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.
I dont think they are shorting net net. i believe they knock it down on very low vol. to accumulate as much as possible and thats why short pos. #s never show they finally covered. I think those are legal shorts and the last that will be covered. All speculation but this might be the mother of all short squeezes if things really go our way. PPS could hit something unimaginable until now. Certainly wishful thinking but I feel there is a very slim .0000001% chance that is the dilemma they have and will end up like the two inmates that messed w Hankcock in jail. Remember he slammed one guys head up another guys butt . I laughed so loud I scared my doberman who doesn't startle easily. LMFAO but it would be sweet. No settlement needed. One swing and so many hedge funds n others who took down WAMU game over. Never put on a trade that can put you outta biz if goes against you. Was it VW or Porsche w the short squeez gone nuclear? again big speculation but who knows, nobody has yet!
Sounds like one possible reason that pps has been going down is Rosensquat gave his hedge funds the heads up that he would be delaying again so you can start shorting/accumulating at lower prices(which ever it might be at this point) cause he is gonna push the important stuff off till July. I still feel that they are shorting on minimal vol in order to keep covering the tremendous naked short they have on from the take-down of WAMU. I think they really expected to slide through this BK n cancel all the commons, haircut the Pref. n never cover the umpteen millions or more shares they are still naked short. If GS JPM and other hedge funds spiked the CDS's knowing it would cause the down grades and then were 3bill shares naked net short to crush the co. they could never deliver or cover that short(cant deliver what you never borrowed in the first place n cant borrow what doesnt exist 1.9bil outstanding, hmmm). They have to get the commons canceled. Don't think for a minute they though they would run into such stubborn scud launching bastards like us (this great board of knowledgeable Americans and all who have thrown a pipe into the front wheel spokes of their rice rocket doing a 150 mph on the way outta BK) but I don't think I am to far from the mark. Occam's razor. JMHO
Absolutely Priceless! Great story.....I just told my Dr. to keep his heels on the ground and we would get along famously!
hey Yanik, impo this meet and greet is not to giv docs or fight, its a first offer to feel out Suss n gang for where they are at as far as $ wanted to settle. Rosen will nevr hand the docs over to the EC and if examiner is appointed , just before it happens he will jump up and say, Your Honor can we have 10 minute break please. Then Rosen will come back with a statement like the one on March 26 but on the flip, meaning "We have come to a new Global Settlement and just need a week to fig out all the details." Judge will say"wat does EC hav to say about this"? and we will finally b negotitating w WMI (funny like negotiating w your brother over the family estate, money is funny huh?) anyhow, I am humble enough to admit I hav no Idea wat this is all worth for it to go away but I do feel 2$ is min and 24$ is absolute max in this venue. If litigatrion moves on well I guess there is no limit, like shorting w no hedge, upside limitless. Hear that Jonny LOL actually LMFAO ;)
NA ref to "North America" seen used before in a bank Doc. IMHO
edit , Corp. docs.
Foot on neck, head shot point blank range in near future (gona b good fight screw paperview)! would love for someone to give rosen a curb job! lol
#48 pg 17 ya he is smooth, nothing from TPGs 27500 pages helps us in any substantial way to wat we r asking for. LOL I was told by someone in the industry that Sussman is one of the best. Also don't think its happen stat that he landed on this committee because of a 2mm shr investor, I think TPG put him there and he had the info he needed before he even was know to get involved w case. JMO but I think it is a good one IMO lol
I found this doing some other research, sorry if old news or has been posted before dont remember seeing it here or ibox http://www.paulweiss.com/files/Publication/b3d8a753-5e1a-4fba-93b9-98c73fabc419/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b01bf801-78d1-4a67-9dc7-e56e5ef8624f/22Jan10-R2019.pdfJanuary 22, 2010
Bankruptcy Rule 2019 Redux – Delaware
Bankruptcy Court Holds That Informal
Committee is Not Subject to Rule 2019
Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019
encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with
the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision,
Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other
way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor”
and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but
declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue: In re Washington Mutual, Inc.,
et al., 419 B.R. 271 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) and In re Northwest Airlines Corp., et al., 363 B.R. 701
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).
In Premier International Holdings, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Official
Committee”) moved to compel the Informal Committee of SFO Noteholders (the “SFO Informal
Committee”) to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 2019 and provide trading and other information
required by that Rule.
The Bankruptcy Court sided with the SFO Informal Committee and denied the motion to compel.
It considered the plain meaning of Rule 2019 and concluded that since the SFO Informal
Committee comprised “a self-appointed subset of a larger group,” it was not a “committee
representing more than one creditor” within the meaning of Bankruptcy Rule 2019. Specifically,
“n order for a group to constitute a committee under Rule 2019 it would need to be formed by a
larger group either by consent, contract or applicable law – not by “self help.”” The Bankruptcy
Court also reviewed the legislative history of Rule 2019 which it found confirmed the conclusion
that the Rule does not apply to the SFO Informal Committee.
1 Such disclosure includes the names and addresses of the group members, the nature and amount of their claims or
interests, the amounts paid for the claims or interests and the time of acquisition, and any sales or other
dispositions of the claims or interests.
2 In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 1010). It should be
noted that in August of 2009, proposed amendments to Rule 2019 were published for public comment. The
proposed amendments expand the scope of the Rule’s coverage and the content of its disclosure requirements.
Particularly, the pending amendments include, among others, (1) the new term “disclosable economic interest”
which is defined to encompass “any claim, interest, pledge, lien, option, participation, derivative instrument, or any
other right that grants the holder an economic interest that is affected by the value, acquisition, or disposition of a
claim or interest,” and (2) expanding the disclosure requirements to “every entity, group, or committee that consists
of or represents more than one creditor or equity security holder.”
2
Judge Sontchi addressed at some length the two bankruptcy court decisions finding that informal
committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2019. In Northwest Airlines,
the first of these decisions, Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper of the Southern District of New
York found that an ad hoc committee of equity security holders was a “committee” under Rule
2019. In the second, Washington Mutual, Judge Mary Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court assumed that an ad hoc committee was a “committee” for purposes of Rule 2019 and
proceeded to analyze whether the WMI Noteholders Group was indeed an ad hoc committee;
concluding that it was, the WMI Noteholders Group had to comply with the Rule.
In his ruling, Judge Sontchi identified several reasons for declining to follow Northwest Airlines
and Washington Mutual. First, he concluded, the Bankruptcy Court in Northwest Airlines had
failed to analyze “whether under the plain meaning of the words a self-appointed subgroup of
creditors with neither the authority nor consent of the larger group constitutes a “committee”
under Rule 2019;” in Washington Mutual, he said, the Bankruptcy Court had simply assumed
that an ad hoc committee constituted a “committee” under Rule 2019. Second, he disagreed
with Northwest Airline’s interpretation of Rule 2019’s legislative history. Third, Judge Sontchi
explained that “it is a mistake to focus on the conduct and role of the ad hoc committee to
determine whether it is a committee under Rule 2019 …. Any definition of “committee” must be
sufficiently clear and objective so as to require its applicability from the inception of the case….”
Fourth, he disagreed with Northwest Airline’s conclusion that all ad hoc committees qualify as
“committees” under Rule 2019. Rather, “a formal committee requires the consent of the
governed either by contract or operation of law. In no way can a group purporting to speak on
behalf of others and implicitly requesting third parties to treat them as a representative of the
larger group, be considered a “formal” committee.” Finally, he found misleading Washington
Mutual’s reference to the proposed amendment to expand the scope of the Rule’s coverage as
supportive of its holding. Indeed “[t]he existence of a proposed rule expanding the disclosures
required of those already subject to the rule is of no moment with regard to whether the rules
applies in the first place.”
Bankruptcy Judge Sontchi's decision and the split in the case law (indeed, a split between
bankruptcy judges in the same District, Delaware) breathes new life into the proposition that not
every committee of creditors falls within Rule 2019. The outcome in the next case before a
different judge, though, becomes that much more difficult to predict. While revisions to
Bankruptcy Rule 2019 are under consideration and would mandate greater disclosure, the scope
of the present version of Rule 2019 will increasingly require clarification from the appellate
courts.
* * * *
This memorandum is not intended to provide legal advice with respect to any particular situation
and no legal or business decision should be based solely on its content. Questions concerning
issues addressed in this memorandum should be directed to any of the following:
Alan W. Kornberg (212) 373-3209 Stephen J. Shimshak (212) 373-3133
susman got them to say how many docs. almost exact numbers ha been pulled. might help him when he asks for them in future n doesnt get them. could this hav been just a ploy to get them to admit certain things on record to use in future? I hav done big negotiations but not in legal venues, I like to use admissions of opposing to hav them make my stance for me. I sure hope sussman has had a master plan for this going either way. I dont think he would chase after examiner if he didnt think win win even if he didnt get it. JMO if he is as good as all thinks.
I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT SINCE 10 MINUTES AFTER RULING THAT WAMUQ CAN HAV SHAREHOLDER MEETING JPM LOST APROX 16B IN MARKET CAP TO DATE. IT IS CURIOUS THAT IF MARKETS ARE WORKING CORRECTLY THAT THE AMOUNT OF PAYOUT THAT I BELIEVE JPM WILL B ON THE HOOK FOR WAS A GUESS OF 18B FOR WAMUQ. ALL JUST SPECULATION (AND COULD COINCIDE W OBAMAS FIN REFORM BILL THAT WILL CURB FIN EARNINGS POSSIBLY ALTERNATE REASON FOR PULL BACK OF STOCK) BUT THE MARKET SHOULD HAV DISCOUNTED THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF THAT CASE AND IT LOOKS TO B PRICING IT IN. AGAIN JUST VERY LOOSE SPEC BUT MARKETS DO ADJUST FOR WRITE DOWNS N ONE TIME HITS IMMEDIATELY AND THIS IS MY ASSUMPTION. WOULDN'T BY JPM HERE AND I LOVE TO BUY SMACK DOWNS LIKE JPM CHART IS SHOWING RIGHT NOW.
PRETTY THIN BUT INTERESTING NONE THE LESS. WAS SURPRISED WHEN SAW JPM CHART BREAK ALMOST EXACTLY WHEN SHE RULED.
JUST AN OBSERVATION WHICH IS NOT BACKED BY ANY FACTUAL BASES.
any volume over there?
Thanks Uz, and I agree with you but I was hoping for someone who recalls any mention of it.
TIA again.
Important question for anyone!
Did anyone hear anything in the realm of "FUNDING" related to the POR or settlement coming this Fri. 3/26/10?
TIA
BEST
Z
FF up 48% on 24ish mm shrs @ .16ish
Ooow, if thats actually on record, that could leave a bit of a scar. I feel that one reason JPM added or changed GC is becasue they needed a more exp. attorney in the 'possible' criminal side of this case. Top BK lawyer might go wrong direction or do something that could put them in a corner (if not already). Lots of billing notes involving DOJ PSI etc.
All jus speculation.
SORRY PT WAS MENT FOR FIXDOPE
Yes, dont forget this is first day a lot can buy back in due to cash restricted trading rules of 3 days for those who got shook on Fri. Not a coincidence it tanked and was accum. mon tues then shot up to level they want some to buy in on wed.. My feel is they will establish new trading range in weeks to come. (higher)
JMO
I concur,
WMI.F .1540 up 43.9% on 18.6mm shars.
GLTA
You need to read a little more before posting, or not> I guess do what makes you tingle. You wont b taken seriously here and laughed at mostly but hey to each his own. Many well informed people here will smoke you and what you put up if its not accurate, timely and relevant. All facts good and bad discussed here. Actually gonna go smoke now, laughing already.
Not my opinion!
Yo travel,
Your news is 48hrs old we all know that BS PR. If your a pro u will keep up w current event. Most truths we are well aware of but please dont waste broadband on old new. Even my news is old, like 17 hrs or so.
GLTY Sir
FYI
News for 'WAMUQ' - (Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. Deliver Statement Regarding Proposed Settlement)
WAMUQ News -- Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. Deliver Statement Regarding Proposed Settlement.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:30 PM
Scottrade.com
This email is compliments of Scottrade.com
News for 'WAMUQ' - (Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. Deliver Statement Regarding Proposed Settlement)
NEW YORK, March 17, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In response to numerous
inquiries, the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington
Mutual, Inc. (the "Committee") issues this statement in connection with the
proposed global settlement (the "Proposed Settlement") among Washington Mutual,
Inc. and WMI Investment Corp. (jointly, the "Debtors"), JP Morgan Chase and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (together with JP Morgan Chase, the
"Proposed Defendants").
The Debtors have stated their intent to seek approval of the Proposed Settlement
in connection with a plan of reorganization to be filed on or about March 26,
2010. The Committee anticipates that the Debtors will seek approval of the
Proposed Settlement and its plan of reorganization 60-90 days from that date.
The Committee was not involved with, and does not support, the Proposed
Settlement (based on all available information). At this time, the Committee
intends to object to the Proposed Settlement.
Please be apprised that the Committee is unable to discuss strategy or its
intended course of action, but please be assured that the Committee takes its
duty to shareholders very seriously and will take all reasonable and appropriate
actions to represent the interests of shareholders.
Contact: Michael Willingham, Chairman of the Committee of Equity Security
Holders for Washington Mutual, Inc, et al. mwillingham1@yahoo.com
SOURCE Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc.
www.prnewswire.com
Copyright (C) 2010 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
-0-
KEYWORD: New York
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: FIN
SUBJECT CODE: ACC
Source: Comtext Market News
Sorry to jump in but is there a
D) The bondholders are really in on it w them and back room scam is on?
Just a thought. I don't have the legal in site you have but strategically it makes sense to me. Next offer the bondholders are on board n bam, done. Reorg or Liq. (I don't know which it is yet will try to find answer).
I'm aware of EC UST N JUDGE but I was schooled on Fri. had a feeling their was another way for them to go (The Old Potomac 2 Step)
AJMO
Trying to figure out what to do.
TIA
BEST TO YOU!
Z
libm, I dont know what will happen but it is not over! IMO
I believe someone smart said "either settlement or ruling" . This was one way around both of those choices. Door # 3 please. I do feel this is not the end but possibly the beginning of negotiations. ALL JMO
CERTAINLY ONE WAY TO GET THE JUDGE NOT TO RULE ON THE 4B.. SORTA NUCLEAR BUT WE KNEW IT WAS SETTLEMENT OR RULE, THIS WAS WEILS TRICK UP HIS SLEEVE. I THINK THERE IS MORE TO THIS STORY!
this was my "Nuclear" scenario. To the experienced this was to be expected jus didnt know how, why or when. Sure shook everyone
same dead air after some chatter , put us back on hold ,,, music
I walk the dog too! Gives me some good down time w the only one who listens to me! LOL j/k
He must think Im nuts
N all this press concerning JPM going overseas to find High Net Worth investors through expansion in Middle East n Blah BLah. Just seems like they are setting up for The Tail Wags The Dog spin doctors stuff. Its pretty thin but does make u think! Or make me think, I always look for the message that is not verbally conveyed, much more out their than we think.
no only you! imho
Yes I remember reading that the other day which gives the underlying theory a touch of support. I also remember TD in Canada looking for expansion in to the US , they have strong Bal. sheet too.
Cap Contributions being heard on March 18th.. Move on through em. But with this much CASH, WMI becomes a good buyout target.
Now I think your really starting to get to the wiggle way out for JPM and FdIC. I am not lawyer but I have been looking at all the angle's and this does seem very plausible. Fills in a lot of holes that I have had hard time filling in due to my skepticism. Explains going forward with shareholder meeting "in a fighting stance" other than already shared and discussed on board. This makes a lot of sense to me.
JUST MY 2 cents.
Z
so far so good!
nice to see you haven't bailed. you have been invaluable to this cause/board.
Best to you,
Z
Nahh, Cox a PIKER!
Good post kel, I would say that is a fair assessment on possibilities 2maro. ABC I agree mayb D but I find that hard to believe.
IMHO
I would compare it to buying a foreclosure! And mayb JPM would get to walk from a nasty payoout. Theft gone wrong time to bail? total speculation n a little thin but hey, I have nevr been called thin! LOL Just speculation here!!!
a look see like JPM worked out deal to have them pay off securities hence buy wamu outta BK? or did I misunderstand you as I stutter ?!
If someone wants large blocks of stock quickly they need to buy it in open market. The size they are looking for would run this to 2-5 dollars and that not acceptable for them when they have proven ways to get it on the cheap. IMHO