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.
AZ, like Lodas says, if she has no proof of Exhibit B, she may be exposing herself to Libel lawsuits from the hedgies...or worse yet, her life may be in jeopardy. There are large sums of money involved plus jail time. She better have something for her sake. I wish her the best of luck on Monday.
We'll see soon enough on Monday. I hope she has some proof to back up her claim. Wow, I would really love to see everyone's faces in the court if she produces the evidence for Exhibit B.
I hope she drops her evidence and just bend these mofos over and go to town on them!
Equitable disallowance plus penalty reparations or jail..actually, judge should first give them jail and only after they beg on their knees and write a statement of how sorry they are for screwing retail a thousand times, she should offer them penalty and equitable disallowance.
AZ, I hope her Exhibit B is more than just speculation. I dont think its just speculation. I think she may have some evidence. Because she will be making a lot of enemies with Exhibit B and she better have some leverage to fight back. She would need some sort of proof as "life insurance" for that kind of accusation. Do you remember all those JPM bankers that mysteriously committed suicide back years ago? I recall a few that mysteriously "jumped off" JPM buildings to their death.
RD, if Griffin's Exhibit B is true I want the judge to audit hedgies for the gains they made off low interest use of our assets all these years and make them pay back the gains to the estate plus penalty under the threat of jail time.
Griffin's Exhibit B could also be the reason for the endless delays all these years. The trustee is in cahoots with the hedgies to maximize their time in free use of our assets as a low interest loan.
I hope the judge nails Kustorus for this if this is true. No negotiations but jail time.
Wow! It sounds to me like Griffin may have some proof for her Exhibit B claim. If Exhibit B is provable, I think the judge may be able to strip proportionate recoveries from the hedgies.
Exactly, why is BR monitoring message boards when there is "nothing for equity"? And why is the judge approving his fee for monitoring the message boards? Question that needa to be addressed on the 22nd. I wonder if this topic can be brought up by Alice Griffin... Maybe someone should email this point to her attention.
Brian Rosen even referred to the message boards in his response to Griffin objection. He seems obsessed with the message board. Why is he spying on us if there is "nothing for equity"???
Someone you file an objection to why the LT is paying Brian Rosen to monitor the message boards. Someone should ask the judge to disclose why BR is getting paid to monitor the message boards...how does spying on the equity holders serve the liquidation process when he said there is nothing left for us. Why spy on us?
Rosen is liable if we find out JPM also took all the ABS loan assets that we thought were in bankruptcy remote assets. Because as the dedebtor representative he should have sued FDIC/JPM for that in 2008 if that turns out to be the case.
He will be liable because equity was not in a position to go after those bankruptcy remote assets in 2008. Remember how many times the judge told Nelson to shut up when he tried to bring up those assets? Remember the examiner telling the judge "they can go after the retained assets later. they will be there.."?
So Rosen cannot simply claim "its not my fault, equity should have sued for those (bankruptcy remote ABS loan assets) back in2008". We couldnt have. Nelson tried. Rosen represented the debtor. If we find out at the end of this, all those assets were gifted to JPM without Rosen challenging it in 2008, then we got ourselves a big lawsuit against Rosen and his firm.
AZ, is it possible for bankruptcy remote assets to return to escrow without using WMILT as a pass through entity? What mechanism makes it possible?
From today's responses, 2 things are apparent:
1) Remote bankruptcy assets cannot pass through WMILT to escrow or Rosen's statement will get him in legal trouble. So if any assets return from remote bankruptcy trusts, there needs to be a mechanism that avoids the LT as pass through. Any idea on what that mechanism might be?
2) There is definitely remote bankruptcy assets...at least $10B. Otherwise why would the underwriters file the joinder and ask for judge's approval of the 2013 deal for 1% of class 19 stake?
Yup, all of our questions will be answered if Rosen comes up with the valuation justification for the 1% class 19 award to the underwriters for their $72mil claim.
RD, hopefully escrow gets our first payment by the court date (22nd) or some sort of admission by Brian Rosen of remote bankruptcy assets in his response on the 12th. If neither happens, I think we should organize the shareholders to picket the court room. I'm afraid we may never get another chance to directly communicate to the judge of our impairment after the 22nd.
So if nothing happens by the 22nd with regards to escrow we should get as many shareholders as we can to pack the court. Let Judge Mary "see us". Maybe she will throw us a bone.
Well, that doesnt mean you cannot crash the court. Just show up and speak out of turn. Let the judge know that the shareholders are still here. Remember, there was a gentleman on this board that showed up at the DB probate hearing in california in 2017. He got a chance to bring up the issue of escrow payment in front of the judge. The judge mentioned "mom and pop" investors in court in response.
Anyway, I think the mere presence of shareholders will bring attention to the judge that we are still here and we have not forgotten our remote bankruptcy assets. Where are the Wamu loan interests sitting. Wamu cannot have had such complete morons for corporate attorneys that they did not isoate its loan interests under the hilding company.
As I understand it, isnt anyone allow to attend the court session? Is it not open to public? The judge may not give us a response to the bankruptcy remote assets but she will at least have to address the question on court record.
Is there anyone living in the east coast that can attend?
Anyone planning to show up in court on the 22nd? It may be a good time to ask the judge directly about addressing remote bankruptcy assets if Bopfan's case does not go well..
Since, all creditors have been addressed, it will seem like a good time to directly ask the judge about disclosure...let her know about our pain and suffering from the lack of disclosure through the last 11 years.
To be fair, AZ never fabricated any stories about payout. He gave the best speculation of payout for end of March based on reasonable circumstantial evidence.
Nobody here knows 100%. We are all feeling the pain of waiting. Lets try to be patient and remain hopeful. One way or another this is going to end soon. Brian Rosen even stated that he would end the bankruptcy late this year or early next.
Lets stay hopeful until we get the news..good or bad.
Well, if they short this into bankruptcy, they will also loose. Which big boy will take the loot in the bankruptcy? Too many players to come to an agreement to split the spoils of Coop in bankruptcy.
It is very unlikely that they will short this into bankruptcy.
But I have decided I will bet half my net worth riding this down. I will time average my purchase from now until end of May.
Let them short this into bankruptcy. I challenge them.
The only sensible action we can all do is buy more Coop shares. It is obvious that the big boys want retail out of the last 12% of float and they are shaking the tree really hard.
Make lemonade out of lemons.
Keep buying into the drop. Time average your Coop shares. What are they going to do? Short this into bankruptcy?
I dont care anymore. If they want my Coop shares they'll have to short this into bankruptcy. I'll just keep buying more shares as they drop this.
I can endure the pain longer than they can give it.
I personally think we will know by May 1st but I will no longer hold my breath for it. I have been readying my patience for end of 2020. The big boys will suffer the same pain as me if that happens...so at least I'll be in good company.
Its amazing how many intelligent posters have stuck to this board and the other private board for so many years. Even if you want to discount Bopfan as a second rate attorney, the fact that a trained securities attorney stuck around this long following a bankruptcy that supposedly shows "nothing for equity" is telling something. People like AZ, who is obviously a sofisticated investor, posting for this long is telling something.
Has anyone ever seen a message board for any stock, let alone a bankrupt stock, attract this many dedicated and intelligent posters?...going on 11 years!?!
Where there is smoke...there is fire.
Keep the faith. Brian Rosen would not have needlessly dragged out the employee claims this long if there is nothing left after the last crumbs in the LT. He could have closed shop back in 2015/2016 if there was nothing left in remote bankruptcy trusts.
Wamu could not have been the only major bank holding corporation with utterly stupid corporate lawyers that left all the ABS/loan interests under WMB, where they could be confiscated by FDIC.
There are a whole bunch of smart hedgies that jumped in after the bank takeover...and what? they settled and released for nothing sitting in class 19 and 22? they wouldnt have released with just faith like us retail. They had solid evidence of remote bankruptcy assets before signing the releases. Otherwise, they could have kept insisting on the estate suing FDIC for illegal taking.
Lastly, Bonderman led $7.5B bank recapitalization merely months before WMB takeover. They knew the bank could potentially be taken down by Ots/Fdic when they made that investment in the summer of 2008. They also must have 100% proof that their preferred class position is protected by assets in case of bank failure. They know what ABS interests sits in remote bankruptcy trusts.
I myself find it very difficult to keep the faith after all these years...and everytime I come to the edge of loosing faith, I remind myself with the facts above. If I loose, there are also a bunch of smart and powerful parties loosing with me...and those smart and powerful parties are still around. invested in this. why else are they still holding Coop?
So keep the faith. at least until end of 2020. I doubt the judge will allow Brian Rosen to extend beyond 2020 with "supposedly nothing left after the $30+M currently showing in the LT".
Thank you Split. Its still very strange that a dividend will come through Coop without an 8k announcement. Thats why I was wondering if it is not a much smaller per share distribution tied to escrow markers. But since you are saying that account only had Coop shares..could it be you were looking at a phantom gain of $0.44/share due to irregular pre-market trading quote?
I dont think coop board can justify paying almost 3% of market cap to the ceo for 1 year service without them expecting significant market cap appreciation shortly.
Could it have been for some other stock that he owned? Again, if it is for Coop, I would think we would see some announcement. Do you know what the distribution per marker would it be if it was for his escrow?
Bbanbob, isnt it odd that Coop has not issued a PR for the dividend payment? You have verified that the payment is per Coop share and not escrow markers correct?
Split, so the 44cents is for per Coop share and not escrow marker?
AZ, according to the pass through theory then we should receive a payment in our account by this Friday correct? Monday would be next quarter.
HLCE!
BBANBOB, I just dont see how Rosen can justify the 1% class 19 award to the underwriters without putting a valuation on the remote bankruptcy assets. How did he arrive at 1%? Why not 0.1%? He needed to backup his 1% award number. Now the only excuse I can think of him using it in court without acknowledging remote bankruptcy assets is as follow:
"Your honor, I dont know what is in remote bankruptcy so I awarded 1% to the underwriters such that if class 19 gets paid face value, they will simply get 100% of what is owed to them. Remember, 75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets...and we legally do not know what is in remote bankruptcy assets. I simply awarded underwriters, the max possible return they can receive under class 19 - which is about 100% of whats owed to them if class 19 eventually gets face value from remote bankruptcy assets"
The above is the only defense I can think of that Rosen can give to the judge without acknowledging remote bankruptcy assets.
LG, I think Bopfans objection is a checkmate move for disclosure. There is only one justifiable excuse for Rosen with 1% class 19 award to underwriters:
75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets...class 19 face value plus 1.95% fjr will simply pay back underwriters their claim in full plus interest.
However, if 75/25 applies to remote bankruptcy assets, then Bopfans checkmate move may back fire on us as Rosen will try to delay as much as possible to avoid having to justify the award to the judge.
Thanks SplitT. I dont think it will go to litigation either....Unless 75/25 applies to bankruptcy remote assets. Then, the LT may have a hard time explaining the 1% class 19 award to underwriters. Then this could potentially drag out.
I personally think AZ is right. LT does not control distribution schedule of remote bankruptcy assets. Lets hope underwriters will push the powers to be to distribute before April 12th. As they say, possession is 99% of winning any potential suit.
I have a funny feeling we will see distribution before the court date on the 12th. The distribution will show that 75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets. LT can then go before the judge and claim that 1% stake in class 19 did not provide undue enrichment for underwriters....
Otherwise, someone has got some explaining to do...how was the 1% stake justified in 2013
Lets not fight over Bopfans objection. I dont think her filing will hurt us.
1) If AZ is correct, we will see an escrow distribution early April regardless of Bopfan's court date on the 12th.
2) If AZ is wrong, Bopfans appearance on the 12th will answer 2 questions:
a) Are there any significant ABS assets sitting in remote bankruptcy trusts...otherwise who cares...no one is getting paid including the underwriters.
b) If there are plenty of assets in remote bankruptcy trusts, then the LT better explain their justification for awarding about 1% class 19 stake to the underwriters. this will finally answer the 75/25 to the end question. if 75/25 does not apply to bankruptcy remote assets, then the LT can simply say, 1% of face value return to class 19 simply pays back underwriters in full -- no undue enrichment. if 75/25 applies to remote bankruptcy assets, then Bopfans objection would expose the corruption of BR in court..because underwriters return would be uncapped.
So the way I see it. Bopfan's objection is a net positive at this time.
AZ, that is still about $39B with 4% servicing fee.
Now the tax question...Will the earnings be taxed at the corporate rate and then passed onto us as qualified dividend? or is this the pass through amount and we will be taxed at ordinary income rate? Do you know?
AZ, do you know if the returns will come as qualified dividend that qualifies for capital gain tax or ordinary income?
AZ, this is the first time I've seen you post estimate of amount and timing. Wow! I'm excited. Thanks for your show of confidence. We really must be close to seeing distribution.
So according to your estimate...
$40.87B = AZ estimate
I look forward to seeing your estimate as minimum. I personally think there's a good chance we'll see a little over $50B
The flip side of that argument is maybe 75/25 to the end is not valid and its why they were awarded about 1% of class 19 and none of 22. If they end up receiving a lot more than what they are owed under class 22, then the LT will be liable to explain why they awarded them that much in 2013 when they were likely aware of how much money will be returning to escrow.
AZ, Bopfan's objection only makes sense if 75/25 applied to remote bankruptcy assets. Otherwise, the underwriter's 1% stake in class 19 should cap them out at about what they are owed.
So dont you think the LT can quickly strike down her objection by filing a clarification on whether 75/25 applied to any assets outside of LT control?
Crap! Do you see JPM listed on her page as repressentative client? Bopfan is a JPM mole???
mad, take a look at the previous poster's link that I was replying to. Apparently there has been a meeting today with Judge Walrath and Hochberg regarding Washington Mutual..Hmmm...
So...
1) We had an odd downgrade on Coop 2 days ago. and another one today. Price drops 20% with less than 5% of shares traded.
2) We find out on Pacer that the last 3 Employee Cases that were oddly held open by the LT, after PIERS payoff last month, just happen to close today.
3)We then also find out that Hochberg mysteriously shows up in court today.. without any pre announcement on the court calender. I thought EC cases were closed. Why does he need to show up in court?
4) We know that Coop is suppose to buy some huge asset by the end of 1st quater. Still no news. See LG posts. We have 1 week left.
5) We know from AZ that the ABS trusts distributes monthly on the 25th. Monday
6) We also know from AZ that escrow can potentially receive money from the remote bankruptcy trusts, without any LT involvement, and without any preannouncement. This has happened before for class 21
So put 2+2+2.... together and :)
=HHHHHLCE
WOW!
Judge: "Is that everything?"
Hochberg: "Yes your honor, thats everything transferring to escrow via DTC on Monday"
Judge: "Thank you for playing along. You have neen a wonderful actor"
HHHHLCE