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, I understand that this question was brought up by Judge Walrath before POR7. I also agree with you that 75/25 is limited to whats left in the LT (latest QSR).
I guess my question to you is what percentage of the returning remote bankruptcy assets are going directly to Coop vs. escrow markers? This speculation by the judge prior to POR6 made it sound like returning assets will all go to "reorginized debtor"...now Coop.
Does escrow markers even matter? Would the assets just go to old WMI shareholders as of the share cancellation date via DTC?
That is correct Jerry in that WMIH didnt need to merge with COOP if they are directly getting back the $10B but maybe this is how the hedgies screwed us retail. They diluted us with COOP merger while they protected themselves by having KKR buy back the merged entity ($600M).. Maybe they have a backdoor deal with KKR.
AZ, it still sounded like she was referring to everything from Washington Mutual Capital Trust returning to the reorginized debtor (now COOP) and she was trying to justify how to split the shares of the reorginized debtor (75/25) so that creditors dont get more than what they are due... Hence 75% to class 19 and 21 based on $10B valuation..
So does that mean COOP is getting everything left over from Washington Mutual Capital Trust?
AZ, doesnt Judge Walrath statement about the $10B imply that the returning trust assets may bypass escrow holders and go to reorganized debtor (now COOP) directly?
Big money did not agree to POR7 hoping for future LIBOR litigation win. That seems very unlikely.
Facts:
1) We know for a fact that the securitization mechanism of loans into SPVs by WMB would not have allowed it to hold retained interests in the securities under WMB. They would have to be under WMI or its subsidiaries.
2) We also know for a fact that JPM and FDIC stated that they only bought WMB assets.
Unknown:
1) Can LT legally deny off book assets the way they did last Thursday? Are they using some clever legal jargon? It seems really unlikely that they can back off their "no assets" denials once remote bankruptcy assets show up.
2) Can the remote bankruptcy return to the estate without passing through WMILT? That also seems unlikely. If it does then will escrow markers still matter? Wouldnt the returning assets go to all shareholders on record via DTC as of the share cancellation date in Feb 2012?
3) Is it possible the assets simply return to COOP? Also very unlikely with all the dilution the hedgies allowed with WMIH/COOP merger. But I wont rule that F you possibility. May be the hedgies didnt get diluted with their back door holding through KKR stake.
With the denial last Thursday by the LT, I think it is apparent that big money is planning to screw retail. How exactly, I do not know yet but I think we need to figure it out to head it off.
I think we need an email campaign to get the LT to state the following.
"Under penalty of perjury, there will never be any assets, or monetary gains, or beneficial interest in any remote bankruptcy entities or assets that are attributable to class 19, 21, and/or 22 other than what is stated in the most recent QSR, the Disputed Equity Escrow, and potential gains from FDIC LIBOR lawsuit."
ItsMyOption, can you please get CS to state on behalf of WMILT under penalty of perjury something like the following statement?
"Under penalty of perjury, there will never be any assets or monetary gains that are attributable to class 19, 21, and/or 22 other than what is stated in the most recent QSR, the Disputed Equity Escrow, and potential gains from FDIC LIBOR lawsuit."
I think we should have an email campaign to have them state that publically.
LG, I think you need to read 18 carefully again. Note the "or" statement
Management of the Trust is aware that certain individuals who have an interest in the
operations of the Trust (e.g., legacy shareholders who do not yet hold and may never hold
an LTI) have suggested that the Trust is hiding assets or is entitled to value from the
Washington Mutual Bank receivership.
I understand that the ABS interests belong directly to WMI and not WMB and they are "remote bankruptcy" but the statement above stating that we are not "hiding assets" is such a sweeping and potentially misleading statement that even when the "off bankruptcy" assets return, I would think the LT would be legally liable for using such language.
AZ, yes it is very shameful..but I cannot ignore the language they are using to deny "off books" assets in 18 at this time. It seems that it will be pretty hard to back off those denials if the "off book" ABS returns do show up after PIERS payoff.
How will they legally justify the backoff of the denials? This really concerns me.
IMO, the language LT is using to deny existence of any remote bankruptcy assets (i.e. ABS beneficiary interests in various SPVs) is alarming. I wonder how they can walk back this language when those assets eventually show up....unless we are all wrong and FDIC really did gift JPM all of it.
...or maybe he is techincally accurate by saying assets as of "Effective Date".
..or maybe bankruptcy remote assets will never flow back through LT...but in that case who is in charge of distributing those assets?? and what mechanism will they use? where are all the interest profits collected from all the ABS from the last 10 years sitting...according to the language LT is using to deny, I dont think its under any trusts that LT controls has knowledge of existence to...other wise, their denial statement would carry some legal liability.
18. Other than as reported in its Quarterly Summary Reports and/or filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, is the Trust holding any assets that are
“Off-Book”, “Safe Harbor Assets” (e.g., “Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001”,
“Posit”, or “Retained Earnings) or other assets?
There are no material assets of the Trust2
other than those that have previously been
disclosed and no assets are “hidden” or “unreported”. The Trust submits unaudited
financial statements to the Bankruptcy Court under penalty of perjury. Likewise, such
financial statements (and other information) are filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission under Forms 8-K and 10-K and under applicable laws and
regulations, the Trust is obligated to ensure that such filings do not either omit material
information or include materially false or misleading information.
Management of the Trust is aware that certain individuals who have an interest in the
operations of the Trust (e.g., legacy shareholders who do not yet hold and may never hold
an LTI) have suggested that the Trust is hiding assets or is entitled to value from the
Washington Mutual Bank receivership. Such suggestions are inaccurate: the Trust’s
financial statements disclose all of the Trust’s material assets. Additional information
regarding the Trust’s assets as of the Effective Date can be found in the Global
Settlement Agreement and Confirmation Order. We also refer you to the 2017 Form 10-K
and 12/31/18 QSR.
Matters relevant to “Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001” (the “PIERs Trust”), the
entity that issued the so-called PIERs securities, were litigated extensively in connection
with the confirmation proceedings related to the Plan that was ultimately approved by the
Bankruptcy Court. Since the Effective Date, claimants whose claims against the estate
relate to such securities have received distributions from the estate in accordance with the
terms of the Plan (assuming that such claimant submitted required documentation and
releases in order to be eligible for any such distribution). Apart from such distributions,
including distributions in the future (if any), the PIERs Trust does not represent a source
of value for future distributions, if any.
Lets have some fun guestimating how much we will see returning from remote bankruptcy assets. I'll start. Feel free to post your estimate for bragging rights after Feb22.
Asset Returns vs. Odds
$10B. 99.9%
$20B. 95%
$30B. 80%
$40B. 70%
$50B. 50%
$80B. 33%
$100B. 5%
My guess is $50B. Lets see who can guess the closest without going over.
AZ, what do you think the release process is going to be on the bankruptcy remote assets? Is it going to be something like the following?
1) PIERS paid off
2) remaining amount in LT gets distributed 75/25.
3) LT closes shop
4) bankruptcy remote returns to escrow markers via DTC?
What is your speculation on the process?
By your logic, the shares left in DCR could also similarly have escrow markers attached to them...which could be awarded to employees. All I'm saying is there is no document that bars the judge from awarding escrow markers at this point. If you know of one, please share the link with the rest of us. Otherwise, you are speculating your point of view just like i am.
Robert D. Griffin = Bopfan?
I've googled him and cant find any attorney by that name. At least not a Robert "D" Griffin.
Jerry, do you recall the underwriters that were awarded class 19 escrow markers in 2013? The judge could similarly have awarded EC with escrow markers for their vested stock option now. I dont think 2012 release date bars the Judge from awarding escrow markers now.
Isnt it odd that they originally planned to bring in Hochberg for the EC pretrial?
ItsMyOption, were you able to get a response to the CIC question? Whether it has occured or not? Also, perhaps you can submit your question to the court as an appeal for disclosure once the judge approves disallowance on employee claims and approves PIERS payoff.
Thanks again for taking the lead with all these questions. Although CS has been dodging them, I think we are still able to get an insight to the questions based on how he dodges them.
How many common shares do the big boys own? Doesnt Bonderman own like 300 million shares?They are not pigs and wouldnt have made it obvious by buying up all the commons before POR7. Maybe they have enough.
"escrow markers are not tradable"
I like this quote. It seems to imply that they were designed this way in the beginning so that the trust will not be liable for whatever disclosure schedule they have with regards to bankruptcy remote assets -- whether by their decision or were forced to follow a legal timeline.
The fact that they issued non tradable escrow markers means that all assets will eventually return to the original owners as of POR7..No one can be manipulated into selling theirs because they lost all hope due to the slow legal schedule.
This is a great indication of existence of bankruptcy remote assets. Why else would the emoloyees want to bring in Hochberg to their pretrial?
AZ, thanks again for explaining in detail. So are you saying that class 17a investors got a distribution for Sept 26, 2017 payout? but class17b hasnt? Does that mean, class 17b did get a portion of that sept 26, 2017 distribution but the money is held in a trust to be released at a later time?
Thanks AZ. Btw, why didnt your class 17 notes receive any distribution from the receiver payout on Sept 26, 2017?
AZ, can CIC happen without the receivership closing? I thought the receivership cannot close until all the Libor cases are settled...
I agree. but you never know. just load up on Coop just in case...
No. the loans have been collecting cash for 10 years. As AZ also pointed out some of the trusts he's tracking shows 99% of loans having liquidated. So, why would big money dilute themselves if there are plenty of cash coming back. They could simply keep the returning alcash and let the remaining loans run off.
That being said, dont trust anyone. The only way to not get f**ked here is to own both escrow and Coop...
None of this 75/25 arguments make any sense unless there are significantly more than $10B bankruptcy remote assets. So, I dont know why we are wasting so much energy arguing about it. Lets just all concentrate on getting more than $10B back. You cant change your investments now so why argue. Lets just watch the horse race. Dont be upset if your horse does not come in first....because second place in this race is still plenty rewarding.
Lets just make sure Jamie Dimon is not waiting with a high power rifle to shoot our horses before they cross the finish line.
I dont think that is likely. Remember, legacy big money owners of WMIH were diluted by at least 50% due to the merger. I'm sure big money knows what is returning from safe harbor so why would they approve the merger at the last minute if WMIH was about to receive the lion share of bankruptcy remote assets?
That being said, I dont trust anyone so I'm also holding onto a large number of shares of Coop. Make sure all my holes are covered so I wont get f**ked again.
their unwillingness to confirm = there are or they are not sure how much
no bankruptcy remote assets = simple "f**k off" answer
why bother dealing with pesky investors if you know for sure there are no bankruptcy remote assets. what benefit do they have of not confirming "no bankruptcy remote assets"
LG, do you have a total tally of how much A&M has been paid since 2012?
Pegaso, so in your opinion LT has to first close shop before safe harbored assets return? If LT closes shop who will be in charge then on behalf of old equity to return those assets?
If we dont see a court response today, I think we may get dragged out due to the government shutdown. The courts are supposedly going to be out of funds after today. I think we should see a court response today for Feb 1st PIERS final payout.
You just answered the question. How could we have signed 75/25 for bankruptcy remote assets that the court could not have considered? Our releases were only based on what was available to the court at the time of signing...would not include bankruptcy remote assets.
We could not have signed releases for 75/25 "hypothetical" bankruptcy remote assets just as you say the court cannot answer the 75/25 question to "hypothetical" assets.
They dont need to confirm or deny bankruptcy remote assets. The question was a hypothetical one. If bankruptcy remote assets exist, would the 75/25 split apply to them. It should be an easy question to answer for a "hypothetical" bankruptcy remote assets.
Just read an article on Barrons. Apparently, the US Trustee office is only operating at a third of its normal capacity. Also, the courts can operate until Jan 18 before they need funds from congressional appropriations. I sure hope Judge Walrath makes a decision on employee claims by this Friday...if not we may not see a PIERS payout on Feb 1st.
I think a no reply would suggest no 75/25 split for remote bankruptcy assets as WMILT has already said in the past 75/25 for everything in its possession. Therefore if 75/25 applied to hypothetical remote bankruptcy assets, they should easily be able to reply with a yes. A no reply would suggest otherwise.
Are bankruptcy courts affected by the government shutdown? Anyone know if Walrath other court dates this month are being kept? or cancelled?
AZ, do you know if preferred escrow classes retained their right to convert into common escrow? If 75/25 does not apply to remote bankruptcy assets and the return to common escrow is much greater, can the preferred escrow markers simply convert to common?
ItsMyOption, still no reply to your 75/25 question to the estate? It seems like a pretty straight forward hypothetical question. I do not understand why they wouldnt answer it? Did they at least give a response of "no comment at this time"?
ItsMyOption, have you had any response to this email? TIA
Thanks Doc, it will be interesting to see what happens after the 26th. Maybe they will disclose some bankruptcy remote assets.