Lovin' it !
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.
There are plenty of verifiable links to support that and plenty of bk cases in which old common shares were cancelled and the companies retained their NOLs.
The bk of WMI is no different than any other bk case in that regard even though many feel that the WMI bk is "different" or "special".
It is a FACT that WMI can indeed cancel common shares and still retain their NOL.
There is a common misconception and a falsehood that gets tossed around that companies somehow lose their NOLs if they issue new shares, but that is 100% incorrect.
The "preferred securities" "issue" has been a no-brainer all along imo (and has been in black-and-white the whole time), which is enough ,in and of itself, to prevent any turnover of "the deposit", but WMI is also facing the more-than-real possibility of not getting "their" tax refunds in their entirety. It is only a matter of time before the games WMI played/is playing catches up with them which will ultimately result in an estate that is not worth as much as many hoped.
Also, the "great legal team" of WMI could have made a lot more progress over the last 13 months, and not making as much progress as possible will ultimately add to the end-result of shattered dreams for many.
"In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, WMI claimed that JPMorgan has refused to turn over billions of dollars in deposit accounts at the WaMu banks that are part of its bankruptcy estate and needed to pay creditors."
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_washington_mutual_bankruptcy.html
A copy of the lawsuit is easily accesible.
Also, I firmly believe that when all is said and done, from a shareholder perspective, WAMU's "great legal team" will have ultimately gotten played like a fiddle.
Anyone who thinks that JPM and the FDIC are battling against each other are dead wrong imo.
They both know, and knew, exactly what they're doing.
I am looking forward to arguing with the lawyers on the board after they comment.
Thanks for posting the doc NASCOW !
WMI will NEVER get their hands on that $4 billion as there are too many valid claims against the estate that will outweigh the value of the deposit (if Walrath ever rules that it indeed rules that the money belongs to WMI) which will prevent the actual turnover of the money. You will find this out sooner than later. In addition, the DC court has jurisdiction over certain items, not just valuation of the bank's assets, and you will find this out sooner than later as well.
Also, it doesn't matter that the OTS said that WMB was well-capitalized at the time of the seizure as they had the authority to seize them, and simply by referring to the deposit outflows and by saying that they were in an unsafe and unsound condition and unlikely to be able to meet their obligations is all the justification they needed.
Sorry.
Sidenote:
JPM will not have to turn over any money to Lehman either, even though many people feel that they wrongfully with-held their money as well.
I actually think that JPM will end up paying more for the bank, but I also feel that that money will go to the bank's creditors. Judge Collyer will ultimately end up valuing the bank at more than $1.9 billion, but the WMI shareholders won't see 1 red cent of that money because since the bank went into receivership, the bank was no longer owned by WMI (the primary shareholder (not creditor) of WMB).
That's a good point about them not selling the bad loans, and WMI was too busy originating those bad loans and moving money around to take the time to actually package them and sell them.
They really shot themselves in the face by not selling themselves when they had the chance.
Correction:
WMI can cancel the common shares and still retain their NOLs, and that is a FACT.
"the $4 billion dollars has "NOTHING" i mean "NOTHING" to do about WAMU getting out of BK"
That's not what WMI's attorneys have stated.
Also, in response to this post:
Posted by: cents2ks Date: Monday, November 09, 2009 5:33:39 PM
In reply to: JohnnyWinter who wrote msg# 119347 Post # of 119352
Do you think they would exit BK, and wipe us clean, with all the litigation still pending?
If they did this and then later prevailed in court winning substantial damages...
...Do you NOT think the shareholders would have a MASSIVE tort against WMI for hanging them out to dry before the litigation was final?
NO WAY! Weil knows this would be suicide for WMI and HIMSELF.
It is more than possible that IF WMI prevails in their pie-in-the-sky lawsuits that the pre-seizure shareholders would be the ones that would possibly have claims to recovered monies.
In response to the following post:
Posted by: diamondguru-one Date: Monday, November 09, 2009 5:36:35 PM
In reply to: JohnnyWinter who wrote msg# 119352 Post # of 119353
lol...you dont say ???
I do indeed say, and so have the attorneys.
Actually, receiving summary judgement on the $4 billion very well could bring WMI out of bankruptcy, but it wouldn't be the way shareholders would like them to come out of bankruptcy. If they revalue their assets in such a way that makes As>Ls and the creditors approve a plan, then it very well could be game over for the shareholders.
"The deposit" is already included in WMI's assets.
Look at the balance sheet section of the MOR and you will that more than just the cash and bank accounts of WMI and WMIIC are listed.
Unrestricted cash + equiv
Restricted cash + equiv
Investment securities
Accrued interest rec.
A/R
Income tax rec.
prepaid exp
cash surrender of boli/coli
funded pension
other investments
investments in subs
notes rec -intercompany
fixed assets
other assets
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091029000000000012.pdf
"The MOR shows only the cash and bank accounts of WMI and WMI Investments."
First of all, there is absolutely no proof that Weil does not plan on cancelling the shares as some suggest.
Second of all, the assets do not keep rising.
If you look at the balance sheet on the most recent MOR (page 7 of the following PDF), it is clear that the total assets have actually declined since 9/26/08
WMI assets 9/26/08 = 7,701,133,028
WMMI assets 9/30/09 = 6,932,908,747
Total decline in WMI assets = 768,224,281
WMIIC assets 9/26/08 = 977,488,380
WMIIC assets 9/30/09 = 903,401,016
Total decline in WMIIC assets = 74,087,364
Total decline in WMI + WMIIC assets = 842,311,645
The total liabilities have increased, but not by much.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091029000000000012.pdf
JPM and the FDIC know exactly what they are doing.
Well, there are still certain people that feel that they will be multi-millionaires "when" JPM buys their holding company, and apparently these same people get pleasure in trying to dig up dirt on JPM while in the meantime making false claims.
Any reasonable person can tell the difference between truth and fact, and any reasonable person knows that JPM will not be buying that holding company ever.
LOL !
It sure does, and everybody knows that the FDIC sold the bank for less than reasonable value. The bad part for WMI shareholders is that when more is paid for the bank, the creditors of the bank will be made whole before the holding company even sees a penny as the primary shareholder of the bank.
As far as fraudulently transferring assets that belonged to the holding company and not the bank, WMI doesn't really have a case as far as that goes. Almost all of the value was under the bank.
FYI- If you look at how long that case took to settle along with who ended up paying for the legal fees, one could reasonably argue that it definitely wasn't worth it, and by the way, your response does nothing to dispute the fact that there are valid claims against WMI that will indeed prevent the turnover of "the deposit" money if THJW ever rules on it.
That's definitely the way they operate, but they indeed have valid claims against WMI, and one claim that will be almost impossible for them to get around is that of the "Preferred Securities" which were part of WMB's capital and capital ratios. That's enough right there to prevent WMI from getting their hands on the money.
It means that they have other claims against WMI that could be used to prevent the money from being turned over.
Now why did you have to go and point out little details like FACTS?
"In addition to the ownership of the funds, the bankruptcy court must also determine if claims by JPMorgan and the FDIC against Washington Mutual exceed the value of the disputed deposits."
What do you think about that?
hahaha Yeah. There's no better way to know exactly what's going on inside a company than by being on the outside of it.
That's clearly the way to get all of the inside information.
"Bonderman is front and center in the whole thing"
He is so front and center that he left the Board of Directors.
WAMPQ
I am not holding any WAMPQ and I'm not buying any WAMPQ, but I'd like to share a suggestion with the board.
If multiple holders of WAMPQ hire an attorney to represent them in this case, and if each attorney filed a request to be heard on behalf of their client who is a holder of the 7.75% Convertible Preferred Securities- WAMPQ, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would be a more-than-favorable pps reaction to multiple filings by attornies representing clients who hold this security.
If you have a large amount of money invested in WAMPQ, imo, it would be well worth the cost of an attorney to make such a filing.
Consider this post a gift.
Here is a little wamuq what-if analysis regarding the #s as they relate to WMI commons.
$8 billion in As and $8 billion in Ls = commons are toast
$9 billion in As and $8 billion in Ls= common are toast
$10 billion in As and $8 billion in Ls= commons are toast
$11 billion in As and $8 billion in Ls= commons are toast
WMI preferreds have a little better chance.
Deal with it!
I actually agree, but don't be afraid to pull the trigger when you can lock in monster profits.
Just don't get too emotional about your investments as this is a very good play surrounded by a lot of drama, but if you never pull the trigger, you will simply see unrealized gains stay unrealized.
A settlement could happen "anytime" like many here claim, but Johnny Knoxville could also be elected the next President.
I pray the real crooks get what they deserve and hope they will pay one day, but I do not feel that will happen in this life.
If you are really waiting for JVDT to hit .75, then you are going to be holding your shares for a very, very long time.
Crunch the numbers and let me know how much you think JVDT is really worth.
WMI no longer owns what used to be referred to as WaMu. WMI no longer owns "WaMu"(aka the bank), and the reality is that there isn't much value left in what many, including reporters, still refer to as WAMU. Many claim that "the LAW is the LAW" and "the LAW" is on "WAMU's" side, but I have to respectfully disagree. Bear actually got bought out, but WMI didn't. Their bank got seized, they no longer own the bank, the creditors of the bank (which WMI is one of, but only a small one (they are a creditor that holds approx. .7 billion in debt) will be the ones paid if the purchase price of the bank is ever adjusted, but to expect the same result as Bear simply isn't realistic.
"Then they call all rot in jail togather and talk about all the money the used to have."
I share the same sentiments and agree with most of your overall perspective, but unfortunately Paulson, Bernanke, Dimon, Bair, and the other wrong-doers will never see the inside of a prison cell. Why? Because it just doesn't work like that.
It will be interesting to see how Judge Sleet responds to JPM's appeal, if in fact he does respond.
So if "the deposit" was/is part of the bank, does that mean that THJC in DC has jurisdiction? There definitely hasn't been full discovery related to "the deposit", even though some like to think that testimony of Doreen Logan is good enough to "prove" that "the deposit" is WMI's. It's been over 1 year and there hasn't even been true discovery related to "the deposit" imo. "The deposit" is/was part of the bank, but it could also be part of the estate.
The receivership came first, the filing for bankruptcy came second.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
I know at first glance the FDIC's attorney's might seem like complete idiots, but they have been down this road before, and I wouldn't be surprised by anything at this point. All sides are trying to play all sides, and I personally am loving every minute of it.
As far as the bank bondholders, all I can say is although many people feel that the WMB bonds are "toast", there has been more money pouring into the "toast" than there has been into WMI equities. I really don't see the bank creditors being wiped out when all is said and done. The bank creditors are in a prime position imo, and all they have to do is keep waiting.
For the record, I used to be VERY POSITIVE with regards to a favorable outcome for WMI equity until I really started digging.
"Collyer, however, also said there were legal issues that only her court had jurisdiction to consider."
What do you think about that?
JPMorgan’s Dimon Hires His Father for Bear Stearns Brokerage
"Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- If Jamie Dimon ever needs fatherly advice, he can turn to his newest employee: Dad.
Theodore “Ted” Dimon, the 78-year-old father of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s chief executive officer, quit Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit yesterday to join his son’s firm, according to a person familiar with the matter. JPMorgan spokesman Darin Oduyoye confirmed the decision and said the unit had added more than 70 brokers this year.
The elder Dimon and his five-member broker team will join Bear Stearns Private Client Services, a unit acquired by his son in the March 2008 takeover of the failed investment bank. He will report to Michael Lee, head of the unit’s New York office.
Jamie Dimon said Oct. 27 that his New York-based bank plans to have as many as 1,000 of the “top, top, top” brokers. The unit had 324 brokers at the end of 2008, company documents show.
“I love the retail broker business because my dad is a broker and my grandfather was a broker and it was the first job I ever had,” Jamie Dimon, 53, said at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association meeting Oct. 27. “So if you are really, really good, call JPMorgan. We’d be happy to hire you.”
The elder Dimon spent more than three decades as a broker for companies once run by Sanford “Sandy” Weill before moving to Merrill Lynch in August 2006, according to a report from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. He stayed at Citigroup for eight years after his son was fired by Weill in 1998.
Jamie Meets ‘Sandy’
Ted Dimon and Weill became friends in 1974 after Weill brokered a deal forming Shearson Hayden Stone, the fifth-largest brokerage at the time, according to Monica Langley’s book, “Tearing Down the Walls.” Ted Dimon later introduced Jamie to Weill. The two formed a partnership and built Citigroup Inc.
Weill fired Jamie Dimon after clashing with his protégé. Jamie Dimon went on to become CEO of Chicago-based Bank One Corp. and brokered its sale to JPMorgan in 2004. He took over as JPMorgan’s CEO at the end of 2005.
Jamie Dimon’s father joins a unit that has earned $307 million in revenue for the year through Sept. 30, a company report shows. Barry Sommers runs the unit, which remains a separate division from JPMorgan’s private bank, whose clients are typically worth more than $25 million.
Bear Stearns gave JPMorgan entrée into retail brokerage, a business dominated by rivals Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, the world’s largest retail brokerage.
Morgan Stanley and Citigroup’s Smith Barney unit agreed in January to form a joint venture, creating a retail brokerage with more than 18,000 brokers and $1.5 trillion in assets. The firm said Oct. 22 it plans to add 150 advisers in the U.S. and 200 overseas to serve “ultra-high-net-worth” clients in the next three to five years. The brokerage has about 500 advisers who work with clients with a minimum net worth of $20 million.
To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Hester in New York at ehester@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 7, 2009 00:00 EST"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6n5JkAyz3c0&pos=5
Who do you think has jurisdiction regarding what is/was an asset/liability of the bank?
I know Walrath has juridiction over determining what is/was an asset of the estate, but imo, things could, and will, get even more controversial.
"No, WMI should have been put on the no short list like the other big banking institutions. WMI should have had the SEC enforce their shorting/naked shorting. TO me it is all becoming a vision of one large collusional effect between the branches of our govt agencies to take down WMI for the benefit of JPM"
I certainly can't disagree with you, but WMI was not put on the no-short list, the SEC did not enforce their shorting/naked shorting regulations (which leads into another negative in that if there really were 1 billion naked shorts, then there are people who are holding 1 billion phantom shares), and I have no doubt that there was one large collusional effect between the branches of govt agencies to take down WMI for the benefit of JPM. The worst part about all of it , is that it is not only near impossible to prove, but in order for the collusion to even be close to proven(which still wouldn't be good enough), it would literally take ages and ages to attempt to do so, and I just don't see Paulson or anybody else having to seriously justify their actions or prove their innocence. Just look at Bernanke and the boys shoving MER down BAC's throat. Bernanke got in front of Congress (like that will ever amount to anything) and "calmly" told them that he did not threaten Lewis when Lewis said he was thinking about invoking the MAC.
Add to that, WMI executives, who are currently being investigated and are also defendants in lawsuits that are moving forward as we speak, and I just don't see WMI getting any real sympathy from anybody.
Yes, that is so, and it is a matter of FACT. The fund you referenced is not owned by, never was owned by, and is not related to Washington Mutual Inc. or WMIIC .
Washington Mutual Investors Fund Inc
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=104865
Nice try!
Also, for the record, there is a 4th Motion to extend the exclusive periods filed by WMI that references dates in January 2010 and March 2010.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229091020000000000010.pdf
Logged out, then I saw your post, and had to log back in.
Wshington Mutual Investors Fund Inc. is not related to Washington Mutual Inc.
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=104865
If you don't believe me, you can call them and ask.
You have the wrong Washington Mutual . Same name, not related to Washington Mutual Inc.
"Treasury's Paulson warned WaMu CEO to sell before it failed
Two months before Washington Mutual failed, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned then-CEO Kerry Killinger that he ought to sell the Seattle-based thrift before it deteriorated further.
By Seattle Times business staff
Rami Grunbaum, deputy business editor, and Seattle Times Business staff
Two months before Washington Mutual failed, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned then-CEO Kerry Killinger that he ought to sell the Seattle-based thrift before it deteriorated further.
"Paulson said, 'You should have sold to JPMorgan Chase in the spring, and you should do so now. Things could get a lot more difficult for you,' " said one of several current and former high-ranking WaMu executives familiar with details of the call.
Paulson's July comment, which has not been previously reported, caught Killinger and his top brass off-guard, executives said. Bank officials had recently raised $7.2 billion in capital from investors led by private-equity fund TPG, and they thought that was enough money to weather the worsening mortgage crisis.
Killinger declined to comment for this article, and WaMu executives close to him spoke only on condition of anonymity. A Treasury spokeswoman said it does not comment on Paulson's private conversations.
Last spring, JPMorgan offered up to $8 a share for WaMu, with the final price depending on how its loans performed. Instead, WaMu sold a partial stake to TPG. When WaMu was seized by federal regulators Sept. 25, most of its banking operations were sold to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion — and the company's stock was rendered worthless.
Killinger called Paulson in July to ask that the Treasury secretary use his influence with the Securities and Exchange Commission to add WaMu to a list of 19 financial institutions that were temporarily protected from a form of trading called "naked short selling" that can drive share prices artificially low.
Paulson refused to help Killinger get WaMu on the list.
WaMu did get on a subsequent list: In mid-September, panic in the stock market prompted the SEC to ban all short selling on 799 financial-institution stocks.
That ban came too late for the Seattle thrift, which failed the next week after a run on the bank that was precipitated by credit-rating agencies reducing WaMu's debt to junk-bond status. Its declining ratings were due partly to its falling stock price, which had been harmed by short selling.
The WaMu executives did not accuse Paulson of pushing WaMu to fail. Although the thrift's primary regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision is a bureau of the Treasury, the head of the OTS reports to the president rather than to Paulson."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008368332_sundaybuzz090.html
imo, it's just like Bernanke's "threats" against BAC .
1st CC, p114: Capital contributions: avoidance and recovery, ~$6.5B, fraudulent transfer
2nd CC, p115: Capital contributions: avoidance and recovery, ~$6.5B
WMI will not get this money back unless it is proven they were insolvent. If they were insolvent, the WMI OWES BILLIONS to WMB because of dividends paid to WMI by WMB when they were insolvent, if they indeed were insolvent per THE LAW.
3rd CC, p116: Trust securities: ~$4B, avoidance and recovery
4th CC, p117: Trust securities: ~$4B, avoidance and recovery
5th CC, p118: Trust securities: ~$4B, avoidance and recovery
6th CC, p119: Trust securities: ~$4B, avoidance and recovery
7th CC, p120: Trust securities: ~$4B, declaratory judgment that securities are property of Estate
The value of the trust preferred securities does not belong to WMI. The real fight over the TPS is between the FDIC and JPM. Per SEC filings the TPS were included as part of the bank's capital and were included in their capital ratios. I suggest you check the letters/documentation between WMI and the OTS regarding the TPS.
13th CC, p126: Turnover of intercompany amounts due
The intercompany amounts due are tiny and I suggest you examine court filings and other statements by WMI as to how much these amounts are.
**15th CC, p126: Trademark infringement
**16th CC, p128: Trademark infringement (common law)
**17th CC, p128: Patent infringement
**18th CC, p130: Federal copyright infringement
WMI will not receive any money for the trademark/patent/and/or copyright infringement. Use of those things were necessary in order to provide as smooth a transition as possible for former WaMu customers and although WMI feels that their receivership is somehow special or different than other cases like IndyMac and others regarding use of names, etc. is laughable.
The rest of it is just pie-in-the-sky attempts and and all such attempts are perfect examples of what lawyers do best.
Thanks, and have a nice day!
That should put to rest the rumors and unfounded theories that TPG held shares of WMB.
Thanks!