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.
IMO the S3 was either a way to keep alive if for some reason they were denied, or a nice bonus for management if they were approved.
How exactly could they go wrong with that? Hmmmmm
When we're wrong we're going to settle, when we're right we're going to fight"
This is an exact quote by Jamie Dimon... now, is JPM right or wrong?
LOL... I am currently still holding NVLT, DSCO so don't say they always bounce back as I'm still waiting!
He sure does have a point that everything "crooked" that comes up JPM is involved in some way or another
From credit default swaps out the wazoo
to
ripping off counties for everything they have
to
manipulating commodities (this is not the first accusation against JPM although first lawsuit)
to
stealing banks with the FDIC help!
What exactly is offensive about it? JPM is at the center when it comes to anything illegal/immoral/wrong with the world....
I am not going to say anything about all this with foreclosures because I do believe if someone doesn't pay for their house, they should not be able to live FREE... I do believe if it weren't for these banks either betting against the loan or having bad loans bought out in whole that alot of these banks would be more willing to keep people in their houses... My way of looking at it is, if the person isn't worth giving a loan to, then dont! If the person is but faults on the loan, work with that person to get caught up. My brother's home loan got couple months behind due to him being laid off and he didn't have a job. The bank would not accept partial payments and/or less than the full amount he owed. They would not re-do his loan to catch him up even though he had good credit. This should not be. These banks such as JPM get paid 100% whether you fail or not so it really doesn't matter!
uhoh... what is the other gem?
I was initially in today at 2.99 and fought myself to not pull the trigger & sell all at 1.50 (I was that close).I thought about how dishonest the Market is & how pitiful the SEC is, so I held off. I ended up doubling my position at 1.9 once it started climbing back up and happy with my decision!
I guess as it was said, the bear raid before the decision said it all... Someone knew!
No reason to sell before the conferance call on Monday, never know as the company may already have someone wanting to buyout AVNR for $8+/share, file for national sales, submit their next drug application, etc.
Now Monday, if I don't care for the news I'll be helping those shorts cover! :)
Avanir Pharma: We Haven't Heard From FDA On Drug Decision
Last update: 10/29/2010 3:19:25 PM
--
Either this is insider trading bigger than life or a blatant form of market manipulation! How can the SEC not look into this?
yep, they've already been split... I believe by the time you can sell it will be back down in the trips! Sorry for your loss, but reading the past on this board you can't say you weren't warned
Wamu couldn't have been in better shape. If they were then they would have been able to borrow from the discount window; which is the lender of last resort. The Fed apparently cut them off from the Window because they had no assets worth pledging against the borrowings.
Isn't the FED discount window ran by it's member banks such as JPM and doesn't Jamie Dimon sit on the FED BOD? Was Wamu a member bank as well? Not to mention the fact that Wamu was solvent which didn't require them to borrow from the discount window. And, if I remember correctly they had a 50 billion LOC they could have gotten from the FED discount window (stated to Congress during the economic disaster investigation
I don't believe Wamu ever got a chance to get any additional funds as they were not under the impression there was a need and were not required to have additional funds raised. Last thing Wamu did was emailed OTS to inform them they could raise additional capital if required and had a plan to do so. Wamu was solvent up to and including at the time it was seized - THIS WAS STATED BY THE OTS the day of the seizure.
The Clearing House said in its court filing that the Fed has never revealed the identities of borrowers from its discount window, the lending facility where banks get short-term funding and the source of the 2008 emergency loans. Has the FED ever been asked to before? Is this not required of a govt authorized business? They have the ability to print our dollars and increase our inflation, I believe they should not only be inclined to abide by the FOIA, but they should also be audited on a regular basis!
According to that defense, depositors, fearing the loss of their life savings, might cause a run on institutions named as having accepted emergency loans. If the FED was lending large amounts to JPM/C/BOA/WF while they were buying/acquiring these other failing banks, even if JPM/C/BOA would have been failing without the loans, then this would basically show favoritism to these banks and not for banks such as Wamu & the many smaller regional banks which were seized. We all know Wamu was just for JPM, Wachovia was supposed to be for C but WF messed that up, etc...
Now, with it coming out that the FDIC/Sheila Bair under investigation for trying to save Shorebank out of Chicago and calling in a few favors (then having to seize anyway after Wall St & the Tarp funds) definitely shows there was some agenda behind it. What other banks has Sheila been FOR saving? Not Wamu, they were seized while solvent through pushing from the FDIC, and then sold (gifted, whatever you'd like to call it) to JPM for pennies on the dollar. Not to mention that Sheila was working against Wamu trying to sell itself and/or part of itself during that time.
What are they hiding? Are they afraid Johnny Q Public is going to see that Wamu was in better shape than JPM/BAC/WFC if not for their "Emergency Loans" were given by the FED... Those same loans Wamu wasn't afforded
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/26/banks-disclosure-case-supreme-court/
Banks Take Disclosure Case to Supreme Court
By Dunstan Prial
Published October 26, 2010
| FOXBusiness
Print Email Share Comments Text Size
Reuters
The Clearing House Association, a trade group of the largest commercial banks, has appealed a court ruling that requires the government to reveal the names of banks that accepted emergency loans during the worst of the recent financial crisis.
The organization, which includes Bank of America (BAC: 11.31 ,+0.16 ,+1.43%), JPMorganChase (JPM: 37.26 ,+0.18 ,+0.49%), Citigroup (C: 4.18 ,-0.02 ,-0.48%) and Wells Fargo (WFC: 25.92 ,+0.17 ,+0.66%), among others, wants the Supreme Court to decide the case.
A judge ruled in August 2009 that the Federal Reserve has to release the information.
Media outlets, including Fox Business Network and Bloomberg News, had sued the Fed, which issued the emergency loans, seeking the information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.
The Fed on Tuesday declined to join the appeal.
The Clearing House said in its court filing that the Fed has never revealed the identities of borrowers from its discount window, the lending facility where banks get short-term funding and the source of the 2008 emergency loans.
Steven G. Mintz, an attorney representing Fox Business in its FOIA cases, said the American public has a right to know which banks borrowed taxpayers’ dollars from the Fed, and how much they borrowed.
Mintz questioned why the Fed is still refusing to release the information despite the fact it is no longer challenging the lower court’s ruling.
“I am absolutely furious that the Federal Reserve want the American public to believe they are in favor of transparency when they are still refusing to produce documents that they are no longer mounting a legal challenge against,” Mintz said.
“They are now letting the Clearing House Association -- the banks that they’re supposed to be regulating -- do the dirty work for them by continuing to hide information from the American public,” he added.
In late 2008, as the subprime mortgage crisis left many U.S. banks teetering on the brink of collapse, the government argued that releasing the names of banks that accepted emergency loans from the Fed’s discount window could potentially turn a bad situation worse.
According to that defense, depositors, fearing the loss of their life savings, might cause a run on institutions named as having accepted emergency loans.
The Clearing House said in its appeal, “Disclosure of this information threatens to harm the borrowing banks by allowing the public to observe their borrowing patterns during the recent financial crisis and draw inferences – whether justified or not – about their current financial conditions.”
In a statement, the Clearing House defended the government’s response to the financial crisis and said revealing the names of emergency borrowers could be harmful in future emergencies.
“Unless the ruling is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, businesses and individuals may decline to participate in these programs, possibly impairing the federal government’s ability to act effectively in times of crisis,” the organization said.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, a ruling isn’t expected until some time next year.
Mintz noted that Congress has already ordered that much of this information be released. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also known as the Dodd-Frank Bill, passed in July, requires that the Fed release information related to emergency loan programs.
“I think we have learned as a result of the financial meltdown that more information is better than less information, and secrecy in the financial markets is a form of economic poison,” said Mintz.
This is one of several FOIA cases Fox Business has initiated in the wake of the financial crisis in an effort to force government disclosure and account for billions of taxpayer dollars used to prop up troubled banks.
Earlier this month, President Obama repealed a controversial provision in the recent financial reform legislation that made it easier for the Securities and Exchange Commission to deny requests for information.
Repealed was a little-noticed measure, Section 9291, that said the SEC no longer had to comply with virtually all requests for information from the public, including those filed under FOIA.
The Fox Business Network first reported the provision and its potential impact in July after the SEC cited the new law in a FOIA action brought by the network.
After Fox Business reported on the law and it was widely covered by the media, many members of Congress admitted that they were unaware of its inclusion in the vast Dodd-Frank reform bill.
The SEC defended the provision, suggesting it would help the agency in its efforts to expand its surveillance and investigations by ensuring that information obtained from banks and other financial institutions remained confidential.
Critics of the measure said more transparency is needed rather than less.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/26/banks-disclosure-case-supreme-court/
Banks Take Disclosure Case to Supreme Court
By Dunstan Prial
Published October 26, 2010
| FOXBusiness
Print Email Share Comments Text Size
Reuters
The Clearing House Association, a trade group of the largest commercial banks, has appealed a court ruling that requires the government to reveal the names of banks that accepted emergency loans during the worst of the recent financial crisis.
The organization, which includes Bank of America (BAC: 11.31 ,+0.16 ,+1.43%), JPMorganChase (JPM: 37.26 ,+0.18 ,+0.49%), Citigroup (C: 4.18 ,-0.02 ,-0.48%) and Wells Fargo (WFC: 25.92 ,+0.17 ,+0.66%), among others, wants the Supreme Court to decide the case.
A judge ruled in August 2009 that the Federal Reserve has to release the information.
Media outlets, including Fox Business Network and Bloomberg News, had sued the Fed, which issued the emergency loans, seeking the information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.
The Fed on Tuesday declined to join the appeal.
The Clearing House said in its court filing that the Fed has never revealed the identities of borrowers from its discount window, the lending facility where banks get short-term funding and the source of the 2008 emergency loans.
Steven G. Mintz, an attorney representing Fox Business in its FOIA cases, said the American public has a right to know which banks borrowed taxpayers’ dollars from the Fed, and how much they borrowed.
Mintz questioned why the Fed is still refusing to release the information despite the fact it is no longer challenging the lower court’s ruling.
“I am absolutely furious that the Federal Reserve want the American public to believe they are in favor of transparency when they are still refusing to produce documents that they are no longer mounting a legal challenge against,” Mintz said.
“They are now letting the Clearing House Association -- the banks that they’re supposed to be regulating -- do the dirty work for them by continuing to hide information from the American public,” he added.
In late 2008, as the subprime mortgage crisis left many U.S. banks teetering on the brink of collapse, the government argued that releasing the names of banks that accepted emergency loans from the Fed’s discount window could potentially turn a bad situation worse.
According to that defense, depositors, fearing the loss of their life savings, might cause a run on institutions named as having accepted emergency loans.
The Clearing House said in its appeal, “Disclosure of this information threatens to harm the borrowing banks by allowing the public to observe their borrowing patterns during the recent financial crisis and draw inferences – whether justified or not – about their current financial conditions.”
In a statement, the Clearing House defended the government’s response to the financial crisis and said revealing the names of emergency borrowers could be harmful in future emergencies.
“Unless the ruling is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, businesses and individuals may decline to participate in these programs, possibly impairing the federal government’s ability to act effectively in times of crisis,” the organization said.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, a ruling isn’t expected until some time next year.
Mintz noted that Congress has already ordered that much of this information be released. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also known as the Dodd-Frank Bill, passed in July, requires that the Fed release information related to emergency loan programs.
“I think we have learned as a result of the financial meltdown that more information is better than less information, and secrecy in the financial markets is a form of economic poison,” said Mintz.
This is one of several FOIA cases Fox Business has initiated in the wake of the financial crisis in an effort to force government disclosure and account for billions of taxpayer dollars used to prop up troubled banks.
Earlier this month, President Obama repealed a controversial provision in the recent financial reform legislation that made it easier for the Securities and Exchange Commission to deny requests for information.
Repealed was a little-noticed measure, Section 9291, that said the SEC no longer had to comply with virtually all requests for information from the public, including those filed under FOIA.
The Fox Business Network first reported the provision and its potential impact in July after the SEC cited the new law in a FOIA action brought by the network.
After Fox Business reported on the law and it was widely covered by the media, many members of Congress admitted that they were unaware of its inclusion in the vast Dodd-Frank reform bill.
The SEC defended the provision, suggesting it would help the agency in its efforts to expand its surveillance and investigations by ensuring that information obtained from banks and other financial institutions remained confidential.
Critics of the measure said more transparency is needed rather than less.
Ummmm, your comment needs revised...
Man, you are not able to read, this stock IS NOT BEING DILUTED, YET!
This is a Tom Scozzafava stock... There definately doesn't need to be anyone bashing to take the pps down!
HBWO is under SEVAD... SEVAD is the parent company!! I think you have it wrong. You dilute the subs while transferring the assets to the parent company rather than diluting the parent company to have a successful sub!
Talking about the CEO character... Go look at the SEVAD board and check out the chart! That's what the CEO did to shareholders there...
Shorts? Like anyone gotta worry about Mr Dilution and the selling of shares...
Believe me, I've watched this crap for over 3 years and Tom definately has no problem with diluting his shareholders just so long as his wife can make it to her manicure appointments...
Just try to contact the guy yourself if you really believe different... And if you do actually get a hold of him, let him know you're a Seaway shareholder and that's sure to get him to hang up on ya!
and they're still being hunted for...
http://upstategoodoldboys.blogspot.com/2008/05/where-is-tom-scozzafava-and-his-sister.html
Story below...
Where is Tom Scozzafava (and his sister Dede?)
Over the last several years, I have been following the story of "local boy done good", Tom Scozzafava. For those of you who may not know, Tom is the young CEO of Seaway Valley Capital, the company that merged the Wisebuys and Hacketts
And... if you consider only shareholders owning xx amount of shares rather than 1 then it's perfectly possible to only have 126 shareholders as he reversed everyone else out and the rest weren't stupid enough to buy!
Well bbb, glad to have you back! That chart really shows how Tom's "intrinsic value" is created, doesn't it. I believe it was around the time that Tom was talking about creating "intrinsic value" that the stock started getting hammered by dilution.
The sad part is, this guy had so many people thinking he was going to be different from other CEO's that they would have stood behind some dilution. The problem was that some wasn't enough as TS owed KK for his gift as well and the gift KK would later give Tom...
This stock was meant to fail with the only winners being Tom Scozzafava & family and Kevin Kreisler & family..
The company's release didn't indicate that the company had bought back any stock, however, nor did it explain how or why the move was made. Multiple phone calls to Seaway Valley President and CEO Thomas W. Scozzafava went unanswered and unreturned over the past three weeks. Hmmm, who expected the CEO of a penny stock to ever call them back anyway?
Seaway Valley, founded in 2002, has been mired in trouble recently. In April, financiers claimed the company owed them $1 million, and they threatened to force Seaway Valley's sale if that debt wasn't paid. And last year, the company had outstanding tax liens totaling about $192,000 — an issue Mr. Scozzafava blamed on his former chief financial officer. Wasn't Scozzafava the Cheif Financial Officer?
So long as the CEO's are paying their SEC fees they seem to be looking the other way! They're only going after scammers that sell unreg'd shares rather than selling tens of billions of registered, then reverse splitting!
I love how JPMC says that
JPMC contends that the $4 billion are in fact capital contributions disguised as deposits, and thus ownership of the funds passed to JPMC upon it's purchase of WMB, FSB's parent, or that there is otherwise a bisis for the imposition of a constructive trust on the funds...
Better watch out, that money you have deposited in your checking account just may really be future mortgage payments designed as checking account deposits so JPMC will be taking it all out and forcing you to bounce checks! Why in the world has no one asked THJMW to rule on the $4 billion?
Ummm, since they are going "Dual Track" approach to this (according to the DS approved to go forward last week) they should also approve a shareholder meeting to be set 11/15 or later depending on examiner report...
Dual track doesn't mean one sided! Get these bums outta there
Don't forget about the FED buying tons of Bear Stearns/JPM bad mortgages at full price (maiden lane I, II, III).
You can look at how you wish... Republican/democrat/tea party! It doesn't matter, none are for the people as they are all just worried about lining their pockets! No one cares about the sacrifices of the little people as we are just a stepping stone toward their riches!
Exactly... Pretty much everyone else is being paid in full, yet Equity is going to get shafted
I have lost all faith in both our Govt as well as Legal System!
Is this going to turn into another KMart?
I see the whole problem... They are really worried about BOD being changed!
Look at dial in availability time... 9:50 am
Hmmm, see page 57
Objection
CDTSC additionally asserts that the Second Amended
Disclosure Statement must clarify the value of the BKK
Liabilities assumed by JPMC because these liabilities are
counted as consideration to the Debtors under the Global
Settlement Agreement
Response
To the extent that
CDTSC objects that additional disclosure is needed regarding
the rationale for excluding certain BKK-related liabilities from
those assumed by JPMC, the Debtors submit that any additional
disclosure regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’
positions on the matter and the costs and benefits of the
proposed resolution could undermine and adversely affect the
Debtors’ strategy (to the detriment of their estates) if the Global Settlement Agreement and Sixth Amended Plan are not
approved by the Court.
Another words "says Rosen"... JPMC isn't assuming any liabilities, but we don't want to tell anyone that. I have a nice high paying position open on JPM's legal team once this is all finished so we need to move it along!
To the moon... Or at least enough to get someone there!
Makes a lot more sense... I do not think the FDIC was an innocent bystander in the seizure! Banks were switching over to the OTS and the FDIC was losing control.
Kill 2 birds with one stone and nobody gets hurt but equity! Hmmm
I love how the bottom of those emails show they just dumped all their money into investment banks... Knowing there was going to be a buying of assets
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/jw-v-treasury-foiadocs-05172010.pdf
Talk about insider trading, is this person in JAIL?
The sad part is... Where does that money go? Does anything go to those defrauded?
NO...
$67.5 million FINE
The SEC isn't out to keep anyone from fraudulent activity... The SEC is all about catching those that already did it. Why? For the MONEY!
At the moment you will. Tom is "patiently waiting" to see if the pumpers out there can run the pps up before dumping. If not, he will do just like he did with HCKI which is dump anyway and reverse split it.
Apparently you do not realize the CEO involved in this. He has never shown any concern toward shareholders as they've been like a piggy bank
Everyone in this stock may want to learn what this board is
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=3017
Keep an eye on it! Looks like Tom's gonna start the dumpage soon enough
History of Tom's OTHER shells
HCKE 1:50 R/S 10/27/2009
ALRN 1:10,000 01/23/2009
ALCI 1:1000 12/03/2007
HVLN name change 09/24/2007
AWYB name change 11/10/2006
AWBV 1:5000 R/S 09/12/2006
AWBD 1:10 R/S 01/21/2005
AWHB 1:300 R/S 11/23/2004
DCGX 1:100 R/S 04/12/2004
DCGR 1:25 R/S 11/18/2002
DCIH 1:200 R/S 12/21/2001
DCGR 1:30 R/S 09/11/1998
Ooops, forgot SEVA had a 1:1000 R/S on 11/07/10 (recent)
SWVL 1:1000 R/S 11/05/2009
SWYV 1:1000 R/S 05/12/2009
SWVC 1:5 R/S 09/22/2008
GSCR Name change GS Carbon Corp 12/08/2006
DRVW 1:250 R/S DirectView, Inc. 12/07/2006
BPMD 1:100 R/S Boston Pacific Medical Inc 05/16/2003
I'm pretty sure that offer was ONLY for WMB, not for WMBfsb &/or any of the other WMI assets. This also doesn't consider all those "unsecured creditors" of WMB that were just "wiped out".
The offer didn't allow JPM to pick & choose what assets/liabilities it wanted. It gave JPM a market where there was no previous market for them! JPM gained a lot more than $4/share X 1.7 billion by this fiasco
There is no way FDIC/JPM could risk if there is wrongdoing. Is there an order there in which no one could acquire more than 5% of the OS? If JPM was buying up WamuQ, don't you think something like this would come out? If they are doing it, they're doing it secretly... Would be easy to sell some to kill strength, buy even more back. You don't think with unlimited pockets they could keep the price down while they do it?
If there is any wrong done by JPM/FDIC, they have to buy WMI out and end this. There is no other way. If they do not put this all under the rug, they open themselves up for lawsuits from everyone that has been harmed in any way. Pre-siezure holders that have since sold, every small business in which there's been a loss. $25 billion is enough to make it all go away! There are many people out there which have been harmed, but not by enough to spend years litigating & paying attorney fees. If there is proven harm done which caused this failure, it would then be a slam dunk case for these anyone that wanted to sue and the costs would drop tremendously. Do you realize how much this would cost JPM/FDIC in attorney fees, etc? $25 billion to make it all go away or $50 billion down the road and years worth of litigation.
Now... this is assuming even the slightest is true regarding the accusations of JPM/FDIC. If they really had done nothing wrong it may end up costing JPM 2-3 more billion and us common holders would be $0.00! I really don't think this is the case as there is too much of a coincidence between things that have happened and the way it turned out.
I do argree on less per share for settlement
I am looking at around 15 billion for commons which would put around $8/share and preferrers paid out at 50-70% of face. I think this will have to happen prior to examiner report coming out.
If there is wrongdoing proved against JPM/FDIC in the report then both open themselves up for a lot more lawsuits! Everyone that was owed any amount of money from wmi/wmb will be suing and if this is all covered up here wouldn't make the fight worth it for most!
Now, this is considering jpm had some hand in wmb failing. If that .0001% chance they didn't is put in the report, look for 00's in your accounts.
They way I came up with figures are
Bondermans preferred shares worth around 8 bil were traded for same amount of common OS.
Preferred shares are not yet held to maturity!