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.
Correction:EC WON/2004 TIED/ AUTO STAY?... let's see ..
me too, ... I am not sure yet if she is just delaying the 2004 decison or has already ruled against it. It would have been great to have this one granted.
cheers!
EC WON / 2004 LOST / AUTO STAY?... let's see
bad day for Weil .. they lost two in a row
We won 1st battle. Two other battles to be won today:
-> Motion about automatic stay ... we need this one denied too to get the 4B deposits secured
-> Motion to expand the discovery ... we need this one approved..
It's a good start guys .. congratulations to all for this initial win!!
Other major claims against WMI:
Besides the 37B Marta Claim so well covered by Vivian - I pasted it in my previous post - I understand we still have two major claims against WMI that need to be expunged:
- The IRS claim: 9B. Initially it was 10B, and then they adjusted it to 9B.
- The WMB Bondholders claim: was it for 16B or 20B?
Does anyone here have a clear idea about the status of these claims??
My uninformed take about these two claims is:
- IRS, I never belived it held water. It's impossible for me to belive that for years IRS inspectors, auditors, oversight regulators and internal WMI controllers would have left around 10B of unpaid taxes, .. and just a several weeks after the seizure .. IRS found out that WMI owed IRS 10B that had been undetected. .... However, even if the claim is baseless it could generate a delay for the taxes returns that WMI is waiting for. Maybe IRS could try to froze tax returns arguing "set-off" rights until the IRS claim is formally expunged by the BK court.
- WMB Bondholders. Here I have not the legal insight as to estimate how valid the claim could be. Common sense tells me that this claim should not go against WMI but either against JPM or FDIC. It was FDIC on its own who ( not WMI) - incredibly as it was - allowed JPM to grasp the WMB assets without taking ownership of WMB liabilities. Unless for some legalities that I cannot envision it seems to me that this is FDIC's hot potato.
But, again, these are my uninformed opinions. I would strongly appreciate if anyone here could update me on the situation of these two claims.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers.
$50 B Weil claim against WMI
Post by Vivian on YHOO Re:
The $39 Billion Question - The Marta Claims 27-Jan-10 01:49 am Part 1:
Hey all. I've not been posting much recently because of other commitments, but the Weil argument against EC citing $50 billion in unsecured claims got my attention, so I thought I'd weigh in on the biggest one of those claims, the MARTA claims:
Thanks to Ghost for posting a thread with links of this claim. See http://ghostofwamu.com/forum/index.php?t...
This $39 billion dollar claim represents fully 80% of the $50 billion in unsecured claims cited by Weil in its objection to the EC. This issue has been floating around since April 2009, but to my recollection nobody has addressed it in detail yet, so let me take a stab at explaining it for those who don't want to read the 100+ pages of relevant filings:
On 8/4/08 the law firm of Kipling Law Group LLC filed a class action suit in State Court (not federal) in King County, WA, on behalf of two employee retirement plans (MARTA and New Orleans Employee's Retirement System) against WMI, WMB, WMAAC, et. al., alleging securities fraud in the marketing and sale of certain collateralized debt obligations (CDO's), specifically several separate mortgage backed security offerings (MBS's) based on mortgages originated by WMB and marketed by and through WMAAC, a Delaware Corporation which is a wholly owned subsidiary of WMB. WMB "sponsored" these securities. WMI's liability is based solely on the fact that WMAAC was a subsidiary of a subsidiary (WMB) of WMI, and that therefore WMI was a "controlling entity" under the Securities Act. No fraud by WMI is alleged. The lawyers (Kipling) are a small "boutique" law firm (5 partners) in the Fremont district north of downtown Seattle, who style themselves as sort of counter-culture complex-litgation specialists. ( See http://www.kiplinglawgroup.com/)
The complaint contains a very thorough explication of what MBS's are, and how WMB collateralized and marketed them. It extensively piggyback's onto some of the more sensational disclosures regarding WMB's alleged unethical practices ("liar loans", etc.), focusing on the unholy relationships with property appraisers uncovered and publicized by New York Attorney General Cuomo. It alleges numerous misrepresentations of fact by WMAAC (and, impliedly, WMB) in the marketing of these securities. Finally, it alleges that, based on these misrepresentations, the plaintiffs and others bought the securities, to their financial detriment, and claims up to $39 billion in damages. The plaintiff's seek class action status in order to represent the claims of "thousands" of potential purchasers of these MBS's. It is important to understand that the causes of action alleged to not allege fraud, but merely alleged nondisclosure of relevant information under the Federal Securities Act. More specifically, it is claimed that the loan-to-value ratio of these various MBS's was not 64% to 73%, as advertised, but at a much higher (and riskier) ratio, because of inflated appraisals. Rating :
(13 Ratings)Rate it: vivianbalbo...
Female
California
Re: The $39 Billion Question - The Marta Claims 27-Jan-10 01:50 am Part 2:
Later, on 12/16/08, for reasons I can't understand at all, Kipling filed a "First Amended Complaint", which appears to me to be identical to the original complaint in all particulars: Same parties, same factual allegation, same causes of action. The only difference I see is that they have deleted WMI as a party defendant. Why? Perhaps, at that point, they bought the Weil/Rosen line and believed WMI was judgment-proof and so abandoned that particular "deep pocket" defendant as an empty pocket.
However, still later, on 3/30/09, Kipling, through local counsel in Delaware, filed a claim in the WMI bankruptcy proceeding for the $39 billion. (Maybe by then they figured WMI might have something left in its pocket after all.) This was initially set for hearing on 7/27/09, but was continued by agreement of the parties. It is still pending. Before the hearing date, WMI filed a response alleging the claim was no good because it had been "removed" as a defendant by the First Amended Complaint and therefore could not be liable because it had been "dismissed" from the lawsuit. (This is nonsense: Even if this was a "dismissal", which it wasn't, that doesn't mean a claim can't be filed in bankruptcy.) On 8/12/09, Kipling's attorneys in Delaware responded, saying it dropped WMI from the amended complaint because of the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court, and instead pursued its remedies by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.
(Along the way, Kipling appears to also have sued the FDIC in Federal Court in Washington. See See New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al., No. C09-134RSM (W.D. Wash.). I Googled this with no results.) Rating :
(13 Ratings)Rate it: vivianbalbo...
Re: The $39 Billion Question - The Marta Claims 27-Jan-10 01:51 am Part 3:
So what's it all mean? What is this $39 billion dollar "claim" worth? In my opinion, as a practical matter, nothing as far as WMI is concerned. If anyone is liable it should be FDIC, because they stupidly gave JPM all the assets and kept all the liabilities (less a $500,000,000 indemnification clause) for themselves. And, since JPM is WMB's successor in interest, it should have primary liability on any under-performing mortgages unless the FDIC does. After all, the alleged reason JPM got WMB so cheaply is because of all the "bad loans" it would have to absorb. Also, I don't know anything about how a "controlling entity" might be vicariously liable under the Securities Act, but under standard legal principles a parent corporation is not liable for the misdeeds of its subsidiaries. That limited liability is the whole purpose of having separate corporations: to limit liability.
Moreover, the claim itself is wildly inflated. If you look closely at the complaint you'll see that the total value of all the MBS's together was $39 billion. To have $39 billion in damages all those mortgages would have to be worth nothing at all. That's preposterous. (Heck, one of those mortgages is mine, and I paid a 40% down payment and have made accelerated principal payments for six years.) At worst mortgage defaults would impact those MBS's by about 10 to 20%.
I won't even touch upon the complexities of establishing a valid "class" for purposes of prosecuting a class action lawsuit, or how much more complicated that would become within the context of a bankruptcy court. I don't even know if it can be done.
So, my humble opinion: The Kipling firm thought they had a great lawsuit against "deep pockets" defendants that would net their clients (and, more importantly, themselves) a nice settlement based upon the "nuisance value" of their allegations. This is a typical modus operandi of class action lawyers. Make outrageous claims, threaten protracted litigation, get a nice settlement, almost all of which goes to the lawyers. Here, Kipling bit off more than it can realistically chew. They can't possibly afford to pursue this vs. WMI, which is why they now appear to be focusing on FDIC and made only a a pro forma response to WMI's objection. WMI should prevail on the merits (ironically, possibly saved by the seizure itself!) and maybe on the technicalities as well.
Hope this helps. Rating :
(14 Ratings)Rate it: vivianbalbo...
Motion to expunge the WMB Bondholders claims ...This one, along with the IRS one are the only two claims really significant.
And as far as I understand the IRS' one is absolutely baseles... ... let's see if the Bond's one gets covered in next hearing - what a hearing eh? - and gets ready for ruling ...
Cheers.
Hi! Thanks for the invitation!
up & up ... great summary of numbers at stake..!! txs!
I will keep it as reference
Cheers!!
My take of the motion after several readings is exactly like yours !!
Sounds like you are right!!
And now we have a voice to tell this to the judge... just great!!
Not even healthy companies can pay their long term debt with their current cash. Their long term creditors cannot force them to liquidate their assets to pay them inmediatly.
Of course these companies have A>L and therefore they are not in BK.
As soon as WMI gets A>L and enough cash to keep paying for years, the priority rules change and the long term creditors lose their right to even dilute commons.
This is what the media is failing to report. They are just reporting the equation of Assest versus Debt+Prefs as if the money for commons will come out of a liquidation based on this equation.
The point is that the BK court will not rule in favor of a liquidation as soon as A>Debt with assets mostly cash and debt mostly long term.
The 4b and the NOL will create the conditions to avoid the liquidation and therefore the commons can keep intact the rights to benefit from litigations and/or settlements.
I do not expect commons to get the money just from the 4B + NOLs. This money will be kept to stay alive, paying credotrs and prefs interests, out of BK and litigating the rest of matters.
If WMI gets out of BK it will be in much better shape (cash and potential earnings ) than many start-ups which are trading with nice pps based just in business plans much more limited cash.
Cheers..
Wamook, you oversimplify the situation. (you as well as the media reporting until now).
The priority of creditors, prefs and common is clear. Commons are the last ...But this is so clear just in case of liquidation or WMI not being able to meet its obligations with creditors.
As soon as A>L ( counting only with debt as L, not prefs) .. and considering that most of the As are cash and most of the debt is long term .... then WMI can come out of BK with commons intact.
It's not just about maths, .. the term of the debt matters...
Once WMI gets enough cash to pay the already due debt ( not all debt, only the one due until now ), plus interests ( prefs and debt ) plus delayed iterests fees ... then neither the creditors nor the prefs have to take any haircut .. so they would not have not priority rights.
... if they creditors can get paid for years ...( which would be the case just with A=Debt.. then nobody has the right to force neither a liquidation nor a severe dilution of commons... and WMI can keep litigating for a longer term ...
... and IN PARALELL the discovery is already discovering many dirty things .. and it will get worse as soon as subpoenas get issued to 3rd parties .. this will either create an explosive (medium/long term )and profitable case for a trial or it will end up - again profitably - in settlement.
The key point is .. as long as A>L and there is cash to keep paying creditors and prefs interests over years ( not in a sudden, but in its original term) ... then creditors and prefs cannot force in BK court a liquidation in terms that wipe out commons...
For creditors the best situation is get most of their cash now and gain control of WMI by cancelling current commons and replacing them by shares owned by them.
But THEY CANNOT FORCE THIS SOLUTION IF WMI CAN KEEP PAYING THEM.
The sudden creation of the EC, in my opinion, answers this matter ... only with the new taxes/nol rules and the 4B deposit, ..A>L ... and the reason for the EC creation is not to grant a fair value for shareholders in a liquidation .... but in first instance to AVOID that anyone settles with a liquidation agreement even if it suits creditors, JPM and FDIC.
I am not counting with the other claims in BK court: the Trust, the brand, etc..
And you know what? It just happens that the person that will decide on the key matters is the BK judge. And she's likely the one better informed about what she plans to decide on these key matters. And, again it just happens that THE JUDGE SEEMS ALIGNED WITH THE CREATION OF THE EC. I was impressed with the speed - less that 24 hours - with which the judge approved the UST motion to include the EC topic (list of shareholders) in the last hearing, as well as the way she forced WMI to produce the list within a couple of working days. I am impressed with the UST speed to create the EC (days from receiving the list!!)
And by the way, the DC judge has ruled that the BK judge is the one that should decide on these key matters. These are not insignificant matters:
- 4B deposit
- Motion to leave the automatic stay
- Extension of discovery to 3rd parties
- If the IRS claim against WMI is accepted or not
- If the WMB bondholders claim against WMI is accepted or not
- If the Trust is WMI's or JPM
- What % of the NOLs tax return goes to WMI
- etc...
So the one who will decide on these matters seems to be supporting the EC in alignment with the UST, .. I bet she is the one better informed and better equiped to assess if an EC makes sense or not and if A will be above or below L - in the next months and in her court . and to which extent the creditors can keep getting paid over time and therefore if there will need to liquidate or to transfer ownership to creditors.
In a nutshell:
1- it's not just about adding Debt+Prefs and compare it to assets,,... the debt's term matters because it avoids creditors forcing a liquidation and/or taking control of WMI's ownership
2- as long as current common shareholders keep the ownership, they - and not anyone else - will benefit from the results of the longer term litigation.
3- and with the discovery evolution and the future fight against FDIC in DC, ... either there is plenty of money from these litigations or from the settlement needed to avoid a trials.
I am not saying the prefs are not a good investment, ... I am saying that the commons - at current prices - are good as well if not better over time.
Cheers...
Hi Zardiw!! it's great to hear from you again!!
I recall in our conversations almost a year ago how much you were convinced of the need of this EC. You were right !!!
You fought hard to get it, ... and here it is.
My warm thanks and congratulations for your contribution.
Cheers!!
I love that mention: " the EC should be the exception " and should be appointed only in a extraordinary situation...
...surely the UST knows about it and even so it has decided to request it ... I wonder if the special situation perceived by the UST is what we have been wondering around for months ... this will be settled with a nice settlement ...
Additionally, now we know about an specific interest to keep the pps low artificially low: is one of the elements to decide not to appoint the EC.
As you advance, the motion will be scary... better to know it in advance.
Thanks, fsshon!!
b]..& UST WROTE "THE INTERESTS OF THE EQUITY NEED TO BE PROTECTED" ... and the judge seems to be more aligned with the UST than with the attorney you keep quoting.
... literally from the UST filing ..."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."
Assuming that all of them - the attorney, the UST and the judge -have the same information about the proceedings and negotiations, there is a big difference in the atty's credibility (*) versus the judge's and the UST's ones.
The attorney version is influenced by his own agenda related to its interests, ... neither UST has an direct interest nor the judge. They are there as BK proffesionals and as such it seems they NOW feel compelled to protect WHAT THEY SEE as possible equity interests.
Even more, for me, it's clear that the reasoning and the urgency of the UST filing at this point MUST be based on some solid facts that neither you nor I are privy to.
And the judge - who is for sure privy to these facts - has accepted the urgency and has approved the UST motion, denying your atty's quoted argument.
For me now, there is not a doubt that the EC will be created, and fast - likely before next hearing - and that there are good reasons for it, otherwise the UST wouldn't have bothered with it -... like in 99$ of BK cases - and the judge wouldn't have aligned with it.
Why would an EC be created in this case? the only possible answer is in the words of the UST (bold above), for the moment accepted by the judge: affirmative claims / subject of settlement / protecting the interest of the equity.
Cheers..
... by the way, no need to reply, but if you do it, ... do not forgett to post again what that atty said in the hearing, we likely almost forgott it, we need you ... it will require all your energy and patience to educate and save us.
(*) Of course I am not talking about their credibility as professionals, but about their reasons to adopt one or other position in that specific hearing. I have good opinion about a
Johnny, you are getting lazy..it's almost 30 min since the last time you reminded us what the attorney said during the hearing.
Plese, stick to your duty to educate and save us.
without you, we will forget it!! And remember, it's your best tool to teach us. It worked last Friday. It's the best you have found in weeks of research and posting.
We may even keep remembering what the UST wrote and said, as well as the fact that the the judge supported UST and not the attorney.
Cheers!
Mordi, I fully agree except in your last point.
I think your view about the different positions of Quinn and Weil, specially in the APs is really enlighting.
However I am not so aligned about who sold off today. I really think the panic snowball that initiated the avalanche started in this board, and was initiated by one single post that picked and posted a comment by a lawyer out of context and without waiting to see the outcome of the hearing.
I was watching L2 and simultaneously the board, .. it was obviously correlated.
So, today we had a win in court and a short term disaster in the market.
Cheers!
My previous post about it: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44672490
Judge doesn't think commons are worthless. This is what it seems since she accepted UST arguments and did not accept this time the WMI' arguments.
UST got the right to get the shareholders list to create the EC! That was the relevant topic in the agenda today, wasn't it?
The UST intention to create an EC must be interpreted according to their filling .... "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."
And the judge accepted these arguments. That's the good news today.
The very bad news is that many here pulled the trigger to sell, based on the argumentation of WMI's lawyers.
We can specially congratulate the one poster who so timely helped to trigger the panic replicating the argument used by the WMI lawyers, before the real outcome of the hearing was visible. I am sure this poster is proud now.
A pity for the short term, really frustrating to see the pps tank, good for flippers, but irrelevant for the long term arguments. What is relevant in the long term is that we will get an EC, we will get it fast - likely before the critical hearings and rulings.: 4B, extended discovery, etc, etc..
Having the EC before these events is very good to protect shareholders, and today one important step was taken to achieve it. And this really matters.
If there is something clear is this: WAMUQ, is everything but boring.
Cheers !!
Hi Diamond, it's great to see you back here!!
Do you mean registering in the WM Equity group site?
If it's so, then I registered from day one and I updated the amount while I kept loading. That's a done deal. I even sent the letter asking for the EC and contributed with some $ to get the press involved.
I thought you talked about asking my broker to get the CUSIPs numbers or something like that, to either prevent my shares to get used in shortselling or/and to have them more secured in case of litigation. This is the topic where I get a bit lost.
In any case thanks for your answer!!
What is the risk if you don't have them registered?
I was never sure about it?
Thanks in advance!
Do you really belive this is what he thinks?, ... we know this is what he wrote.
I am positively sure it's not what he thinks. At any rate the US Trustee, who is better informed than him or than us, stated in a court document that there may be serious equity's interest to protect.
Cheers!
Does it sound like commons will be canceled?
"...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..."
Why an EC now? USTrustee words:
"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."
So do I.
Yes sir!!
The US trutee wants this covered on 12/18th hearing!!
Now things are moving pretty fast!! Funny days ahead!
Cheers!!
Possible, .. strictly possible it is, ... but it is just a very unlikely speculation Linda.
Not any Central Bank was cuting lines to any bank in that moment, ... so speculating that JPM influence in FED was so strong as to precisely cut the line to WAMU, precisely in that moment, and only to WAMU, when the head of FED - Bernake - was evangelizing the Congress/Senate and the whole country/world about the need to inject cash to support the financial systems .... sounds to me incredible.
.. but in the limit ... everything is possible
Linda, I don't think in those days the FED was in the mood to cut any cash line to any bank, much less to a bank the size of WAMU.
Precisely these days the FED was injecting huge amounts of cash into the system. The last thing they would have done would be to cut a cash line just when they were desperate convincing - aligned with Paulson - to get the TARP approved.
The fact that JD was in the board is not relevant in relation to this, .. Bernake and Paulson just could not do such a thing in such a moment.
They had access to that cash and that is a fact, ... even OTS recognized that in the very moment of the seizure WAMU "could have liquidity problems", they did not say they HAD already a problem, but just that they could have it in the future. Here I am not talking about solvency - it was well capitalized by all standards -, but about liquidity.
Those days about ANY bank anywhere was under risk of liquidity problems with all inter-banking credit lines closed after Lehman colapse. If the reason of a potential liquidity problem was a valid one to seize WAMU, then it would have been enough to close most banks across the globe. At that point, those days, not any Central Bank in the world (FED included) would have cut credit lines, .. in fact they were doing just the oposite.
On the contrary, the seizure of WAMu, increased the liquidity problems for most enitites, since it made clear that not anyone lending money to banks was safe, it demostrated that anyone lending to a bank could get wiped out without a warning... it just increased the need to keep Central banks lines wide open and the need for the bail out.
I really don't think there was any risk about the FED cuting Wamu's access to cash, ... simply not just one week before TARP.
FDIC/OTS triggered too soon and under panic, fearing to see their funds evaporated, with zero consideration to any other consecuence. Besides it, even if the liquidity topic were a valid argument to seize, it was not at all to fire-sell within hours at a ridiculous price a well capitalized 300B assets bank.
For me it's clear that neither the seizure nor the fire-sale were justified, but .. even admiting that there could be some reasons for the seizure - just days before TARP??? - it seems impossible for me to justify the fire-sale.
I pretty much appreciate all your DD and your balanced attitude. Please keep doing as you do, I just wanted to share with you that in my opinion the speculation about the FED planning to cut cash to WAMU in that moment doesn't hol water at all.
Cheers!!
There was one commons shareholder of WMB. I was WMI. The fact that it did not trade in a public market, does not mean there were not shares.
Anyway I don't see the topic so relevant. Court documents presented by parties are full of intentional comments that are not a fact, but part of each party's byassed argumentation.
Cheers..
I think there is plenty of money for both. Based in sculelos reasoning it makes sense that at this point of time there is more money flowing WMB bonds. The risk/reward balance is different.
The perceived risk/reward of WAMUQ is very dinamic and volatile, very much related to rulings. At any rate, however it's still a company in BK, so institutional big money just cannot enter into WAMUQ ( by default they just cannot invest in pinks). This is the reason also why the potential reward is still so high.
Just some favorable rulings and the perceived risk/reward balance will change and money ( not yet the large institutional one) will flow into WAMUQ. I am sure about it. .. but it will alwasy be more speculative until we exit BK.
Comming back to the Bank Bonds...
I've always wondered why we never heard about the intentions of FDIC for that money. As we never heard any explanation about why FDIC was so sure that the seizure+conveyance will not cost them money when JPM did not assumed WMB direct debt ( WMI's debt is a different topic).
... with the limited information I have, ... sulelos reasoning sounds me like good.
It makes a lot of sense Sculelos!!
WMI & Noteholders answer ....
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091118000000000002.pdf
... worth reading, .. not too long...
once this battle about the 4B is over and other BK claims are adressed; ... the real long term and high value fight will be around WMBfsb been part of the seizure of not ... if not then is should not have been transfered...
... it's mentioned a number of times in the doc.
cheers..
Climber, .. I am not a lawyer, so I could lead you to an erroneus view. But I will share with my own - non legal - words how I understand this. There are 3 types of claims:
a) Valid, undisputed claims: .. the original ones: creditor's claims up to 8B, mostly long term debt.
b) Disputed claims that were filled in due time according to the BK rules. Until that legal deadline these ones grew pretty much, among them the 3 main ones that I have in mind are: WMB- Bank Bond Holders, IRS 10B and obviously the ones filled by JPM in their adversary proceeding. I guess that if you add up all the ones filled properly in BK + the claims from FDIC against WMI in the DC court, it could add up to the 100B mentioned. What concerns to BK court are the ones filled in the BK court in due time. SO FAR, NONE OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE MADE ANY PROGRESS IN THE BK PROCESS. I mean that unless the court rules accepting any of these ones as valid, they are not valid and should not be added to group a). My understanding is that the IRS's one has already been expunged.
c) Disputed claims that were not filled in due time in the BK process. The one that I know about - I am not sure if it's really a claim - is the one that "according to FDIC" supports their last motion asking the judge to leave the automatic stay. I think that the legal experts in these boards have covered this one pretty well.
I could have a wrong understanding about the ones in group b). But, I guess that if the BK would have considered any of those as legitimate, then it would be reflected in the MOR. Besides it, we have followed the court docs in detail and I do not recall any progress made yet in any of those.
Considering the b) ones as an actual debt would be like - just as example - considering WMI's claims related to Intelectual Property as an actual WMI's asset.
We have some posters focused in just cherry picking negative sentences out of court docs and then posting them as a fact - not just as part of a global argument - and elaborating ideas only based on these selected paragraphs. The context in which WMI's mentions these 100B is a given one. It doesn't mean that valid claims or debts are worth 100B.
One of these posters has been very active lately.
And one of the paragraphs chosen by this poster is the one you mentions.
I think I am clear enough about who I am talking about.
Cheers climber!!
Hi, Climber!! IRS original 10B claim has already been expunged. I am sure I read it around a couple of weeks ago. I just don't recall right now where I read it.
It didn't make any sense since it was filled almost a year ago, and I am almost sure I read it was expunged.
Does any one recall it too? Am I wrong?
Cheers.
Clear and neat, txs Mordicai
My previous message, ... the missing link.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43590444
Mordicai, please ..NOL carry back refund. One question.
It seems obvious that WMI should try to benefit from the new NOL carry back rule approved on Nov. 6th. ( see link below, it was posted some days ago)
It also seems that once the request for refund is filled, IRS has just 45 days to refund the money.
My question to you is, would WMI have to inform the BK court of their request to IRS? I mean, would we be able to detect it through the court documents, once they did it? What's your take on it?
I am sure that JPM/FDIC would do their best to try to grasp that money or a significant part by filing motions in court. But as initial step, WMI - the legal entity that paid over the last 5 years to IRS, seems to be the only one that can make the request.
A second stage would be the dog's fight in court for this new bone, .. but first everyone needs the bone to get paid by IRS.
How/when would we know that WMI made the request?
Cheers,
You are right Nascow ... my failure ... sorry about that!
Cheers.