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.
Totally disagreed. Judge is a judge, just do her job professionally. If JPig is wrong, there is no way will affect country's security by knocking Jpig down. It is totally different now comparing to the turmoil in 2009.
How could a judge could distinguish 4B (in live and death situation) vs 29B (in bonus)? Either she is a dinosaur judge or no business sense. If so, how could she qualify as her present job?
I'm still here, just like Jersey said -- News.
Hedges know what are those 3.1a. Since hedges are in the same class as we are = equity, now the picture is changed = who cares what it is = we get stocks in new WMI.
thank you very much, hoping we'll get something from all H, K, P and U's. GLTY and all.
New WMI could star with other new business, like real estate, mortgage, etc. JPig, WAG, could emerge its related business with new WMI. The point doesn't take 5.5B, but pay less 5.5B in settlement.
How about JPig, don't forget to charge JPig 10% premium.....
fully agreed, However, it will be the best for JPig to do it (no one eles), and to assume all NOLs by acuquiring WMI == No future litigation + satifying everyone including commons. In other words, it really maximizes the fully value (i.e. 5.5B) of NOLs.
except the only one --JPig--likes to pay the full price in order to get release.
Marayatano, I am confused about the following issues. Hopefully you could give some advice. TIA.
It is about WMB's bondholders. I knew that debtor is going to pay the interest. Who is going to pay their principal? Or, debtor is still fighting with JPM?
Second, what do you think about H's. Are they the largest losers due to lose of ownership in the new reorganized company?
Looking forward to your comments, TIA & GLTY
I really like your comments and predictions. GLTY and a happy New Year.
maybe not. If the LAMCO wants to keep commons, and you're included.
Do you know anything related to the evaluation of assets mentioned in examinor's reports?
thanks for your calculations. It's very important reference.
Interesting....Linda, do you know the creditors of class 3 are all against LBHI or do have someone else?
Well said, TY.
excellent anaysis. As always, your analysis is so logic per your expertise that it assists everyone here in the board. TY.
I don't remember clearly that the debtor's (or LAMCO)will issue new shares to equities only, not including creditors. Creditors' claims will be automatically expired from a setup terms (i.e. 3-5 years ???). Thank you for your confirmation.
However, the new plans from senior creditors want us included, and wipe out all equities. I think that is the reason that "J" went down fast. I think this the strategies that creditors want to leverage debtors to accept the new proposal, which reduced debtors' claim about 47B.
Wahuq didn't go well today. Is this the direction you would think about? TIA
You're absolutely right, we are A&M's cash cow. Before we got something, they probably suck all our blood. Much appreciated your prompt reponse, hopefully, get something from WAMU.GLTY.
However, there are other sub-creditors in class 5 counting more than 90%. Why did those parties keep so quite w/o any objections?
yes, wonderful idea, and go to Judge Peck.
Is it right the new plan eliminate around 47B debits from original class 7-8?
TIA
I don't know that you're still holding any subordinated bonds of LBHI. Do you know any group, person, representatives in your class trying to negotiating any compensation from either debtors, or senior creditors, especially Bank of NY Mellon?
Really appreciated your information, TIA.
I hope so from 2-5%, sounds reasonable. Isn't it?
I think the new plan from the senior creditors determines the 20% which is 6% more than the debtor's plan. This 20% is the proposal in which debtor rearranged the percentage of the compensation.
I personally think that 6% is not unauthorized from the creditors' viewpoints. The result(20%) is the senior creditors' way of calculation. In other words, the seniority still wanr our portion till they're fully satisfied. The big problem is the pie is too small.
It seems that we still have to negotiate with senior creditors in order to get something. Like you said it is not concret as stone wall.
However, I know BNYM has never talked to CTs because the CTs has only 8.5% of class 5 (i.e. total 15B). From your previous conversation w/BNYM and creditor's committee, do you know BNYM has ever done any negotiation for others (i.e. subordinated debentures, etc. for the balance 91.5%)?
In this article, like you mentioned before that affliated and subsidiary of LBHI should be dropped under substantive consolidation. However, in both plans, they are all included. Why.....?
Based on this article, we may have pretty good reason to write to The Honorable Judge Peck to request his attention from our letter of objections. Let us know the right timing, and we're going to do the same as previous action.
TIA
New class 15 which is equities including common and prefs.
thanks, so the volume is so low. Stangely speaking, it didn't happen on Ks. Anything to do with TPS?
May I ask which side is gone, ask or bid.
dated Dec 15, 2010
you don't get the documents immediately. You will see a little box of listing main documents, exhibit 1 - exhibit 5. Then you click each one, it should pop up.
is the problem still existed?
docket#13505. I just checked, main documents is the DS and 5 exhibits.
After clicking documents, then click exhibit 1 and 2 that is the main parts of DS
From the home page, just selecct docket, and the page will list all the curret dockets.
sorry reversed, DS is 13505, plan is 13504
I'm appreciated deeply from my heart, take your advice to split the risks. Thanks again, and hope we're doing good tomorrow in WAMU's case. GLTY
Linda, you could use ca's post link (2515), and BK plan's docket#13505, and DS docket#13504.
Sorry to ask your legal opinion regarding LBHI because I have no PM. Your expertise is much appreciated. TIA
Is it true that substantive consoliation(SC), form legal viewpoint, that subordinated party is no longer subordinated to Senior creditors? In other words, CTs should be compensated. It doesn't matter the percentage is, could be 1% but at least CTs will get something.
I remember a while ago, you also mentioned that SC is the only hope that CTs may get something. Is it a common practice in BK court or it totally depend upon each individual case?
Means twice of 17.4% equal to 36% for unsecured securties due to substantive consolidation.