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.
He's saying an EC would be formed because WAMU was solvent. My example of Delphi was to show how an EC can be disbanded later when a company is shown later to be extremely insolvent.
We all know WMI is far different than Delphi and most other BK's.
I think we're all on the same page.
To be clear, we're talking about solvency of the WMI estate in BK. Not solvency of the bank at the time of seizure.
From what I've read it's all a matter of degree. Slightly insolvent and an EC can stay and get creditors to take a slight haircut so equity gets something. Extremely insolvent and the judge can make the EC disband.
In addition, there can be multiple EC's for different equities. I don't think it will get to multiple EC's.
I think this all ends no later than April/June, if not sooner.
An example is Delphi. EC granted, then later disbanded when they proved it was very insolvent. I hope Weil doesn't pull that on us.
With all that said, I don't think that would happen to us. And. While I don't know when the EC will happen I think it is a forgone conclusion it will.
We all know this is far from a typical BK. The EC will be huge for us.
I don't think so. If the UST follows protocol they'll solicit interest from equity holders first. I also think the judge needs to approve it. I may be wrong but I don't think this is a quick process. Especially given that Weil will make filings against it. IMO and only after a little reading. One never knows in this case, but things have rarely moved fast.
Yep.. and I see no reason P and K will not do a steady climb until the 20th.
Nothing wrong with taking some gains. Just don't take it all off the table. I haven't had the stomach to try and flip any. I would pick the wrong point.. no doubt.
I don't recall a hearing being scheduled. Only that the list was to be provided to the UST. Next hearing is the 20th is it not?
Sorry.. what hearing?
I just don't like giving predictions. I don't mind reading others though.
I could see any one of those vents sending us over $100. The P's move on air. Combine any of those events and 20-30% is possible.
But until we have new news or one of those events, I have no idea what range the P's will stay within.
And that Street article could definitely bring new money into the pref's.
I honestly can't predict where these are going. It would be a complete guess as it is totally driven by news.
As others have said, a share is a share. We are not in a class action lawsuit.
Also, why would the UST want a current shareholder list if that was even remotely true? (rhetorical question)
Glad to help. Audio is being uploaded now.
You're bid must be for 200+ shares.
Good advice. But I would add, "Quickly!"
>> Go do some research.
**Hearing 12/18/2009 - Phone Details and Audio Archive
LISTEN LIVE:
Dial-in at 11:25AM EST
Hearing begins at 11:30AM EST
The bridge number is 712-432-1001 and when prompted for the access code enter 477420980
You will hear no music just an intermittent beep until the hearing begins.
To be notified as the audio archives become available:
http://twitter.com/WaMuAudio
AUDIO ARCHIVE:
The archived audio will be made available at the conclusion of the hearing:
www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b932994e293c11f5c79b87b207592a1cf685a94f147b3ef69a6367783469a0e2
or
www.ghostofwamu.com/Hearing/08-12229Hearing20091218.htm
WMI calendar:
http://www.my.calendars.net/wmi
I thought of posting jokingly about not calling into the hearing tomorrow ... but I thought better of it so as not to give someone a heart attack. We'll be on for tomorrow.
Looks like we'll have another set of hearings we'll be dialing into. A steady climb from now to then would be great.
**Hearing 11/24/2009 - Phone Details and Audio Archive
Dial-in at 1:55PM EST
Hearing begins at 2:00PM EST
To be notified as the audio archives become available:
http://twitter.com/WaMuAudio
AUDIO ARCHIVE:
The archived audio will be made available at the conclusion of the hearing:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b932994e293c11f5c79b87b207592a1c8c789da78c1b65a0bf1b77d2eb488dac
LISTEN LIVE:
The bridge number is 712-432-1001 and when prompted for the access code enter 477420980
You will hear no music just an intermittent beep until the hearing begins.
WMI calendar:
http://www.my.calendars.net/wmi/
And awaiting possible good news on a tax refund.
11/06/09 Ins Comp vs JPM (11AM hearing)
I just came from the the hearing. Two other cases were finishing up.
(Not our case) I walked into a full courtroom during the first case which was at the tail end. I sat next to Mr Clark and behind Ms. Friedman. Judge Collyer (THJC) was handing down a sentence to a fed employee regarding handling of a Congressional earmark. The government wanted him to serve 12 months in jail. THJC sentenced the guy to 6 months house arrest and 3 years probation. And she went into detail explaining why the sentence was appropriate. The guy and his family and friends were very happy with that sentence. THJC commended the government attorney's for a very good job.
(Not our case) The second case THJC quickly send both sides to 75 days of conference to try and work it out. The defendant was a librarian and I have no idea what the case was about.
As to the case in which we are interested, including myself there was only one other person in the gallery.
Insurance Company had Greg Smith and Mr. Scrokmore(sp?). JPM has Ms Friedman and David Clark for the FDIC Rec.(his partner was not present for personal business)
THJC opened with a comment that the case may not necessarily relate to the other cases. [I took this as reference to WMIvs JPM and WMI BK]
THJC then said she knows no way to send it back to TX state court. And if she tried she suspects the case will simply ping-pong around.
[Mr Smith often used "I" and "he", not "us" or "we"] Mr. Smith spoke next and said he is concerned that the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. That he is suing Chase and not the FDIC. And he is suing for actions by Chase against WMI occurring before the seizure of WMB.
THJC said we should litigate the subject matter question first. She then said Mr Smith should file a Motion to Dismiss. Mr Smith agreed. THJC asked Mr Smith how days he would need to file a response[I may have the legal term wrong]. At this point Ms Friedman stood wanting to be heard.
THJC joked and told Mr Smith, "oh well.. due and process and all." To which Mr Smith jokingly said "that a problem we've had."
Ms Friedman said she thinks there is more to be decided than simply the question of subject matter. That there are derivative claims. That perhaps WMI is missing from the case who holds those derivative claims. THJC asked Ms Friedman what she would like to file and the response was motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
THJC laughed at this and said well it seems you both want to leave. THJC said for them to cross file. both sides agreed on 30 days to file responses and arguments in 90 days.
Hearing adjourned.
Please replace the sticky post with the new one below. I had the judges name wrong.
11/04/09 DC Hearing (astock/danbb) (corrected)
THJC - The Honorable Judge Collyer
THJMW - The Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
I've tried to keep my opinions in []'s.
I arrived at the courthouse around 1:40PM. I was behind our attorneys while going through security; it was just them and me.. very quiet day at the courthouse. Attorney's are permitted laptops and blackberry's. I didn't even try bringing my phone.
I entered the court room around 1:50PM to find attorneys on both sides ready to go. I sat on the left side, the WMI side. From 1:50PM-2:10PM the main Quin attorney, Carlinsky, paced near their table seemingly going over arguments in his head. The FDIC and JPM counsel seemed very relaxed and smiled a lot towards each other.
The principal WMI attorney's were Mr. Carlinsky from Quin and Mr. Swarshek(sp?) from Weil. JPM's speaker was a Ms. Friedman. FDIC Receivership's speaker from Piper was Mr. John Clark.
THJC entered around 2:20PM and asked the attorney's to identify themselves. WMI had 5 attorney's at the table (a mix of Quin and Weil) and 5 attorney's on the bench. FDIC/JPM had 6 attorney's at the their table (1 Fed from FDIC for FDIC Corporation, 2 FDIC from Piper for FDIC Receiver, and 3 from JPM) and about another 5 on the bench. There was also an attorney for the WMB Bond Holders on the FDIC side.
As opposed to a THJMW hearing where they methodically step through the agenda, THJC did not worry about the agenda. On multiple occasions THJC stated she had read all the briefs and was familiar with the arguments from both sides. It was apparent from nearly the start that THJC had a pretty good idea as to what questions she wanted answered and what she wanted the attorney's to argue. THJC directed both sides limit re-stating their arguments from their briefings. THJC wanted to hear, from both sides, the recent happenings from the BK court.
[WMI's goal was to stay as many counts/issues as possible. FDIC/JPM wanted all counts to proceed or even removed arguing the counts by WMI were not pleaded correctly according to rule 11; this didn't go very far in the hearing.]
Discussion proceeded on all the counts as the attorney's jumped among the different counts. Discussion ensued on the $1.88B sale of the bank. WMI pointed out the huge disparity between the $1.88B sale price and the liquidation value. THJC asked WMI if it matters if it matters if the FDIC undersold, hypothetically, by $500k or by $20B. WMI stated it matters when comparing it to the size of the assets and whether the FDIC comparatively undersold by a little or by a lot (i.e. small mistake or big mistake). FDIC argued that Congress gave them the right to take action without oversight from any court. THJC gave a very questioning look towards the FDIC and asked if the FDIC can undersell something for $20B and not be answerable for it. FDIC said he would give an indirect answer; he went on to explain that Lehman had fallen 10 days prior to WMB and that in the 2 weeks before WMB being seized it had a run of $16B; WMB had ~ $160B deposits and the FDIC only had $31B at the time, hence the justification for urgent action. THJC stated she was very interested in how Wachovia was handled by the FDIC, with the FDIC ready to sell Wachovia only to have the deal fall through because a buyer bypassed the FDIC with a much higher offer.
THJC then seemed very set on the attorney's arguing one principal thing.. what they thought should be heard in her court and what should be stayed. WMI and JPM all agreed that any stay should have a time limit. WMI argued for all 6 counts to be stayed. FDIC/JPM argued for all 6 to proceed; and JPM specifically argued all 6 proceed -but- if a stay was to happen JPM thought only 4 should stay and stay only short-term.
THJC then set the stage for everyone by stating, "let me give a shot across the bow" and stated that Judge THJMW has already been moving along and had made rulings that made it clear THJMW felt her court had jurisdiction over certain things; particularly "what assets belong to the estate". JPM kept arguing that Congress gave only the DC court jurisdiction over the FDIC. THJC agreed that DC has the jurisdiction over the FDIC but that THJMW has already made rulings regarding the estate assets and that she (THJC) would not go against the BK court asserting jurisdiction over estate assets. THJC stated that if FDIC/JPM wants those items argued in DC then they need to get THJMW's decisions overturned. Otherwise it remains in BK court.
THJC continued to state many times to JPM that she (THJC) will not take jurisdiction away from the BK court where the BK court has decided it has jurisdiction. THJC said she does not want two courts deciding the same issues. THJC stated all claims arising out of receivership would be decided in DC.
The question then arose whether the FDIC Corp. needs to remain a defendant. FDIC Corp. wants out but WMI argued that they want FDIC Corp. in because both the FDIC Corp, and FDIC Receivership sign the P&A. WMI stated they want to ensure someone can pay in the end. THJC questioned the FDIC regarding this point as to who would pay if the FDIC were found to have done wrong. (This got into a discussion about the role of each FDIC entity. FDIC Rec. said they would only pay out what the Receivership held; THJC asked "$1.8B?" FDIC Rec. said yes. [I think THJC will probably keep the FDIC Corp. in the suit; it was my opinion THJC didn't like that answer.])
THJC said she would not rule and take it all under advisement. Court adjourned.
MY PERSONAL OPINION
Like THJMW, THJC is a -very- fair and good judge. These are not traffic court judges and I do believe they want what is both right and just.
It looks clear to me that THJC will probably stay 4 counts and will watch what happens in the BK court. It is also clear to me from THJC's statements that THJC will defer to THJMW on anything that THJMW feels is the BK court's jurisdiction.
I think the $4B is of -huge- importance to the WMI attorney's (I may have overheard something regarding this. ok. I know I did) And appeals are expected with it but WMI just needs the initial ruling as a huge win.
It also seems clear to me that non-WMB assets will be decided in DE, while WMB related receivership issues will be decided in DC. DC will eventually proceed since it has jurisdiction over the FDIC. Questions about the $1.88B fire sale to JPM will be decided in DC. I also don't think the FDIC will ever pay a penny until they have exhausted the court system. However, I think JPM on the other hand would be more willing to negotiate as the chips fall against them. Only JPM can make this entire thing go away.. WMI is looking to pile up the wins and build pressure for JPM to deal. IMHO.
In all, I think this hearing went very much in WMI's favor.
note: JPM attorney stated she will be in the same courthouse for the Insurance Company vs. JPM on Friday. I'm thinking of attending.
FDIC Rec. hired an outside law firm. FDIC Corp. had inside counsel present. FDIC Rec. explained the need for outside counsel to be that given there have been 100+ bank failures they simply can't handle the legal load.
Thanks! I was able to recall a lot more than I had in my notes. At least my notes worked as a basic outline for me. It was good meeting you. See you at the next hearing.
And the FDIC also said by accepting FDIC insurance banks accept the risk of being seized. FDIC also said the Tucker Act should apply to the Taking claim.
The judge wanted to first determine which items should be heard in her court. I think she'll decide on the stay's first. Then on dismissal in the future.
Some of the claims cannot be determined until in-depth research is done on solvency/insolvency at specific points in time, as stated by WMI counsel. So I don't think the judge could dismiss claims without more info.
Both sides stayed separate afterward. The JPM attorney was a good speaker but the argument was just not on her side. JPM was trying hard to change the judge's mind even though she already stated she would not go against the BK court. When the judge first said that you could hear the wind go out of JPM's sails.
I think WMI departed pleased. FDIC/JPM not so much; they left first.
I think ILVMNY reported that. Judge Hollyer did say that. She was concerned for the cost to the debtors. She said, "I know how expensive it is for BK. Just looks at all the suits around here." (close but not exact quote)
Today JPM tried to sell that WMI was the one picking venues. JPM said it was WMI who wants certain things decided only in BK and not DC. The judge told JPM, well if you were the attorney for the debtors I'm sure you would pick the BK court as well. The judge said a number of times she understood WMI's strategy of using the BK court. Still, she said she wouldn't overtake BK.
FDIC and especially JPM is simply getting their balloons popped before they even get off the ground.
I concur with everything you just said.
WMI has good judges in DC and DE. Both judges run very tight ships.
11/04/09 DC Hearing (astock/danbb)
THJH - The honorable Judge Hollyer
THJMW - The Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
I arrived at the courthouse around 1:40PM. I was behind our attorneys while going through security; it was just them and me.. very quiet day at the courthouse. Attorney's are permitted laptops and blackberry's. I didn't even try bringing my phone.
I entered the court room around 1:50PM to find attorneys on both sides ready to go. I sat on the left side, the WMI side. From 1:50PM-2:10PM the main Quin attorney, Carlinsky, paced near their table seemingly going over arguments in his head. The FDIC and JPM counsel seemed very relaxed and smiled a lot towards each other.
The principal WMI attorney's were Mr. Carlinsky from Quin and Mr. Swarshek(sp?) from Weil. JPM's speaker was a Ms. Friedman. FDIC Receivership's speaker from Piper was Mr. John Clark.
The Honorable Judge Hollyer (THJH) entered around 2:20PM and asked the attorney's to identify themselves. WMI had 5 attorney's at the table (a mix of Quin and Weil) and 5 attorney's on the bench. FDIC/JPM had 6 attorney's at the their table (1 Fed from FDIC for FDIC Corporation, 2 FDIC from Piper for FDIC Receiver, and 3 from JPM) and about another 5 on the bench. Also there was an attorney from WMB Bond Holders on the FDIC side.
WMI's goal was to stay as many counts/issues as possible. FDIC/JPM wanted all counts to proceed or even removed arguing the counts by WMI were not pleaded correctly according to rule 11; this didn't go very far in the hearing.
As opposed to a THJMW hearing where they methodically step through the agenda, THJH did not worry about the agenda. On multiple occasions THJH stated she had read all the briefs and was familiar with the arguments from both sides. It was apparent from nearly the started that THJH had a pretty good idea of what questions she wanted answered and what she wanted the attorney's to argue. THJH directed both sides limit re-stating their arguments in their briefings. THJH wanted to hear from both sides the recent happenings from the BK court.
Discussion proceeded on all the counts as the attorney's jumped among the different counts. Discussion ensued on the $1.88B sale of the bank. WMI pointed out the huge disparity between the $1.88B sale price and the liquidation value. THJH asked WMI if it matters if it matters if the FDIC undersold, hypothetically, by $500k or by $20B. WMI stated it matters when comparing it to the size of the assets and whether the FDIC comparatively undersold by a little or by a lot (i.e. small mistake or big mistake). FDIC argued that Congress gave them the right to take action without oversight from any court. THJH game a very questioning look towards the FDIC and asked if the FDIC can undersell something for $20B and not be answerable for it. FDIC said he would give an indirect answer; he went on to explain that Lehman had fallen 10 days prior to WMB and that in the 2 weeks before WMB being seized it had a run of $16B; WMB had ~ $160B deposits and the FDIC only had $31B at the time, hence the justification for urgent action. THJH stated she was very interested in how Wachovia was handled by the FDIC, with the FDIC ready to sell Wachovia only to have the deal fall through because a buyer bypassed the FDIC with a much higher offer.
THJH then seemed very set on the attorney's arguing one principal thing.. what they thought should be heard in her court and what should be stayed. WMI and JPM all agreed that any stay should have a time limit. WMI argued for all 6 counts to be stayed. FDIC/JPM argued for all 6 to proceed; and JPM specifically argued all 6 proceed -but- if a stay was to happen JPM thought only 4 should stay and stay only short-term.
THJH set the stage for everyone by stating, "let me give a shot across the bow" and stated that Judge THJMW has already been moving along and made rulings that THJMW felt her court had jurisdiction over certain things; particularly "what assets belong to the estate". JPM kept arguing that the Congress gave only the DC court the jurisdiction over the FDIC. THJH agreed that DC has the jurisdiction over the FDIC, but said THJMW has already made rulings regarding the estate assets and that she (THJH) would not go against the BK court asserting jurisdiction over estate assets. THJH stated that if FDIC/JPM wants those items argued in DC then they need to get THJMW's decisions overturned. Otherwise, it remains in BK court.
THJH continued to state many times to JPM that she (THJH) will not take jurisdiction away from the BK court where the BK court has decided it has jurisdiction. THJH said she does not want two courts deciding the same issues. THJH stated all claims arising out of receivership would be decided in DC.
The question then arose whether the FDIC Corp. needs to remain a defendant. FDIC Corp. wants out but WMI argued that they want FDIC Corp. in because both the FDIC Corp, and FDIC Receivership sign the P&A. WMI stated they want to ensure someone can pay in the end. THJH questioned the FDIC regarding this point as to who would pay if the FDIC were found to have done wrong. (This got into a discussion about the role of each FDIC entity. FDIC Rec. said they would only pay out what the Receivership held; THJH asked "$1.8B?" FDIC Rec. said yes. [I think THJH will probably keep the FDIC Corp. in the suit; it was my opinion THJH didn't like that answer.])
THJH said she would not rule and take it all under advisement. Court adjourned.
MY PERSONAL OPINION
Like THJMW, THJH is a -very- fair and good judge. These are not traffic court judges and I do believe they want what is both right and just.
It looks clear to me that THJH will stay probably 4 counts and watch happens in the BK court. It is also clear to me from THJH's statements that THJH will defer to THJMW on anything that THJMW feels is the BK's court jurisdiction.
I think the $4B is of -huge- importance to the WMI attorney's (I may have overheard something regarding this. ok. I know I did) And appeals are expected with it but WMI just needs the initial ruling as a huge win.
It also seems clear to me that non-WMB assets will be decided in DE, while WMB related receivership issues will be decided in DC. DC will eventually proceed since it has jurisdiction over the FDIC. Questions about the $1.88B fire sale to JPM will be decided in DC. I also don't think the FDIC will ever pay a penny until they have exhausted the court system. However, I think JPM on the other hand would be more willing to negotiate as the chips fall against them. Only JPM can make this entire thing go away.. WMI is looking to pile up the wins and build pressure for JPM to deal. IMHO.
In all, I think this hearing went very much in WMI's favor.
note: JPM attorney stated she will be in the same courthouse before Judge Hoyt(?) for the Insurance Company vs. JPM on Friday. not sure if that is this week or next. Either way I'm thinking of attending.
I'm not following CIT now and I've been out of it a while. It was obvious where it was most likely heading. I hope everyone got out in time.
Are you definitely attending? I'm only a few blocks from the courthouse.
Sticky is for the previous hearing and can be removed.
If you're attending then I don't need to.
(just posted this on WAMUQ)
I've looked for a way to dial-in but I haven't found it. I suspect the public cannot dial-in. I'm thinking of attending in person.
Recording audio and taking photos is not permitted within the courthouse. So I could post a quick message afterward and something longer later that night.
I'll look on Ghosts website for the agenda.
I've looked for a way to dial-in but I haven't found it. I suspect the public cannot dial-in. I'm thinking of attending in person.
Recording audio and taking photos is not permitted within the courthouse. So I could post a quick message afterward and something longer later that night.
I'll look on Ghosts website for the agenda.
10/28/2009 omnibus hearing audio
I just put the audio up if anyone is interested. People seem to be reading a lot into the "approach the bench" episode. Listen for yourself and make your own judgment.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b932994e293c11f5c79b87b207592a1c837eb5569e6fa9e64ca8d2a77d7aad89
Do you hear music now?
I figured I might as well decide now and post it so there are not 20 questions tomorrow about it. LOL