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.
... Or, How About this ? ...
Mike W and Edgar S, must have had the ability to predict the future acurately, .... on December 12th 2011, just after the mediated result was accomplished, .. (sarcasm of course) .....
since, at this particular point in time, NO ONE knew how the Judge was going to rule on the division of the newco' .... the Judge had the ability to change the division ratios of the newco' .. to her will .... this FACT was mentioned many times within' many of the filings .... be it 99% / 01% ? .... the 70% / 30% which was originally filed ? .... or the end result which was the now, 75% / 25% ...... AND remember, the absolute priority rule being tossed out so that preferreds and commons would share simultaneously ...... NO ONE knew how the Judge would finalize these very important issues' ..... NOT at the end of 2011 ...
Nope, ..... when Mike W said ..... "comprehensive settlement" ..... three months before the Confirmation of the Plan (Feb 2012), and prior to the "Goulding Document" even being written in sipport of the plan' ...... either Mike was able to predict the future ? or he was speaking of the Trust Markers, equity was about to receive .......
AZ
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT MADE BY MIKE WILLINGHAM;
12/12/2011
"The comprehensive settlement announced today represents a fair and reasonable recovery for the thousands of equity holders of the Company who have been following this case closely for three years. The Equity Committee and its advisors are pleased with the result and look forward to and support the swift confirmation of the Plan," said Michael Willingham, chairman of the Equity Committee appointed in the Company's chapter 11 proceedings"
... How about this Little Nugget ? ...
after Plan 6 was denied' ? ...... While the Judge DENIED' Plan 6 ... the equity committee only wanted to file for "equitable subordination" ...... the Judge believed "equitable disallowance" ... would be more appropriate ....... BIG BIG difference between those TWO court submissions ..... obviously the disallowance would have lead to the ever famous "litigation morass" .... which no one wanted ..... especially the snh's that were in a position to loose everything, that Plan 6, had it been approved, would have provided ....
Obviously, the Judge knew, at the time, there was a distinct possibility that the accusations of Insider Trading were quite valid ..... "among other discrepancies within the bankruptcy" ...... another shot across the bow of AAOC ..... basically telling the snh's that if they want to go down this particular road, they are no longer taking a chance of being subordinated within the pay Matrix ...... they are now taking the chance of being completely "disallowed" from the entire proceding and could be throwing any chance at all, for any recovery at all ..... out the window ..... a risk, they were obviously unwilling to take .....
A mediated result would be soon to follow, ...... end of 2011 which then lead to the now approved Plan 7
just sayin'
AZ
_________________________________________________________
"In addition to denying confirmation of the Plan, the Court also granted (and then stayed) a motion by the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the “Equity Committee”) to prosecute an action to equitably subordinate or disallow the claims of certain noteholders (the “Settlement Noteholders”).3 While denying standing to bring a claim for equitable subordination, the Court held that the Equity Committee had standing to bring a claim for equitable disallowance based on allegations of insider trading by the Settlement Noteholders. In so ruling, Judge Walrath found that the Equity Committee stated a colorable claim for equitable disallowance, and ordered the parties to mediate to avoid a litigation morass which would further drain the estates’ resources."
Well?, .. since your personal investment strategies
as you state, past, present and obviously future tense are, as you correctly stated, ... it's really none of my business,
why don't we all just wait until you receive your portion of the RON's as receipted off, for your piers LTI holdings as of the stated May 1st, 2014 distribution according to the 12/31/2013 10-K ..... (a short wait until next week)
all the answers that you seek from me are easily explained within the 10-K, the Plan of Reorganization, The Courts Confirmation Order, and of course, Federal and Delaware Bankruptcy Procedure which both explain in detail, Rule 510 and / or the Tranche Distribution System
... good luck to you and your investment strategies' ...
AZ
GO4 & Donot Thank You For your answers
I have to run out for a bit, however, I look forward to reviewing your information later on this afternoon ....
Also, maybe if you both would review the 12/31/2013 10-K regarding the up and coming RON distribution to the LTI Piers holders, and give me your views on that information later on, that would be helpful
I also want to get deeper into the recent settlement of United Guarantee PMI insurer (a participant within WMMRC) by the Trust and its receipt of the return of the 65m from the WMMRC PMI Trust (not our Liquidating Trust ... I know', it gets confusing)
There was (rough numbers) something like 400m in the trust to combat future pmi claims, but now with this recent transaction, I'm sure it has an ultimate effect ....
(I actually thought we would also see RMIC cashed out prior to May 1st, but so far ... no news that I have seen)
That would mean more cash and leaving only 3 remaining pmi holders within WMMRC ...... I guess it could still happen between now and the distribution, which IMO would be a good thing ....
ADDED; had the Liquidating Trust been able to sell these RON's according to their 12/23/2013 request and turn them into cash .... none of this would have been an issue .... the second lien issue put a stop to it all (Our people tried to simplify' AND do the right thing) sadly, that was not allowed to happen ...
AZ
Catz .. I may have a solution
It appears there are a few different interests here regarding the piers and what they ultimately receive as a value distribution, spending money, RON's, in lieu of money, etc ..
Some folks want to receive funding, and some folks want the trust to move on to the next level, (IMO, lets' get to Tranche 6)
Since you are a participant in owning these securities, maybe it would be helpful if you share with the group your decision making process when you purchased class 16 securities ....
Was it any wording in the Plan of Reorganization?, the Securities Prospectus?, The Confirmation Order? that gave you a feeling of financial security moving forward with your purchase?
Was your decision based on the possibility of Absolute Priority? The 16's being a creditor class which potentially would be paid ahead of equity?
Then maybe the group would be in a position to review this information and find a determinative factor ..
Anyone else? .... also that holds these securities? all information regarding the reasoning for purchase would be helpful
It appears that a few of us are trying to decifer the valuations for a security that another group felt strongly enought to actually purchase
Otherwise, maybe we all wait until the May 1st distribution?
AZ
As simply as I can explain this, however, I would always recommend a security holder read the information for themselves of course, or pay an attorney a few bucks to help if necessary
... the 12/31/2013 10-K stipulates to the last Trust Asset (The RON's) are to be distributed to the last creditor (The Piers) and as obviously stated, the holders of LTI's, again the Piers
That's going to be it ..... there is no more money in the Trust and there are no more assets within the Trust to sell .... as far as Bankruptcy Procedure goes ..... she's over' ... all of the assets have been either liquidated or distributed to all of the creditors ..... The WMI Bankruptcy Liquidating Trust has finished' its asset distributions
Then Tranche 4 within the distribution Matrix will be completed ... closed down just as we closed down Tranche 3 back in November 2013
Again, that's it .... NO MORE MONEY or ASSETS, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DISTRIBUTE
Then we have to move on to scrutinize any claims with Tranche 5 (Rule 510(b)) issues and all of that ... conversations for a bnew day
Maybe in the mean time, after a few days, weeks or months, The Trust collects a few tax refunds or maybe some D&O money .... or maybe a claim that somehow got all messed up and is discovered while working through Tranche 5
It's all described in the Plan of Reorganization
The Liquidating Trust will have nothing left to distribute, asset or cash, after the May 1st, 2014 distribution of the RON's with the exception of a few bucks for expenses ... so we, procedurely, shut down the last creditor class (Tranche 4) and move on along
AZ
Ok, of course, you are allowed your opinions on these matters and everyone is also allowed their interpretations of the documents filed
I am new here however, if you have possibly .. observed' .. over the years, I don't argue with anyone, I am just a simple equity holder like many that is following this case both the Trust and the Company
I am reading and referencing the 12/31/2013 10-K and its descriptive of the Trusts Distributions to come on May 1st 2014 as stated and why
I find the 10-K to be quite informative and direct in its projections of what is going on and usually put a substancial more weight into what a filing states than information gathered on a ...
AZ
The Piers are getting paid in full, According to the Plan, the Piers Prospectus and now the recently filed 12/31/2013, 10-K
The May 1st distribution of the RON's to the LTI Piers holders is their proper distribution according to the Plan of Reorganization
The recently filed 12/31/2013 10-K gives an excellent explanation of what is happening and why it is happening, and the when, it's going to happen, is the noted May 1st 2014 for a distribution to the LTI Piers holders within the 10-K
The Trust tried to help the situation out by attempting to turn the RON's into cash back with their 12/23/2013 filing, so the Trust would be in a position to distribute actual cash to the piers holders instead of these RON's. The filing actually discusses how a cash distribution would surely help the Trust with its distribution
The second lien issues put a stop to that possibility as is explained in the 10-K
This is a case of the last Trust asset being distributed to the last creditor according to the Bankruptcy Procedures and the Plans attachment H'
And so, we equity holders are able to move on
AZ
Just some rough numbers since the 12/31/2013 filing of the 10-K, as of the 10-K the RON's were roughly valued at 106m (81m first lien & 25m second lien) now calculating that the Trust will distribute the RON's to LTI Piers holders on the 1st of May, as stated in the 10-K, and taking into consideration roughly 23m piers securities ....
Each piers security held would (again roughly) generate a distributed RON' valuation for the upcoming distribution in the neighborhood of a RON value' of $4.60 per and the maintaining of the note until the 2041 maturity date
Or obviously a holder of the soon to be distributed RON's would be in a position to sell their individual received asset
The recent finalization of United Guarantee, since the 12/31/2013 10-K filing, will also play a part, however, I would need more information regarding that transaction before making a comment
I am sure their are many Piers holders that frequent here that may want to comment further, as I am sure they would have done a bit of DD prior to becoming involved with their individual purchase
I don't own any of these securities, however since their finalization is directly related to equity, I follow them closely .... Or Well, I probably won't past the May 1st distribution, but just sayin
AZ
.... Donotunderstand ....
I'm glad for you and hope things end up working out for you as you had originally planned ....
In my opinion, making a statement like
"The first to pay well will be the H - fact"
is a bit strong, since I don't see that as a literall fact .... but what ever .... since the piers are maximized at 250m according to the plan and all we see now is the interest variable, I think recently it showed them to be at 236m something ....
I'm more in the BlueeFox (Don) camp as that's what I did at the end March 2012, was in lieu of buying piers, I simply added more P's just prior to transition ....
I felt that posting this information from the prospectus, that I hope all piers purchasers would have reviewed, .. prior to an investment, .. was quite relevant .... it appears to me that it portrays exactly what is currently going on with their lack of distribution ..... "Tax Ramifications and so far NO CASH" ..... I surely hope that you took this possibility into consideration at your time of purchase ....
Once the company can account for the Tranche 4 piers required 250m in a reserve account, (gettin' close), .. don't think for a minute, that the company can not move on down the line while they work out issues regarding these particular redeemables ..... just sayin' .....
It appears to me that your ...."fact" .... statement' is not supported within the actual security prospectus, .... I know many believe that to be a fact, however .... please read below as I have provided .... good luck to you ....
I'm also kind of a serious guy, so I am hoping that your comment regarding giving me your Trust Markers was typed in humor .... that gesture, would also not be a true possibility .... not "factually" possible, if you will ... and even though I would thank you for the generous offer, .... I'm doing quite well ...
AZ
"Regarding Preferred Income Equity Redeemables .. (Piers); The debt securities generally have a deferrable interest clause that allows the company to defer distributions for up to five years at their option and for any reason but not beyond the maturity date. A distribution deferral will generate a very unpleasant situation for the preferred holder as the tax laws require the holder to pay taxes on the deferred but accruing dividends even though the holders is not receiving any cash."
..... The Tranche Matrix .....
As Tranche 3 has now been closed down, Currently we still have to filter through a few Tranche 4 issues and then we move on to Tranche 5 ... which entails, either the scrutiny or final distribution, of remaining issues ... Then, Tranche 6 issues, are the distributions for the 19's / 22's simultaneously at the famous and precedent setting, 75% / 25 % split .. disregarding apr (absolute priority rule).. (which to this day angers many) ...
People are just now beginning to understand that the purchase of these piers securities, (Tranche 4), as were promoted on message boards was probably not the best decision to be made at hand ... please see below, which explains some of what people are currently going through regarding tax ramifications ... and their wait for cash distributions ... remember, the piers are currently listed at a capped rate, not a gauranteed rate, and piers holders were not able to participate in any issued Trust Tracking Warrants ... only the equity holders that released, received Trust Tracking Warrants and will be participant within the Tranche Matrix pay mechanism .. as designed within' the Plan
The reversing of the Pay Line or the Tranche Matrix, placing equity below 510(b) final issues, was a huge accomplishment for the equity team that actually participated within the arms length final mediation ... (attachment H of the Plan)...
AZ
"Regarding Preferred Income Equity Redeemables .. (Piers); The debt securities generally have a deferrable interest clause that allows the company to defer distributions for up to five years at their option and for any reason but not beyond the maturity date. A distribution deferral will generate a very unpleasant situation for the preferred holder as the tax laws require the holder to pay taxes on the deferred but accruing dividends even though the holders is not receiving any cash."
... BlueeFoxx .. Absolutely Agree ...
These People, BOD's, Blackstone Capital Partners, KKR, etc, are at the very top of their game .....
I know it is difficult to see the price manipulation, my friends, however, it is my sincere opinion that this will all be well worth the wait coming up quite soon here ..... and in a short period of time ........
Oh, and since I hardly ever post over here, let me take a moment, to say hello to all of my old friends .... and heres hoping Alti and the group is all doing well these days ....
AZ
... The Stock Price Is Being Manipulated ...
We currently have no control over this OTC stock manipulation .... However, this should end within a brief period of time ......
.... the following opinion, is with a little help from my friends ....
Under no circumstances will any steps be taken prior to 3/20. WMIH's lawyers will have planned for the absolute worst. In this case, the worst is even a colorable claim by the IRS that WMIH took some action prior to 3/20 which created a 2nd change of ownership. No definitive terms for anything that could be characterized as a 2nd change of ownership will be effected by way of text, email, signature, vote, or any form of communication because in discovery the IRS could subpoena records. Yes, Things are that intense.
Currently we have only been shown the Commitment Letter ..... the real action which had been decided quite a very long time ago, should be coming quite soon, however not until after 3/20 ... obviously, this is this long time shareholders opinion ...
AZ
LG, .... Well? after thinking about this ...
There may be something there after all, due to the unusual class structure that you guys have over here on this stock ..... The class structure was my driving force which got me thinking about the final and what it would entail ...
As you know, I've been studying the 510(b) transition over on the other security and what happened over there, all makes total sense to me now .... So, the basics would also apply here as well ... BK procedure and all ....
Anyhew, you guys have a good group over here, for the most part, and a lot of the guys know how to dig .... I just see a possible potential for a final distribution to clear the books right above the last receiving class .... in this case class 8 .... Remember, a creditor class can be the last in line IF and only IF there will NOT be enough final funding (liabilities exceeding assets by a substancial amount and all of that ... normal BK .. ).... A creditor class CAN NOT be the last in line if there are open ended distribution issues .... it would always have to be an equity class or a hybrid combination of both creditor / equity class due to the fact that an ending distribution can NOT have maximums or a fixed limit of recovery .... only an equity class does NOT have fixed limits or a face value ....
I hope I'm making sense ....
I'm up to my eyeballs over on the other security (you know where) so it is very doubtful that I buy back in here (NO MO MONEY, period) but I couldn't help think about this closing issue regarding some of you guys that are over here ....
It probably would still be a while but hey ..... they have to finalize sometime .... (6 year maximum limit for the FDIC to close and finalize)
anyway
You guys have some good Holidays
AZ
Well, ... LG, I think you know where I'm going with this ...
And I surely would NOT want to cause any of you guys any additional pain, nor do I want my grammar corrected .... (ha)
However, all claims against the estate need to be scrutenized prior to the final distribution or the END, so to say ...
All accounts need to be balanced, tax issues, interest on accounts etc etc etc ... LG knows what I am referring to, since I have bent his ear with my research on a different security ... regarding the final ..
My basic point for now is, the bankruptcy system itself has procedures in place that allow for unknowns ..... this procedure ends right above the last distributing class and then ends with a final distribution. All accounts and claims cleared
Usually, BK ends at a creditor class with amounts still being owed to claimants .... the claims get reviewed and ultimately disappear ...
However, this is a bit different over here isn't it? No preferreds and no hybrids (a combination, creditor / equity class)Your class 8 is STILL at the bottom of the final ....
anyway, thinking out load ....
AZ
Oh and PS, my opinion is that one dude is still an id--iot, past present and obviously future tense .... you guys keep a close eye on that dude
...... Maybe a dumb question .....
However, I have been studying procedural events on another security that I am heavily involved in and couldn't help but think of you guys since a couple of my friends are involved over here ..
Here's my question ... when the chapter 7 transitioned (last Feb to my memory) it appears to me that class 8 stayed intact ... correct .. I mean it is actually still trading ....
However, since there are also no preferreds or hybrid classes to my recollection, the finalization would go directly from the creditor classes to equity or class 8 (commons)
Well, if this is the case .... then within the 7's liquidation, all claims against the estate would be scrutinized at the final just prior to a final distribution to the remaining class ... in this case equity ... right?
LG, Bob, Max, VC, Trade, ... I'm not sure if you guys are still around but ??
I don't hold any shares right now, but thought about this ....
AZ
.... This continues to be "silly talk" ....
I do not normally post here, but enough is enough .....
The portion of the JPM release referencing "willful misconduct" is not a portion of a release that is allowed to be given by an individual ...... a shareholder or individual is not in a position to "forgive" or "release a responsibility" for "willful misconduct" or a potential criminal action ..... I can not believe that people hang on to this statement .... It was meaningless within the release Then & Now ..... If "willful misconduct" was exercised, than potentially laws were broken and the justice system takes over .....
Go ahead & break the law .... have the police show up .... and than have your friend show up & tell the police they forgive you .... see what happens .......
POINT: any part of this or any other release you may have given that potentially breaks the law is null & void and NOT enforceable ....
I signed ALL of the releases related to my holdings in an effort to participate in the plan and conversion to WMIH ..... knowing that any defence issues regarding "willfull misconduct" would never withstand scrutiny.
"shall not extend to acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct of any Released Parties (other than with respect to the JPMC Entities and their respective Related Persons)"
AZ
... Correct, however not for those reasons ...
Because the liabilities far exceed the assets ... and this was allowed to convert to a chapter 7 liquidation back in April
If there was any type of reward available on this still tradeable stock on the otc .... the volume would explode far beyond what you are experiencing
good luck to you all, however, IMO you are all being played
.... I NO LONGER Hold a position .... but I do have a few friends still stuck on this .....
AZ
... Well, There You Have It ...
Thanks for the link UG ....... So, now you wait and see what the Appeals Court does ... (don't miss the footnotes, they are full of information)
Appeals Court upholds the 3/5/2013 District Courts Decision
Appeals Court decides to send the case back down to the District in full or partially to address specific issues ....
Appeals Court decides to hear the case at the appeals level due to improprieties .....
"Good Luck" to you all ....
AZ
.. Bob, I was ASKED to Research This ..
So I did, as objectively as possible .... I do not have a solid answer for you since I've given my opinions to those that asked and have moved on .... just a possibility, the other major holders, may and very well could be creditors as well ... I believe Guy and a few others to also be in this dual position MO
Like all OTC & Pink and Big Board stocks this is a gamble ... I posted my findings, opinions, and question regarding this ...
Remember, BS is appealing the March 5th Summary Judgement Ruling ... after all of my reading, I came to the conclusion that, they would have had a POWERFUL case appealing the district decision had the bank "Actually Been Capitalized" It wasn't, they were all still yappin' about it .....
This converted to a 7 Liquidation in April and No One Cared? No one objected?
United Western Filed BK with liabilities being greater than assets ..... think about that .....
Good Luck to you all ....... I answered my friends questions concerning this stock and personnaly, I'm not interested ... there's too much else out there that isn't listed in liquidation .....
Oh, here's a hint ...... for the ones that still believe .... start getting on the US Trustee ..... That's the only person that can help you all at this point ..... (your welcome & no charge)
Adios
AZ
..... Okay Good response ....
Your reference to a "side deal" .... no comment .... I see possibilities ... many of them .... nothing nefarious going on regarding numerous issues ...
But ... notice what you said, YOUR GUT & COMMON sense are leading you ..... also add, YOUR OWN MONEY, should be mentioned, right? ...... only you can push the buy or sell button ....
Now, a question for you, aren't you the poster that stated yesterday that the trustee was going to issue a dividend? or do I have you confused with someone else ....
AZ
... Oh Yeah, One More Thing ...
Some posting here are "ASSUMING" that they are in good shape due to the fact that the CEO holds a load of commons and a share is a share is a share, and all that, yada yada yada .......
Could be true, however, he (guy & his banks losses due to the siezure) may collect their financial recovery through a different source or entity, just maybe ........ If you are hanging your hat on this DD alone, I would state that I am pretty sure, Guy would be exploring multiple avenues for his recovery beyond his common shares made whole as his only alternative .....
So, there's your risk .... high risk? ... yes, .... is it possible? yes, is this a sure thing? FAR FROM IT people .......
But then, it wouldn't be fun otherwise, the odds are better in Vegas than here on the OTC & Pinks ............ Just pay attention, after all, it's your own money ........
AZ
... Thanks LG, But Its All Good ...
I did a bit of push back against all the hype to see what would happen as I'm usually quite curious about things, especially when it comes to money .....
Most times, I find the response' humorous and without content ...
Like .. VC thinks I'm 007 and FS reverts to name calling .... okay den' .... I thought we were interesting in financial gain !!
Okay, to be serious .... People, we are in Chapter 7 liquidation ... the creditors have been notified of their "Bar Date" 7/1/2013 (and can be moved forward if necessary)
Nothing will happen until at least the creditors claims can be determined and verified at the minimum .......... and they aren't even due to be filed until July 1st
The dispositive motions due the 16th are a different thing .... google this if you don't believe me ....
Right now, the 96 claims against the estate should be the focus ...
I'm interested to see if guy & his law firm file as a creditor, as they are not representing class 8 or equity .....
BS Law firm represents guy & his bank ..... again, look it up if you think I'm misleading anyone .....
There is NO equity committee & NO equity representation .....
should be interesting to say the least ....... Not sure why you guys get upset at the truth ..... let's see how long this post lasts without getting removed .........
AZ
..... Thank You Brother Spot (LG) .....
Yep, when it comes to money, we all have to be careful ... there are those out there that would take your "lunch money" and leave you hungry ... just sayin'
to answer your question, I'm holdin still for awhile and watchin for any bumps in volume ....
As you know, we ain't alone here and this ain't no private MB ...
It appears there are some very good folks here that got stuck, As you know, I get bothered by posters that are full of ....
let's keep it real and just a little bit truthful .......
ain't no body can buy a da boat until the moneys in the bank anyway ... amazingly stupid if you ask me ........
Thanks to All
AZ
.... Hello Bob, .......
B, I know you a long time, & you know me also .....
Here's what attracked me .... as VC says, no preferreds, so there are creditors and equity ..... period ... NO Hybrids either here ... straight deal .... we would or WILL NOT have to worry about APR ... (absolute priority rule)
Okay, so far so good ... then we have a CEO with 1M commons and a Law Firm working off of a contingency basis .... all very appealing, AND I did hit this thing hard back in the single digits due to this ... (Thanks Spot)
To answer your question ..... IMO, I do not think anyone wants this to survive ...... and I do not believe it will.
You have one shareholder predicting all kinds of nonsense ...
..... reversal of the BK ...... NOT GONNA HAPPEN
... multiple settlement numbers ....
... settling any second ..... PAALLLEEEEZZZ (not until they work through creditor claims a bit
... shares of FC .... doubtful ..
anyway ...... point is ...... the HYPE is all over the place ....
Bob, you know this stuff, as do I ....... I'm keepin my eyes open to possibilities as you know I always do ........ I'm on these things to make money, plain & simple .....
This DOG is NOT etched in stone for a large recovery as some posters would have you believe ........
Guy & the Law Firm are not representing class 8 ..... they represent GUY .... period .... equity doesn't have representation, so anything can happen ..... that's my point
Gut & his attorneys can be accomodated in numerous ways beyond including class 8 folks ...... just sayin' ..........
To all the NORMAL Folks? ......... Eyes Wide Open ......
AZ
Agreed, the "Bar Date" can be moved forward (from the 7/1/2013) with the BK Courts approval ..... it would not be a big deal to go out another period of time to accomodate all .....
With the mailing to the 96 creditors so recently, I wouldn't be surprised, if they pushed it out a bit ....
HOWEVER, I think IMO IMO IMO all this nonsense regarding a settlement, being posted in cryptic manner out here on this MB should end since it is obvious to me that real people have been hurt on this security ....
I told you guys ... my knowledge is in the "procedural outline" of BK ...... I promise, I'll only spend my own money, no one elses' ..........
AZ
... So Max, Your Kidding Right?...
This is a reset of the "Bar Date" for creditors "96 of them" to re-file their claims against the estate due to the conversion to a Chapter 7 (April 2013) ...... and subsequent liquidation
This has zero to do with any trustee dividend' ........ and IMO it's doubtful that Fred is right regarding any settlement at this point ...... be it, shares of FC, a cash division or cans of tuna fish .....
We're a long way from Kansas Folks ...... These claims will have to be filed by the Bar Date as posted (thanks VC) and dealt with ....
AZ
... Thanks New, & Max, for your Response ...
Just tryin' to keep it real and I'm looking for the money ... that's it ......
My intention is not to discourage you guys or encourage you guys ... actually I have already bought in, since I do see a potential here ....
However, I start askin questions when there is just a bit too much "Hype"
I'm in with who makes common sense .... you two guys, Trade, VC, LG, Bban, Strat etc ....
But I get leary of the other nonsense ......... been burned real bad on another "bank siezure" .....
anyhew, you all take care, I'm holdin still for a bit ..... let's see what happens next ......
AZ
... New, I hear Ya' ...
I'm trying to get a better handle on this, since so far, I've only used "money that won't kill me if lost"
and I'm considering going into a "serious buying mode"
BUT, here's what's holding me up ...
1st: is the "District Courts" conclusion ...... (the part about not being able to rule on "everyones good intentions" the bank was not actually capitalized ..... only "almost"
2nd: After reviewing the actual "BK Filing" I'm seeing the liabilities are listed as greater than the assets ....
IMO the COI is a steep hill to climb, again just my opinion ...
Had the bank actually been "capitalized" and the BK filing shown the assets greater than liabilities ......... well than ...
just sayin'
AZ
...So Fred, which is it? ...
I'm trying to keep up, Is your position a monitary settlement, or is your position shares of FC? .... you have mentioned both and maybe a few others ...
I know you are against a settlement in any form what so ever,
However, not considering the cannibus folks or the posibility of the purchase of a large boat, could you comment on any knowledge of the current position of ...
the law firm
their contingent payout contract (I'd love to read that)
is the appeal only able to address the COI issue?
In the district decision, the bank HAD NOT been capitalized
(she spoke of "good intentions and all"
I have read the initial bankruptcy filing and the "liabilities" are greater than the "assets" at the filing ............
I'm looking for more information ........
AZ
.... Thank You ... "Strat" ....
Very Much appreciated ..
AZ
... LG (Spot)& BBob Read my Mind ...
As a new guy, I'm treadin' lightly to show you all the respect you deserve, for the folks that got caught on this.
however having said that,
Ask some of the folks that know me, I also read & verify when it comes to what & when ..... and I'm a nut for information ....
I won't put jam on anyone's muffin, I tell it like I see it, period
So, I have concerns regarding the appeals filing ... I've read the 3/5 District Decision, but after that things get blurred & non existant ... is it for a reason? I don't know quite yet .....
Does someone have that mentioned 5/1 Clerks Instruction Doc that I can read? I can't find that ..... and the document that is listed on the "sticky note" from the other poster? I searched for that also yesterday for quite awhile ....
TIA,
AZ
... Yep, I get that ...
Well, just thought .....oh, forget it, ...... NBD, my middle name is "patience" .... GLTA
AZ
... Thought It Got Filed 5/31 ...
My Bad ..... Thought the Appeal was filed on 5/31/2013 ... Maybe I mis-read something .......
Anyway, Looking forward to the document .... footnotes and precident will determine how hard to hit this ....
Thanks ....
AZ
... Max, Thanks For the Reply ...
I will watch for your updates ...... Up to now, I have been talking about basic procedure, however,
NOW, I'd like to have knowledge that the Document was actually filed and ultimately be in a position to read what they (BS Law Firm) submitted .....
anyway,
AZ
... So, Has an Appeal Been Filed? ...
I have been searching for any evidence that the appeal has been filed and have found nothing ....
I searched for Document # 1438775 as listed in the "sticky note" and again, no evidence ....
Here is a listing I have found of submissions (the file is huge)
Does anyone have any updated information?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138883865/UWBKQ-4-30-2013-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL
AZ
... Somethings to Consider ...
Remember, at the Appeals Court Level, the Court does NOT have to accept a case ... They have the power of refusal and then the district ruling stands ....
Also, IMO, the Appeals Court accepting this case possibly means there is merit to the cause for the appeal or that the District Courts decision lacked precedence
Also, again IMO, since we have converted to a "7" liquidation back in April .... there would be no reason for an equity commitee, again IMO ....
The final "Post to Close" would have or should have a proper accounting for final distribution to classes using APR ... (Absolute Priority)
There will be no plan of reorganization presented at this point ..... And IMO, it's doubtful this dog unwinds .....
I see 200m minimum myself without the auditing of the 363 sale ... so ...... that's what I'm seeing ...
The FDIC won't want a recorded loss and BS will be all about the "Financial Recovery" as they get a percentage of the final .....
AZ
...BS Has "Taken On" the FDIC & Won...
This Firm already has quite an impressive track record litigating against the FDIC and they have WON .... I researched their website and other documents I could find, prior to buying in ....
They, (BS) sees something of substance ALSO here or they would not have taken this case on a contingent basis ....... and firms generally at this level have a plan to be successful ...
These guys, (BS Law Firm), are playing chess, while the FDIC is playing checkers ..
It's a big deal ......
Being a "New Guy" here on the board, and not having all of the groups continuing knowledge & experiences regarding this siezure, ....... This ONE fact (Law Firm on a Contingent payment) weighed heavily on my decision to get "IN"
AZ
.... A Question? & A Thought ....
Hello, I've been reading all day to catch up to you guys regarding some of the specific details and I wanted to ask .....
A Question .... Was "Coyote Creek" ever sold and recorded as a 363 sale?
" Matrix has owned its interest in Coyote Creek since 1995. Matrix has joined the Company in the Bankruptcy Filing and the Company expects to petition the Bankruptcy Court for leave to sell Coyote Creek to an unrelated third party for the best available price sometime in 2012 under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Any proceeds received in such sale, if completed, will be added to the Company’s bankruptcy estate and will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court under the Bankruptcy Code. Given the current condition of the United States real estate markets in general and the Denver, Colorado real estate market in particular, the Company is unable to express any estimate of the value of the real estate held by Matrix in Coyote Creek"
And a thought, In Berman's March 5th 2013 Conclusion, (what we are appealing) it appears to me this is emotionally charged and lacking precedence ! It also seems to me that the opinion contradicts itself on occasion
I'm starting to understand why BuckleySandler took this case on a contingent basis ...... HHHMMMMM .... just sayin'
AZ
CONCLUSION
At bottom, after one strips away all of the hyperbole about the agency’s “sudden” change of heart, the Bank’s fundamental grievance is that if only the agency had just given it a little
more time, it would have been able to come up with the necessary capital to save the day. Maybe. There are reasons to be skeptical: the Bank’s plans were dependent upon regulatory
changes that were unlikely to materialize, and the potential investors had carefully buffered their commitments with numerous contingencies. On the other hand, this was a Bank with a long
history of profitability, it had longstanding institutional relationships, and there were at least some investors willing to take a closer look. There is no doubt that the officers and directors
footnote: ...
18: The Bank takes issue with OTS’s conclusion that the Bank had “no realistic prospects for raising capital in the short term” contending that Congress did not demand immediate recapitalization and that OTS’s belief that the Bank’s recapitalization efforts “would necessarily rise and fall with the Recapitalization Transaction” was an “unduly narrow view of the Bank’s capital prospects.” Pl.’s Mem. at 45–46. But the agency did not demand immediate capitalization. It had been asking the Bank to recapitalize for more than one and a half years. See e.g., 2009 MOU, AR 220 (asking the Bank to “submit a written Capital Plan”). In that time period, the Bank presented only one recapitalization plan and the holding company stated that this plan was the Bank’s “only viable option” for restoring its capital. AR 2458. Further, the 2010 Investment Agreement prohibited the Bank from “enter[ing] into any agreement to raise
capital other than in connection with the transaction contemplated under the Investment Agreement.” AR 1189 (November 2010 letter to OTS stating that the investors were unwilling
to waive this provision). Therefore, the agency reasonably concluded that the since the Recapitalization Transaction was not viable, the Bank had no realistic prospects for restoring capital.
were seriously committed to the task, and one cannot simply dismiss their efforts, or their sincere belief that they would ultimately succeed, as frivolous. But in the end, whether the Court accepts the Bank’s assessment of its prospects wholeheartedly or with reservations is beside the point.
Given the standard that must be applied in this proceeding, the Court cannot find that the agency’s decision was unreasonable under all of the circumstances at the time it was made, or
that it was not supported by the administrative record. The Court will uphold OTS’s decision to appoint the FDIC as receiver for the Bank because the Bank has failed to demonstrate that the
Acting Director failed to articulate a rational basis, failed to consider the relevant factors, or made a manifest error in judgment when he concluded that there were three statutory grounds that independently supported the decision.19 Accordingly, the Court will deny the Bank’s motion for summary judgment and grant the defendants’ cross-motion. A separate order will issue.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: March 5, 2013
footnote: ...
19: “When an agency relies on multiple grounds for its decision, some of which are invalid, [courts] may only sustain the decision where one is valid and the agency would clearly have
acted on that ground even if the other were unavailable.” Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast, Co., L.P. v. FERC, 475 F.3d 319, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Since the Court has concluded that all
three statutory grounds are valid, it need not address the Bank’s argument that “even if the Court determines that one ground of the seizure order was valid, none of the alleged grounds is sufficient – standing alone – to sustain the decision.” Pl.’s Reply at 29.[/I]
... A Follow Up to "Appeals Court Protocol" .....
Yes, maybe I should follow up on my thoughts regarding what I was referring to ...
The complaint against the OCC was filed in the DC Court System and subsequently Judge Berman made her ruling which the BS Law Firm has now filed an "appeal" to, also in the DC Court ....... ...Berman is a DC District Judge .....
March 6 2013
"District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday issued a 40-page opinion on the case involving United Western Bank and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which took over the case when it absorbed the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2011."
The Bankruptcy, now converted to a 7, (April 2013) was filed in Colorado and this DC complaint will ultimately affect the Colorado Chapter 7 and it's final distribution ...
Ultimately, I was posting regarding the Three Judge Panel and how the process works regarding an appeal ... Colorado and DC both utilize a very similar system .. The "THREE JUDGE PANEL"
I can post the link to the DC Appellate Court Rules, however it's huge ..
My point was that Berman's decision regarding the OCC complaint will be scrutinized in the same manner in DC, Colorado, or basically the same across the US
Ultimately, this March 2013 decision by this DC District Judge affects the Colorado Chapter 7 ......
I hope this is helpful ........ basically, the filing of the appeal of "Berman's" decision is powerful ..... IMO, no stone will be left unturned, and once, an "Answering Brief" gets filed .... it's all US ..... again ... all IMO
AZ