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.
The NOLs is available and can currently be used.
They actually answered that question. I'm paraphrasing "capital raising with leveraging"
But basically - you can assume this. The funds raised with Series A and Series B preferred ($600 mil) is not the limiting factor for acquisition. It seems as though the business structure of WMIH itself is and finding a company (there is a preference also towards private companies for acquisition as well, although I could've misheard that, audio transcript should be available soon) that fits within the business structure of WMIH is the goal.
Question was asked. Non-disclosure agreement was the basic answer. The company WMIH was looking subsequently sold. Not to KKR. Unknown buyer.
It should be audio only.
Yes there is music. If you are logged in, you will see a window that says "Please standby" "The webcast has not started yet."
On the top right, you will see a question mark (?), click that and you will have a pop up. Click "Test my system now"
Of course check your volume settings.
For those of you wishing to tune in to the WMIH shareholder webcast, once again the link is: https://pgi.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1102885
You will now be able to log in. The webcast has not officially started but you should be hearing music right now. If you do not, you have about 20 minutes to diagnose any issue and download/install any programs necessary.
Webcast is not available yet. You will receive an error message.
Ex post facto is a legal term that means with "retroactive effect or force." Again, as I suggested earlier, spend more time on researching the constitutionality of ex post facto laws as it applies to Civil and Administrative (specifically administrative).
Dodd-Frank is criminal, civil and administrative law wrapped into one. The criminal portion of the Dodd-Frank has been found unconstitutional (example: punishing executives either financially or otherwise for causing the 2008 economic crisis which was retroactive punishment since financial/company mismanagement was not a crime). All ex post facto criminal law has been found unconstitutional.
Ex post facto as it applies to the administrative portion (which gave more authority to the FDIC as well as expands their role in the financial sector) of Dodd-Frank legitimizes the seizure, sale/liquidation, etc of WMI assets by the FDIC, despite the law being signed post-seizure. Legal - yes. Constitutional - so far yes (until a new constitutional challenge arises). Ethical - grey area, skewing more towards no.
That is the relevance.
Research ex post facto law as applied to civil and administrative law. Everything except for the punishment/criminalization can be applied retroactively.
Retroactive application in regards to civil and administrative law HAS been argued in a court of law and been found legal.
Dodd-Frank CAN be applied retroactively with regards to FDIC seizure in 2008 and subsequent actions regarding seized assets. Criminalizing acts and punishment/sanctions portion of Dodd-Frank CANNOT be applied retroactively.
Dodd-Frank is a broad bill that also contains Administrative law.
Only certain applications of HR-4173 (regarding sanctions/punishment against individuals - criminal punishment) cannot be retroactively applied as argued in several courts.
The role of the FDIC (as described by HR-4173) continues as is until argued in court.
Something that neither Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP or Susman Godfrey L.L.P. or anyone for that matter has argued
(The constitutionality of both seizure and retention/transfer of assets - criminal in opinion, legal by law or perhaps "legal" from lack of enforcement).
For more information ex post facto law as applied to civil matters and administrative law. I believe FDIC seizure and role falls under civil for seizure, administrative for post seizure actions. It might be considered administrative for both seizure and post-seizure actions.
-------------
You should read what the response was to. I have no idea which law wowalters was vaguely not referring to (post 451467).
FDIC-Resolution has a process, one of which requires filing proofs of claim. A part of the process which WMILT has not done.
-------
By the way, if I remember correctly you're in the $10(ish) billion camp of escrow from FDIC or was that fwh33?
Are you talking about the Dodd-Frank Act? If so, you need to read that more carefully. A lot more carefully.
By the way, 1933 Securities Act doesn't apply here. HR 4173 supersedes it. Although in general 1933 doesn't apply here. Read 1933 securities act more carefully.)
That's the JPM motion to enforce the Order Confirming the Seventh Amended Joint Plan.
An order which has already been signed and confirmed in 2012.
An order which DIME holders, according to JPM have been violating by filing a claim for recovery with regards to the Anchor Litigation.
See the DIMEQ board for more info. The document you're referencing has already been addressed (post 450955).
All keywords underlined and bolded. I'll bring to your attention
7th amended plan has already been confirmed... in 2012...
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229120224000000000001.pdf
Short answer no.
Long answer - WMILT will exist (at least) into the year 2018 due to the D&O settlement agreement. Refer to http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160502000000000001 for more details on D&O. Dates as always, are subject to change.
You need to contact your brokerage if you opted to receive electronic notification. If you received mail, double check your mail. It should be with your pin number.
Proxy is for WMIH (common). Unless you somehow own Preferred A and/or Preferred B shares.
If you just have escrow markers and no longer own WMIH shares, you would not have received a proxy information/documents/shareholder voting information.
Yes if you opted for electronic communication from your brokerage, you should probably have received it by now. Contact your brokerage for more information if you haven't yet. Or check spam filter on your email account.
(Received one from TradeKing a week ago)
If I recall correctly, 09-50934 was settled with the 7th amended plan (I believe this was the turnover action). This was one of the biggies that prevented plan confirmation.
09-50551 - closed as per title. Also believe this was settled by the plan. This was the JPMC action.
Trades like that happen all the time with this stock. Seriously, it does. As with random increases in volume. As with inexplicable price rises and price drops.
Nothing new.
Agreed
Contract for both execs technically equates to 1.5 mil for doing nothing (500k annual for 3 years). Or they make their lives more complicated/busy/productive for $1.5 mil + a minimum of $4 mil (equals to around 5.5 mil total).
I say minimum $4 mil because the figure is based on a floor price of $2.25 per share for their restricted stock.
If they were to complete an acquisition and after all the dilution based on preferred B shares, warrants and restricted shares that would then be vested - it would largely depend on the PPS after that. If the PPS is $20, each of them would essentially receive a $35 million bonus give or take a few hundred thousand (not including 1.5 mil for their 3 years annual salary on top of it)
Of course, the higher the PPS goes after MA, the higher the bonus.
----------------
Gallagher and Fairfield were retained basically mid last year and it took them 4 months (probably less) to start an acquisition (unfortunately failed). Seems to me (opinion) that they want their bonus.
In my opinion it is.
The detractors will note that because they're also being paid $500k annually that the restricted shares isn't an incentive at all since either way they'll be paid.
The shares are restricted/unvested. They only become vested upon MA.
This has been addressed before.
Totally serious.
Can't do much about it when the company that was to be acquired backs out of the deal. Who do you blame for that? The ones that tried (WMIH Corp) or the ones that went "Oh, on second thought, we're not gonna sell to you."
With limited resources, offering more money was likely not an option either.
Without the details of that failed deal, can't blame anyone.
I wouldn't mind if those two stole assets from JPM for WMIH Corp. *wink*
Any well paid highly effective criminal businessmen will get my support if it benefits WMIH Corp financially (which in turn benefits me and all shareholders).
-------------
Note (not directed to anyone in particular): Gallagher and Fairfield were retained on May 11, 2015.
Failed acquisition September 30, 2015.
Now I can't say with 100% certainty that the two are working hard to make an acquisition. I also can't say for sure that they were responsible for finding the first prospect (albeit it failed). I will say that they it's very likely that they're working very hard already for WMIH Corp (and technically for themselves with the stock incentive).
Lawyers have nothing to do with the retention of either Gallagher or Fairfield. This is board of directors approval.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312515186101/d924385d8k12g3.htm
Learn what happened - SEVENTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE
Confirmation Order
Yes - court filing fees only pays for some of court costs (very very little). Majority (99.9%) of the costs (wages for court staff, judge, janitors, etc.) of any case (even civil cases) cost tax payers.
(Court security is generally done by the Sheriff's department which have their own budget to begin with.)
The empty court space scenario is very very common even in a major city (like Chicago).
I can only hope that for a Judge who had a scheduled hearing would use that newly created "free" time to write/review orders for other cases they were assigned to.
My experience with government employees in general however would suggest that many are being paid to do nothing, often.
------------
In terms of moving up a court schedule, I've actually seen it done but usually because there are multiple cases assigned to a single court room with a generic time - EX. Traffic court in room A at 9am.
Not sure if it's done in bankruptcy court.
NOTICE OF AGENDA OF
MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR
HEARING ON MARCH 7, 2016 AT 10:30 A.M.
(ET)
AS NO MATTERS ARE SCHEDULED TO GO
FORWARD, THE HEARING HAS BEEN
CANCELLED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE COURT
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160301000000000002
Buying opportunity.
Changing the verbiage to contract will make it seem like the attempt goes from trying to trade "shares" into trying to trade options. Result is still the same, converted shares received throws the wrench into the idea.