distribution before Prefs received face value. What part of that do you not understand. APR means before Commons see one cent the Creditor and Pref debt must be paid in full. That did not happen.
The FDIC does not hold Receivership cash so if any remains after claims are paid that goes to Equity as stated on their website. Nobody said you held shares in WMB, that is irrelevant, we still get paid once cash is available.
QUOTE: "The Receiver anticipates that it will make a final distribution at a later date. It is unlikely that the Receiver will have sufficient funds to distribute to holders of receivership certificates issued to WAMU subordinate note holders or equity holders.
NOTE: You keep referring to BK rule 1015(b) and obviously don't know what it refers to. It deals with joint administration of the bankruptcy estates of WMI and WMIIC. The Debtors stated why the jointly filed both together and it had nothing to do with what you suggest. It was done for administrative reasons, duplicating filings and to save on costs. This was clearly laid out in the original BK filing.
I posted this to you yesterday and as usual it was obviously not read.....here it is again.
KKR, Fortress and Citi being large investors, Huge growth potential, Profitable ongoing business and $6B NOL.....seems more than enough reason!
Btw...KKR "loaned" WMIH $600M using the asset-less WMIIC as the Guarantor. Sound familiar???
WMIH is not in a bankruptcy...do you not get that. What's with all these inane posts. You don't even understand what was being discussed yet chime it with these idiotic responses.
Go back to the original post by fwh...it stated that WMIH qualified for the $2.7B loan because they had cash and assets. How could this be if those assets are still a secret and not in their possession. You can't use collateral you don't yet own to secure a loan and if they did it would have to be reported to shareholders also. It can't be both.
How is posting the same irrelevant nonsense over and over and me pointing it out defensive or mean? Maybe ihub should create a pc board just for you.
Told you like 4 times fwh and I were discussing WMIH's sec reporting obligations, not the bankruptcy, yet you insist on referring to bankruptcy issues.
Seems "Common" sense is not that "Common" after all.
What exact role did the SEC have in the seizure of WAMU by the OTS/FDIC?
I really need to see this one...........
If you think bankruptcy mediation prevents WMIH from disclosing info to the public to this day i stand by my last claim....dense.
I suggest going back to the start of this thread to understand what is being discussed.
WMIH is a public company, they can't hide assets if they own them from shareholders.
That would be ILLEGAL and they could be delisted or much worse.
This has nothing to do with the current bankruptcy and the lack of information with that case.
WMIH is not in bankruptcy, these are totally separate.
So you're saying WMIH and the SEC are co conspirators in hiding WMIH assets from shareholders??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Good luck with that...........
We're discussing WMIH, a publically traded company that must file all relevant info with the SEC or risk being delisted.
Nothing to do with the LT, JPM or the FDIC. Try to keep up!
WMIH is a Nasdaq traded, fully reporting and compliant company.
I ask again, if they own $10's of billions in assets, why has this fact never been made public?
Shareholders are set to vote on a merger where our ownership position will be severely diluted.
How is this not illegal???
KKR, Fortress and Citi being large investors, Huge growth potential, Profitable ongoing business and $6B NOL.....seems more than enough reason!
If WMIH has 10's-100's of billions in cash and assets, why then gift away over 1/3 of the company for a mere $600M and why are these assets not being reported via SEC filings?
Is this not critical public info that would affect one's decisions???
Loans that were securitized would be chosen to provide max return and from different types of supporting assets for diversity in the loan pools.
Obviously not all loans would be securitized but rather only those that met the specific criteria for that process, as set by each individual banking operation.
If WAMU purchased loans that were not securitized which were held by WMB, those now belong to JPM since as stated before, only securitized assets qualify for SH protection.
The 5% would have been the amount of each loan pool WAMU entities would have retained for themselves, not how much that had to be securitized.
In any event there is no such law, that I know of, that dictates what percentage of loans must be securitized or retained by any entity.
Escrow cusips will be cancelled once the 1.5M disputed WMIH shares are distributed. If we are to receive a payment via a ?broker or check? from the LT, we will first have to be issued LTI's.
QUOTE: "HM, I understand that the securitized assets such as WMAAC and WMSSC (sp?) and WMMRC (?) belong to WMI and cannot be touched anyway, whether it is securitized or not."
WMAAC and WMMSC most likely held Participating Interests (PI) in the loans they securitized, WMMRC did not, they held reinsurance assets. The profits from those PI's would have been pledged to WMI as the parent co and had to be securitized since SH only protects these assets, not ordinary loans or assets. Hence the reason SH is referred to as the Securitization Rule!
QUOTE: "What struck me is that WAMU opined that securitization is not necessary for a federal savings bank such as WMB during a bankruptcy." (???)
WAMU never suggested that. What was being discussed was the evidence required to prove legal isolation for bankruptcy entities (WMI) vs bankruptcy remote entities (WMB). WMB was a bank so it never would be subject to bk laws, but to protect it's securitized assets it only required an FDIC Receivership Opinion as proof of legal isolation of assets.
WMI which was subject to bk law had to prove the asset transfer was (1) a True sale or (2) the transferor or it's sub are NOT bk remote and if a bankruptcy, receivership or insolvency results, the securitized assets will NOT be deemed as estate assets and therefore protected.
The key point is the assets of either entity MUST be Securitized, otherwise they do not qualify for SH protections.
As stated on pg 5 (~mid page), "The applicable FDIC rule applies only to securitization transactions and does not apply to non-securitization transactions (e.g. whole loan sales).
QUOTE: "Do you know what the following on page 5 mean? "securitization is not subject to U.S. bankruptcy laws"
That not what the passage said, you seem to have paraphrased it. This is the paragraph in it's entirety. They were referring specifically to the bank, WMB.
QUOTE: "In such a situation, the most appropriate form of evidence used to demonstrate legal isolation with respect to qualifying securitization transactions within the meaning of the applicable FDIC rule would be an FDIC receivership opinion covering the transferred assets, since a federal savings association is not subject to U.S. bankruptcy laws in the event of insolvency.
The most significant part of this document to WMI imo is where Participating Interests in a transferred asset held by a Debtor or a consolidated affiliate (eg WMAAC or WMMRC etc) are also afforded Safe Harbor protection. Once the Participating Interest can be shown to have been, (1) a true sale or (2) if the transferor or it's affiliate are NOT bankruptcy remote, the transferred asset would NOT be deemed part of the estate. I believe WMAAC and WMMRC were bankruptcy remote and isolated subs and therefore any Participating Interests they held were protected from the FDIC's WMB Receivership.
QUOTE: "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."
Read this re the old FDIC guidelines for SH protected assets (7 pages)
Safe Harbor
The FDIC by LAW cannot seize, sell or liquidate any SH assets/qualified securitizations for it's benefit or a Receivership.
Whether WAMU abused the process prior to 2008 is irrelevant since they operated within the then applicable regulations.
All their previous transactions were "grandfathered" in with respect to the new rules enacted and made effective in 2010.
No...All the rule change, effective Dec 31, 2010, did was to make the guidelines for what transactions qualified for Safe Harbor stricter.
It was meant to prevent banks and other financial institutions from continuing to abuse the securitization process to shield assets.
The FDIC made it clear as to what transactions would qualify as Safe Harbor assets. Those that were done before Dec, 2010 would not be affected since the old more lax rules would still apply to them.
Those that were done after the date, once they abided by the new stricter rules would still qualify for Safe Harbor protection and those that didn't would not qualify.
That's totally incorrect jerry. The rule change in 2009/2010 was about what assets the new rules would apply to.
Those securitized before Dec, 2010 would not be affected by the change but rather those done after that date.
Also, after the ED only bankruptcy assets could be sold, transferred or reported, not SH assets as you stated.
SH assets are exempt from the bankruptcy, not it's owner ie WMI, so once they are legally able to they can reclaim their assets.
The claims that SH assets are not affected by a bankruptcy is incorrect since decisions made can affect who receives the assets.
If commons are cancelled by the bankruptcy court that decision automatically prevents those holders from receiving compensation from SH assets.
Here the bk process directly affected the distribution of SH assets by eliminating a class of claimants.
Of course only "certain" of the Debtors assets were transferred to the LT because IF they owned Safe Harbor assets those would be bankruptcy remote and could not be transferred to the LT on the ED.
Also, we did not relinquish our ownership rights because we were issued Common and Preferred Equity Interests, which now represent those rights to legacy WMI assets.
And yes APR was consensually violated, the proof being that commons received a distribution before Preferred were paid in full.
Lastly, being a shareholder of WMI is irrelevant to the FDIC since they have a strict payment priority where Equity comes in last. If funds are available Equity will be paid those funds until they are exhausted.
It's like explaining string theory to a rock...hopeless!
WMIH commons issued in 2012 owns WMIH, the company, not our Common and Preferred Equity Interests which own the assets of the WMI Estate.
WMIH does not own anything related to legacy WMI assets, the newly issued Equity Interests do, 75%/25%. I honestly can't believe you posted this bs.
APR was indeed consensually removed from being applied by Creditors, which is legal. If it was not Commons would not have received anything, no WMIH shares or Equity Markers.
QUOTE: "According to your logic, since commons and preferred were cancelled, it is done and over with! That means ZERO is coming back to escrow holders!"
OLD WMI stock was cancelled...stress on OLD! We were issued NEW Common and Preferred Equity Interests that represent our interests in the WMI estate (75%/25%). How that means we receive nothing back only you can explain.
Where have you been? I've posted the text and links proving the claims I made concerning Commons and Prefs. Why is it that you and others never present anything other than opinions to refute them.
Facts don't care about your feelings.....