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.
Gold,
Thanks, I hadn't even looked at the petition date price(Sept 26, 2008). Makes .07 look like a dream again with this judge.
I don't know the trigger event value either, so no guess on a, d, or e.
Glad they cleared it up for us.
not so fast. It means that the $337mil claim will be divided by .07.
That converts to ~4.8bil shares which when added to the existing 1.7 bil totals 6.5bil shares. Convert that 6.5bil shares into the 30% of NewCo and Dimeq becomes the holders of ~22% of NewCo. Wamuq is left with ~8% of NewCo.
The other option mentioned had been one Dimeq for one Wamuq. That would be really bad.
Am I reading this correctly? Please let me know if I'm not.
Retire,
The conversion of the DIMEQs is to be based on the closing price of WAMUQ.
dividing the amount of the Claim by the per share price of WMI
common stock
Sidedraft,
This was the first time I have seen it mentioned. Still unclear as to which date is to be used according to this DS. Who gets to decide? Judge, I guess.
By my quick math, this would give DIMEQ 74% of the NewCo 30%.
The Dec 12 closing price was .07
From page 1467 and repeated on a few other pages:
The share count for holders of Dime Warrants, for purposes of calculating Pro Rata Share of
distributions and the number of shares of Reorganized Common Stock to be reserved in the Disputed
Equity Escrow, shall be determined by dividing the amount of the Claim by the per share price of WMI
common stock as of either (a) the Petition Date, as if the Trigger Event, as defined in the Dime Warrant
Litigation, had not occurred, (b) the close of business on the day immediately preceding the Petition Date,
(c) December 12, 2011, as if the Trigger Event had not occurred, (d) the Petition Date, as if the Trigger
Event had occurred, (e) December 12, 2011, as if the Trigger Event had occurred, or (f) such other date as
determined by the Bankruptcy Court.
It is very well written. Unfortunately it took Block about 8 months to pen it. If he hadn't taken so long, we probably wouldn't be where we are now.
Jared,
I'm with you. Don't think it's over by a long shot. I picked up another 50,000 at .10 so far.
Greg
opinion is available on pacer also. Dimeq are equity.
In or out, we're all spectators now.
I seem to remember the $347 being an error by JMW and later retracted and amended to be $337. I remember Art agreeing, yet stating that it was to mean a minimum of $337 mil.
Does that sound familiar? Many hearings ago.
JMW just stated that she will have DIMEQ ruling by Tuesday. I assume she means Jan 3, 2012.
I think the letter has been withheld pending the resolution of DIMEQs status.
I'm guessing the debtors made a deal with the EC for 30% of the new company and then slipped in the part about DIMEQ (who were not allowed to join the mediation fun) afterwards.
Makes it difficult for the EC to send out a letter saying they support the plan unless of course Dimeq gets control of half of that 30%, possibly more.
This is directly JMWs fault for not letting DIMEQ have a say in the POR7 mediation and also for not publishing a decision as to where the DIMEQs lay in the waterfall.
Now JMW has given DIMEQ some time to mediate. Why would she do that?
Because she still doesn't want to make any decisions and it's clear that this issue is going to hold up confirmation.
Anyway, that's why I think we didn't see a letter from the EC.
I do like the possibilities of #3. Judge Block has consistently supported the LTW holders through-out the trial vs. the US Gov and has railed against the gov scorched earth legal tactics and delays. After all these years, I imagine he's not to pleased with the idea of the award being stolen from the LTW holders.
Yes, I agree to the separation occurring and now I think that tomorrow may be a day of reunion.
The debtors and JPM tried to pull a fast one and got caught. Put the litigation and the LTWs back together and they can both walk away like nothing ever happened.
JPM may not be happy, but if they think they might get the shaft in Block court, it may be a good alternative for them.
I have been thinking about this issue with JPM and the ownership of the litigation proceeds.
With the reference to amending the GSA being mentioned in some of the latest billings, and the fact that JMW hasn't ruled yet when she clearly has had enough time to make a decision, makes me think they may be tied together.
If the GSA is amended to have the Dimeq holders transferred to JPM with the litigation award then JPM is out of the fight with the government as to rightful ownership and gets their 15% instead of possible 0%. Of course, Dimeq holders would then be compensated in JPM stock at whatever conversion rate would pay out the 337 mil plus gross-up. This is good for the debtors also as they will finally get Steinberg off their back and out of their wallets. Good for equity classes as it removes Dimeq from the waterfall.
Does this seem like a possibility?
Catz said it better again, and more politely.
I would like to see Steinberg file to move up the Oral Closing Arguments date since there will be no need for the filing of a reply to the defendants post-trial brief on Nov 11.
Discussion in the last Wamu court hearing raised the issue of the NOL value increasing again in Jan. Is it possibly the same situation here and that may be the cause of the foot dragging?
What is a chemical engineer doing "acting" (key word), as Treasurer for one of the biggest bankruptcy Estates ever?
After listening to Levine testify, it's hard to judge a witness by their degree.
Bluzie2
In regard to the possible timing issue, there was discussion of another hearing being scheduled for closing arguments. The judge asked if they wanted to set the date before or after Thanksgiving!!!!!. Ugh... Thankfully they decided that before would be better and I believe it was set for Wed, Nov 23. Just before Thanksgiving.
With this new date set I don't think we'll see a ruling till mid-Dec.
Dan posted the link over on WAMUQ board:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67197677
10:30pm
starting a bit late this time. lol
I think we're now talking about two different piles of money, though both the same amount because they both represent the anchor litigation award.
First pile is the award that government has been ordered to pay to the LTW litigants. This is the award that WMI separated from the LTWs and gave to JPM. JPM and FDIC are now fighting over this pile of money in Judge Blocks Federal court.
Second pile is the money set aside to pay the LTW holders who said "we don't care that you gave it away, you still owe us!" and the court agreed to set a reserve from the estate to pay this claim.
We are the second pile. If successful, our claim will be paid by the estate, not the actual award from the government, which has been given to JPM.
It has been a confidence boost to have Levine, who sounded very dry during direct, run circles around Strochak during the cross, and then have Chamberlin sound very confident during direct and completely fall apart during cross.
I don't think it could have gone much better at this point.
I came in late on that testimony and couldn't quite believe it when it was pointed out that Chamberlin was actually stating the opposite under direct of what you just pointed out. She argued that the warrants must be equity because the price movement somewhat mirrored the underlying stock movement at certain times.
Under cross, she was shown a chart at one point that demonstrated the opposite, that while the price of the underlying stock had declined, the warrant price had increased many fold. All she could do was agree. It was right in front of her and those hours of correlating prices all morning were shot down.
Hello Love,
While the cross of Chamberlin was painful and tedious to experience, I think it went very well for us. She was unable to justify her rational behind her claim of the warrants being equity. Her continued reliance on news and PR reports as opposed to actual legal documents completely destroyed her credibility.
It felt like Chamberlin bought a car from a slimy used car dealer and expected it to be a gem because the ad in the newspaper said it was.
She needs a grad student to turn pages for her also.
May be Art's first exhibit later today.
Like Jared, I'm looking forward to this afternoon's cross.
I like your example better than mine.
Bit of a stretch. By that reasoning, would she have considered DIMEQ debt if the price had remained flat? Somehow I don't think so.
I'm lost on this line of testimony with Chamberlin. I missed her testimony yesterday and can't see where the share price fluctuations and dividends of WMI have anything to do with this case.
I realize we were supposed to be paid in WMI stock, but it was to be funded by the settlement with the government.
Hello Fijas,
I was thinking it may be some time in mid to late October.
I'm not positive, but I thought the two sides had discussed submitting written arguments to the court by early October.
That's just my guess.
Thanks Ilene, I think most of us are cross overs and look forward to your analysis every time.
Levine is refusing to allow Strochak to put words into his mouth.
There is definitely one expert here and it's not Strochak.
Dimeq hearing is currently still is session. Currently a little tedious as it is Hochman taking testimony from Levine concerning Levine's filed report and analysis. Mostly just getting his opinion on record and pointing out his methodology.
Score one for Steinberg. Levine has been admitted as a witness. Trial is starting.
Hey Login, Where are you driving from? I'm close to the same distance away in Virginia Beach.