That maybe, but there's quite a few Google hits with the same write up on different sites.
Sorry if its my bad, but I wasn't digging for old info, I was looking at only info in the PAST WEEK.

11/25/11 supreme court ruling

http://www.enochslaw.com/newsletter/index.jsp?contentid=HkX6zj1xQvDT20TCB6FKYE6A&aop=10&od=3

"Chapter 11 debtors must put their new reorganized business up for auction on the open market in order for a bankruptcy court to confirm a reorganization plan that allows equity holders to receive any value."

So where exactly is the line that needs to be crossed for actions to be considered beyond "business judgment" . It seems as there is no clear line and nothing but a wide crevice of grey area that is left unattended, nor has the otherside of it been found. I would think that if the judge needs to remind those in front of her who their clients are, who they represent and who or who is not an advisary that the actions must have been close to the line.

What would be an extreme example of actions that are clearly beyond business judgment?

Wouldn't the fiduciary duty outlines and conflict of interest cover this bizarre behavior.
The court/laws assume the respective players are actually who they say that they are and acting in such a way as to protect their clients best interest.

That would seem to be the most basic of basics, otherwise none of the other guide lines could be considered as such. That may explain why there are no laws specifically written to deal with this particular carnival. The foundation laid by the debtors & in play here is not applicable to the laws written because the assumption has been ignored.

Few weeks ago my wag was 0.04x again before we hear anything. I thought I was wrong until the news of hearing cancelled, my wag still stands.

365 million shorts over the last 6 months, what's the total volume for curiosities sake?

Clawman, have a look at this. Id really like to hear your thoughts on this after reading your post.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68886063

Preferred don't have take a haircut just need to agree to be brought current on the divies and resume where they left off and to be paid as set out in the original prospectus or write another one to suite thirty fancy. That's a very very small fraction of the billions needed to cash them out. Nor is that a loss to them in any way. It's a deal and a deviation from the APR to be used to facilitate a deal and exactly as designed by congress.

Another think is that wmi is not insolvent per the judges opinion, that needs to be factored in here also.

Deviation is the proper term.

Great, sums it up perfectly.

How can a deviation be a deviation and still be within the boundries.
How did congress set it up ? They set it up to be deviated from.
It's a very ambiguous guideline that allows and encourages deviation to facilitate faster deals and agreements..

If that's a typo and you actually ment to say quasi debtors , there is nothing quasi about it they are the debtors.
If you actually intended to say quasi creditors,,,,,,,,

Well either way there is just not any reason to try and explain or discuss the matter any further.

Even after claims of reading it you can't see who equity is, who the shareholders are and who the debtors are.

I've got lots n lots of Ps too, I have no freaking clue what's going to happen or who's going to get what. But I do know that APR is not absolute and it DOESNT have to be followed and there is plenty of proof to that.

Saying it "must" be broken or as they say deviation is silly and wishful at this point.
Saying it "must" be followed and can not be broken or deviation is just complete nincompoopery.
Saying it hasnt experienced any deviations is flat out denial of the empirical.

The only safe thing is to realize its there and may or may not apply in its entirety.

All I'm saying is that the absolute priority rule is not absolute..

I am leaving nothing out, nor have made a direct comparison to the details if that case to WaMu, in fact I set them apart several times.

What I am saying is that the shareholders or Equity in that chpt 11 corporate BK kept estate assets against the objection of the creditors and against the APR.

now my only point is that the absolute priority rule is not so absolute.

Just Google this - absolute priority deviation + bankruptcy -
You will find that NOT following the APR is MORE frequent than adherence to it.

Absolute priority rule known as APR, well these deviations from the APR are so common they are known as APD or Absolute Priority Deviation.

Whether is blatantly disregarded, an agreed to deviation, a carve out, a cram down, a judges decision, or some other reason that APR isn't followed more often than it is.
You will find that prior to 1990 the rate of APD was near 75%, the rate has been decreasing since then and is much less today.

Not so absolute.

Gophilip, the article states that the shareholders, aka equity kept corporate assets in spite of the objections of the creditors.

Again, a Fla corporate BK, the debtors (who are also the shareholders or EQUITY ) retained the estates assets, produced a viable POR that paid of creditors in full with interest over 72 months.

Absolute Priority Rule isn't so Absolute.

That most certainly was a corporate Chapter 11 BK. 100% sure of that. Not a publicly traded company but nun the less, a corporate BK with a por & debtors & shareholders (or equity) & creditors and everything else.. AND Confirmed over and above the objection of the creditors.

In the plan, the creditors are to be paid back in full with interest over 72 months.

Yes, correct and I know this. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68908289

By definition, the APR states creditors claims come before those of shareholders.
Granted, that article pertains to chapter 11 case of a corporation in Fla, and the debtors and shareholders or equity are one in the same. Remember shareholders own the company and there can be one single shareholder or multitudes of them.

In that case, in Fla, the Absolute Priority Rule DOESNT apply. That by itself make the APR not so absolute.

That happened just a few weeks ago Oct, 14, 2011.

Now mix in some underhanded bad faith actions of the creditors and watch what a judge might do in Delaware. I own preferreds, and if the POR adjustment returns them to status quo, catches up on back divies, promises to pick up the original prospectus, ??????

Absolute priority rule isn't so absolute any more.

" Oct. 14, 2011 (Westlaw Journals) - The “absolute priority” rule no longer applies to individual Chapter 11 debtors since the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, a federal judge in Tampa, Fla., has ruled."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Bankruptcy/Insight/2011/10_-_October/No_%E2%80%98absolute_priority%E2%80%99_rule_after_BAPCPA,_federal_judge_says/

Just Google it, lots of info on it being challenged providing re-payment to creditors is made part of the plan, POR.

Tom & daddy; going to be one hell of a fight. My money is on susman.

Rodent has hidden everything he possibly can and tried to ensure the transfer of these hidden treasures without detection. He calculated the $$$ to stop just short of the SNH being paid in full. The things that could not be hidden have been given away without consideration to keep the SNH just shy and insure the transfer. As time progressed, claims have been dropped, duplicates removed, and the amount of assets that can't be hidden get bigger. Co-insidiously the valuation is calculated low and the gifts need to get progressively bigger to keep the SNH just short. I'd imagine rodent would love it if he could just increase the SNH claims to just over what he cannot hide, undervalue, or give away. That insider trading thing is getting in his way.

Seems that if EC gets newco, that would just ruin his day. All of his hiding efforts would go to equity instead of the SNH. Not to mention he was to ensure that equity was cancelled.

Short report is FINRA members only. No one elses legal or illegal naked shorts are included.

Sort of a repost, hope the night crew gives some feed back, maybe even some traction.

short report is generated by FINRA and is based on "ONLY MEMBERS OF FINRA" reporting their short positions.

NASD Rule 3360 has been expanded to require FINRA member firms to report their short positions on all over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities to FINRA effective July 3, 2006. Once the short position reports are received, the short interest is then compiled for each OTC security.

The entire site pretty much states only members participate.

Here's the search function for FINRA members. http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/MemberFirms/

Now if they aren't on that list, there short position isn't included in the short report.

Membership in FINRA is by application , and they don't have to accept your firm as a member.

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/Registration/QualificationsExams/MemberFirms/HowtoBecomeaMember/

That short report is from only FINRA members and reflects an honest reporting of only those members.

The short position of 30 million on 3/10 was only those members, likewise with yesterdays of 40+ million or last of 44+ million. we really have no idea of any short position out side of those member firms.

Project west had equity being cancelled from the very inception of the take down plan. Equity being cancelled was always part of the plan, in fact I don't think they could have executed the plan if equity survived.
Note how that is working for them now that equity is still here.
Even Sheila made a point to say that equity needs to suffer the losses.


Equity surviving this will screw up their plan and really shake the criminals to the core.

To bite the worm of incite is to bite the hook of the antagonist

Uz or anybody who can contribute-serious question here,
this short report is generated by FINRA and is based on "ONLY MEMBERS OF FINRA" reporting their short positions.

NASD Rule 3360 has been expanded to require FINRA member firms to report their short positions on all over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities to FINRA effective July 3, 2006. Once the short position reports are received, the short interest is then compiled for each OTC security.

The entire site pretty much states only members participate.


Here's the search function for FINRA members.
http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/MemberFirms/


Now if they aren't on that list, there short position isn't included in the short report.

Membership in FINRA is by application, and they don't have to accept your firm as a member.

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/Registration/QualificationsExams/MemberFirms/HowtoBecomeaMember/

That short report is from only FINRA members and reflects an honest reporting of only those members.


The short position of 30 million on 3/10 was only those members, we really have no idea of any short position out side of those member firms.

Good question, and we have seen some covering. Uz just posted the numbers from the report.

It all depends on how or if the conversion takes place I'd imagine.

No that's not what I said.

Gsa is intact, and remains so until a party leaves. Since the time limit or commitment period has passed and was not extended, there is no promise to remain.
What's expired is the agreed upon time limit that they would honor it and fulfill what ever obligation the gsa required.

There is no longer an agreement to continue to honor the still intact GSA with respect to a time period; nor has there been any action by the parties to leave the gsa. But they can.

WAG - shake coming & we see .04x from the MMs before we hear anything.
Hold on it will be a good one..

The gsa was a bound/ binding agreement between the parties for a specific time period.
Think of it like this, on Monday everyone signed a contract that said I will swear all of your lies are true for today and tomorrow - since its now Wednesday they don't have to.

The agreement is still there its just not binding upon the parties any more because the time period has expired.

It's a wild card now because anyone with cold feet, or experiencing too much pressure can walk away. Remember can, not did, not will, but can.

The fdic chose not to extend the time period, if they did the gsa would stand just as it did prior to the expiration, as agreed to by Sheila. Logical assumption that the new leader don't agree. I believe the other parties agreed to extend it and fdic was the holdout.

That's for shareholders who held from 2005 to June 2008 if I'm not mistaken. Has nothing to do with any shareholders who acquired after the June (?23?) 2008 cut off date or prior to 2005 ownership.

An alternative viewpoint is good for discussion, and actually enjoy a well presented and factually based post like that..
This one however is only good for a few laughs.

Where exactly are you trying to get with this?

Fish, do you have some cliff notes on this yahoo post.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=871356&mid=871356&tof=1&frt=3#871356

Somebody needs to tell stratton about the FJR adjustment.

It's a strange situation at this point, much like a catch 22 & I still have a difficult time wrapping my head around it. The P&A was executed before the BK petition so the contents of the P&A are irrelevant to the BK, yet without the contents there is no way to determine what is left by subtracting what was sold. To further muddy thing the P&A states the whole bank. In the rough draft of the p&a it states assets both on the books and those that are not on the books. If that language or a form of it made it into the final draft its a licence to steal.

Thru my research and DD, there is no way to determine the number of phantom shares, and if one could determine the exact amount, a millisecond later the number would be different. There are a few articles out there where investors who were convinced of phantom shares had purchased the entire number of outstanding shares and millions of shares continued to trade. These investers singularly purchased 110% of the outstanding number of shares and millions still continued to trade. This example had several investors each holding 110% of the shares.

It's the same as trying to know the exact number of counterfeit currency = Impossible.

Wouldn't that be a hoot, get nailed for a 54 billion fraud claim, cost immeasurable delays, 30 million (used to be) a month down the tubes, hunderds of millions in legal fees, and get a 250,000 fine.

I can hear the conversation from three years ago:

Here's what you do, file a claim for 54, billion and ill call it a wash, ill never question it and it'll be a done deal.

We can't just file a fraudulent claim !!! Especially for 54 Billion.

Look, it will work TRUST ME, the worst that can happen is a 250 thousnd dollar fine..


Oh ok, where's the form........

Wide & dispersed ownership implies a separation of ownership and control. Because shareholders generally cannot know and manage the full details of a corporation's business, they elect a board of directors to make broad corporate policy.

We can disagree gentlemanly, technically shareholder own the corporation. A corporation is a legal entity created by specific laws allowing such.
There can be one shareholder or multitudes. There is generally a minimum of 100 shares with no maximum. Companies sell parts of itself, to buyer's who become then partial owners. Partial owners are called shareholders.

Spin it anyway you need to, common shareholders collectively own the corporation. The common shareholders, not the preferred, not the bond holders, not the creditors elect a BOD to oversee the corporation day to day businesses dealings.

There are many many facets to the corporate structure and corporate law. The most interesting are the ones that deal with liabilities, the corporate veil, and taxes. These are designed to permit personal ownership and shield personal liabilities.

no, he's just following the orders of his client.

And Brian rodents client is ......
Drum roll please ......

Well its not the owners of the company- that would be shareholders & he's not takeing orders here.

It's not the board of directors elected by the sharholders-

Could it be the acting BOD appointed under the recommendation of WGM & BR - that would be A&M .

His client isn't supposed to be the creditors.

His client isn't supposed to be JPG, who by the way he stuck up for and said that EC was trying to milk jpig for money.

Judge had to remind him that the EC is technically no adversary to him.

So who is his client he's taking orders from.

Stay tuned.

5 of those size useless parasites is a million a month.

If they think clawbacks are possible, they increase the padding.