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.
BINGO, I think they will sell the assets to WMIH at the same time the merger is finalized. Just my guess...
Your theory would hold correct if WMI escrow was the farmer but its not, its the heifer that has the golden goose (trust) and WMIH is the farmer and that slaughters that heifer and takes the goose and all its eggs (buy out). Now 1-1 swap would be great but I don't think they want to share with the heifer because she is just a fat old girl that embarrasses them at parties...
Part of me thinks they will be worth something when the SH assets are valued and calculated; while the other part thinks they will always be worth $0.00. I guess we know when we know...
Anyone expect a buy out of escrow?
Do I sense a hint of sarcasm lol
As long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction it controls.
Not a chance
Looks like everyone is getting a peace of the pie except us...
Everyone has an opinion and to be honest I don't believe 90% of what is posted here because we all have been 90% wrong so far.
Hope ur right
So what do you implying that this means for escrow marker holders
I certainly can not find anything that says we are going to get paid. That link I posted of the wmilt press release was not promising and the tone if there is such a thing in the written word spewed "stop contacting us"...
Not grim for wmih but for escrow well because I can't see where the merger is going to help escrow, I hope I am wrong. I'm probably am missing something...
Yes I did but it just looks grimm and god I hope I am wrong...
Everything I have read tells me escrow is screwed and if any money is to be made its in wmih... Good luck all...
This may have already been post but here goes, my bad I was thinking April 16 2018 was when this came out: http://www.kccllc.net/documents/8817600/8817600170531000000000001.pdf
Hope it is over this year...
Maybe escrow will make it to...
So what you think Royal
Did you release.
I was more interested in the courts opinion on rule 546(e) concerning SH than the specifics of the case. At the end of the day we will have money in our pockets or we well not.
That is the way I see it. I ran across it while looking for other case law. Thought I would share...
Sorry LG but there is a difference between law and binding case law. Funny they are issuing an opinion on rules that they (the Supreme Court) adopted on April 24, 1973.
I agree...
Attorneys laugh at this kinda thing all the time. They don't draw up pleadings nor contract so the common everyday layperson can understand it...
I believe anyone who tried to file a lawsuit now would have a statute of limitation problem
Do we have any idea when, I am not as old as some here but god this has been a long ride.
So Royal where are the escrow holders currently IYO.
Your betting a dead horse, Jerry they are going to pick apart anything even when its clear, at least to you and I. I can tell you this if I got a response like that I would not have posted on here lol. Might have paraphrased it a little.
Was it lodas that said that would happen. Can't remember.
Yep I agree!
That is just udder hog wash!
I have been check about once a week and not hard to get caught up...
So True...
Welcome, I ran across it looking for something else, thought I would pass it along
The conclusion is as follows:
"For the reasons stated, we conclude that the relevant transfer for purposes of the §546(e) safe harbor is the same transfer that the trustee seeks to avoid pursuant to its substantive avoiding powers. Applying that understanding of the safe-harbor provision to this case yields a straightforward result. FTI, the trustee, sought to avoid the $16.5 million Valley View-to-Merit transfer. FTI did not seek to avoid the component transactions by which that overarching transfer was executed. As such, when determining whether the §546(e) safe harbor saves the transfer from avoidance liability, i.e., whether it was “made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution,” the Court must look to the overarching transfer from Valley View to Merit to evaluate whether it meets the safe-harbor criteria. Because the parties do not contend that either Valley View or Merit is a “financial institution” or other covered entity, the transfer falls outside of the §546(e) safe harbor. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is therefore affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Supreme Court Ruling today this may answer some questions on safe-harbor. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-784_gdhk.pdf
Yeah the only ones making money in this so far is the attorneys.