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.
This is very likely since the pps should be at a minimum of 20 cents based on the obvious.
I think it was an opportunity for Rosen to also save face for the hedge funds by "informing" the judge that, as far as he knew, there had been no evidence of insider trading found by the EC. Which was to be expected since, as most of us believe, the new "global"(lol?) settlement was sparked by the hedge funds fears of being exposed through depositions.
Rosen said "if the court will recall there was testimony about the existing value or what Blackstone thought the value of that would be and for purposes of this conversation, today, we'll say it's about $160mil."
The figure by Blackstone was purposely undervalued to aid the hedgefunds in their attempt to take control of the reorganized debtor.
He then went on to say that there would be $160mil which would be a credit facility of debt-like instruments for the reorganized debtor.
We know there is probably at least $5bil in NOL's. I believe there is much more than that, but until we see what is filed it is just speculation. Even then, I won't believe the figures until after the POR has been confirmed. I wouldn't put it past ALL parties to conceal the true value of the reorganized debtor until after confirmation, for a host of reasons.
<I find that Rosen's comments are telling. He said, “It is our understanding that the equity committee’s investigation has not established any activity that [the hedge funds] traded in the securities of the debtors while in possession of nonpublic information."
Notice that he said "has not" rather than "did not". Just simple words, but drastic differences.>
Good catch for someone new to Wamu.
Another important part of his statement was "it is our understanding". He also said things like, "as far as we know" and "from what we've seen", when referring to the insider trading allegations. Those are legal "escape" phrases that Rosen has used many times throughout this case. This has allowed Rosen to, in our eyes, lie to the judge without repercussions.
I agree that the deposition cancellations are a very good sign.
The fishy thing to me is the fact that the price of commons hasn't reached $0.20 at least. MW, the EC chairman, has 1 million commons at a $0.20 average. So, for the EC to not at least get the chairman his investment back, and to then sit him on the LT....well that would really make things look super fishy.
For P's to be at $31 when we know commons aren't going to be cancelled leads me to come to only a few conclusions.
Maybe the insiders "know" that this first "global" settlement with equity will fall apart and the stock price will crash again?
Maybe the insiders are keeping the price low to accumulate?
Maybe nobody trusts anything that comes out of Rosen's mouth?
Well, we know that WMI funded WMMRC in 2008 to maintain the reserve levels to prevent going into a cut-off basis which at least covered it through 2009:
"By order dated December 3, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved a loan from WMI to WMMRC in the amount of approximately $11.9 million in order to maintain an adequate Reinsurance Reserve in one of its Trusts."
I don't think the $460mil is going anywhere anytime soon, and I can pretty much guarantee the EC is keeping an eye on it.
Correct, but we do know that we are reportedly getting WMMRC right?
We know what WMMRC is worth at a minimum:
"As of December 31, 2009, the value of the six remaining Trust assets was estimated to be $460 million."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48335682
We are getting NOL's as well, but I think many people forgot that WMMRC isn't an empty shell.
I agree, best summary today lol.
1. No, but maybe FDIC-Corporate(probably not, but maybe)
2. Already have been and will.
I think a lot of people are just in shock and disbelief at this time.
There is a settlement which includes all equity, and it came right out of Rosen's mouth.
Forget the claims against JPM/FDIC, there was no way we were going to DC.
We got the reorganized company!!!
Your are right Bizreader, WE WIN!!!!
I was thinking the same thing. One of JPM's subs could clean this up. Remember, JPM is the only one that really knows the true values. They are the one with WMI's books lol.
It looks like the GSA stands, and equity gets the reorganized company with the huge NOL's and litigation claims against third parties.
The 4 bil SJ was part of the GSA and will probably stay with JPM.
JPM and FDIC-R are safe at this time.
<The billion dollar question (literally) is JPM's position in all of this... do they whip out the checkbook now, or down the line in Collyer's court?>
Per Rosen, JPM and FDIC(not clear on Receiver or Corporate) will be released as they were to be in the GSA.
This is no surprise.
Be patient. We will find out more soon.
The EC chairman has 1 mil common shares at an average of $0.20 each.
It would really look bad if commons didn't at least reach that number.
There are many billions in NOL's available to the reorganized debtor, which will now be comprised of equity.
There is still a possible $26bil ordinary tax loss for the WMB stock owned by WMI.
There are other previously undisclosed/hidden assets that may now be brought out into the light.
There is a litigation reserve setup to allow us go after third parties to presumably settle for those claims.
We don't have access to the term sheet so we don't know at this time.
No mention of Wamu in HBO's Too Big To Fail.
Brief synopsis:
A lot of big stars portraying all the key players.
Bill Pullman played Jamie Dimon.
William Hurt played Hank Paulson. Paulson portrayed as a savior.
Big banks and regulators portrayed in a good light, trying to save the economy.
None of the "true" back-door shenanigans shown.
TARP vote shown to fail first vote, no mention of Wamu as the second vote is quickly shown to pass.
If you have been following Wamu and reading the mainstream media these last few years you basically know how the story played out.
Don't bother watching....wish I hadn't.
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Chapter 11 Plan Filed by Anton Welti
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000008.pdf
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Filed by Axel Iverson
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000007.pdf
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Filed by Gladstone Ford
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000006.pdf
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Filed by Bryce Verna
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000005.pdf
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Chapter 11 Plan Filed by Mariam Gorenberg
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000004.pdf
Objection to Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Filed by Jianmin Chen
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110516000000000003.pdf
Short answer: I would prefer 3 quality objections and 1000 unique objections. lol
Long answer: 3 quality objections are all that matter when the judge decides according to law. Having 1000 individual shareholders object with a single template may help sway the judge on an emotional level, but the judge isn't supposed to rule based on emotion.
1000 template objections can be summarily dismissed by the Debtors(Rosen) all at once. 1000 unique objections based on facts and not opinion would indeed be very powerful.
The good doctor's objection would/will be helpful if and when there is a valuation hearing. The Debtors control this case at this time, so if they don't want to pursue certain causes of action the judge is not required/permitted to pursue them on her own.
Tomorrow we should see the big objection from the EC. I can't wait to read it.
P.S. Despite my opinion on the effectiveness of template objections, I am grateful to every shareholder who submitted one.
I agree with it because I believe it to be true.
As a matter of law, 600 identical objections have no more bearing on a judge's decision than just the one original objection.
Facts are facts. In previous hearings when one counsel presented facts a different party's counsel occasionally stood up and said that they supported what had just been presented but didn't want to rehash or repeat the facts that had just been presented. Example, FDIC supporting facts provided by JPM.
An objection by mail has(or is supposed to) just as much weight as if the objector stood up in court and presented it.
Do you think the judge would let 600 people stand up in court and repeat the same exact objection one after the other?
600 objections does let the judge know that this case is being closely scrutinized by many parties, and that is why I do not object to shareholders sending in template objections.
But I have to agree with Catz that individually written objections based solely on facts(not emotions) have given us the most help in this case. I can't recall Rosen ever responding to even one template objection.
You are correct that this case would have been over long ago without the internet. But, that is probably due to the ability of many shareholders coming together to push for the creation of the EC. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of shareholders reading and communicating on message boards, researching and submitting objections in this case. That is all definitely a bonus.
The judge is supposed to decide the case based on the facts and the law, not which side has more supporters.
I strongly agree ;)
Nate stood up in court and basically accused Billionaire criminals(IMO) of insider trading which could cost them possibly hundreds of millions of dollars and put them in criminal jeopardy(ie, prison).
Nate has my utmost admiration and respect for being such a brave soul. How many other shareholders would do the same? I can't say that I would.
Lawsuits would be the least of my concerns.
Billionaire criminals.....
4 separate groups of Billionaire criminals....
Lawsuits against Nate for defamation may be barred and financially unfruitful, but the legal weight and pressure of the HF's with their basically unlimited funding would have crushed Nate.
It is a good thing, for Nate, that TPS counsel(Stark?) made that comment to the court that actions(Discovery, etc) against Nate by the HF's should be limited to avoid such stifling.
Did that comment have any effect on the court? I don't know, but I would like to think so.
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Yeah, I saw "the group".
I didn't mean to imply that you were only implying that the FDIC bore the sole responsibility. Many here know that the hedge funds played an integral role, since they admitted to such in the court filings.
The info I posted is from this month and I had not seen it posted. I know you have been following Wamu for quite some time, but there are others that read this board that aren't quite up to speed on this case.
I see the word "justice" thrown around liberally here and just wanted to supplement your post with additional information of what we are up against.
When I just browse this board and don't post for a while, I tend to cram extra stuff into my posts.
Case in point:
The GSA was found to be "fair and reasonable", not the POR. Many people, lately, have suggested/implied that THJMW thought the POR was fair and reasonable when it was really the GSA, and she denied the POR.
The GSA and POR are two different animals, and I can't fault the judge for finding the GSA, "fair and reasonable".
It is safe to say that the "special favors" aren't solely the burden of the FDIC through "discounted banks'.
The world's bankers, hedge funds, governments, etc., are so intertwined and dare I say incestuous, it is hard to truly comprehend what is going on behind the scenes.
Look at what can easily be found out about TPG from a simple news search:
"TPG Capital Said to Sell Minority Stake to Singapore, Kuwait Governments"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/tpg-is-said-to-sell-a-minority-stake-to-gic-kuwait-investment-authority.html
TPG received a reported $500mil investment from those two entities. Remember, TPG did not lose $7bil in WAMU. The actual loss to TPG was around $1.35bil. (I got the $1.35bil figure from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPG_Capital so I can not verify it.)
Does the Kuwait Investment Authority have ties to any familiar entities?:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/libya-investment-portfolio-us-banks-equity_n_829964.html
IMO, justice will not happen in this case. At least not the justice many of us feel is deserved. I only hope that some scraps are thrown to equity. And by scraps I mean anything greater than zero and less than $200bil. Remember, Jamie Dimon reportedly stated that JPM could not build the WAMU infrastructure/banking network for even $200bil.
Good post, I agree.
I imagine the determination of the "$160 mil" value would be a confirmation issue.
Rosen just promised to show breakdown of non-debtor subs.
Rosen is speaking now.
Soon.
There is a better chance of a payout for preferred, so they are right and it isn't just "perception". The chance for the waterfall reaching preferred is very high now. But I am sure you already knew that.
The DS will be approved(or some modified version of it), and we will have another POR confirmation hearing.
<in most instances where their has been a dispute arising out of a reorganized company's future business, the company is being sold off to the creditors or debt holders.>
Did any of those instances include allegations of insider trading?
I am interested in the appeal justification as well. JMW denied it twice, but she did say that the reconsideration should have been filed as an appeal.
One thing to point out is that the judge said. "no documents were exchanged".
I thought that was interesting way to describe whether or not the third-parties received the sealed information. I am surprised Hoffman's lawyer didn't question that statement in court.
Maybe I am wrong, but no documents being "exchanged" doesn't mean that the third-parties weren't privy to the information on those documents. It was a long meeting in chambers. Too long, IMO, for the details of the sealed docs not to be discussed.
It does matter who submitted it.
The Noteholders have been accused of possible insider trading. The judge refused to grant them releases in the POR because of those accusations.
You think she is going to convert this to Chapter 7 based on a motion by the Noteholders with discovery still outstanding?
If the Debtors submitted the motion there would then be a slim chance to convert, but there is no chance for the Noteholders and I wouldn't be surprised to see them withdraw their motion.
It will not be converted, look who submitted the motion.
<Would a new confirmation hearing be required if a new POR is filed? In turn wouldn't that in itself open the record again?>
During the Status Hearing Robert Johnson with Akin Gump said, "It's our view that the record closed on December 7th."
JMW responded, "well, on THAT plan, and aren't we going to have another(hearing? audio cuts out) to confirm that plan?"
Robert Johnson said, "...there was a time for discovery and that time for discovery passed so we are reluctant to see any reopening of the record..."
JMW responded, "so the Debtor won't be presenting any evidence in support of its' modified plan?, I don't know, I am not sure I agree with you."
I think the above dialogue speaks for itself.
They add disingenuous to comical:
30. Now that the Court has denied all of the Equity Committee’s objections to the Plan, the Equity Committee seeks to relitigate every issue in the administration of the estate on the pretext of Thoma’s objection. This is clearly nothing more than a transparent attempt to annoy the parties and extort a settlement.
The Court denied ALL of the EC's objections to the Plan?
I thought the EC's primary objection was the third-party releases.
What did the Court say about the third-party releases again?
I realize that Appaloosa recently added additional counsel, but I would think they could have at least thoroughly read the Plan and the Court's Opinion before they crafted their reply.
I thought this section was the most comical:
28. The Thoma objection has been known to all parties, including the Equity Committee, since at least November 19, 2010. The objection, while baseless, was neither lengthy nor complex. Thus, the Equity Committee had more than enough time to seek discovery from the Settlement Note Holders (either formally or informally) but chose not to do so. It presumably made this tactical decision because the facts on which Thoma relies are false and incomplete, and the conclusions which he draws are bizarre and illogical.
http://www.mediafire.com/?6549bu9poex4dfx
So, the EC had "more than enough time to seek discovery from the Settlement Note Holders" between November 19,2010 and December 2, 2010(first day of Confirmation Hearing).
Less than 2 weeks for discovery?
LOL?
IMO, the GSA expires on 1-31-2011. I may be wrong, but to me it is a moot issue. The GSA will be extended, otherwise, the POR and the "wrap" have no hope.
Rosen pushed forward with scheduling his "wrap" hearing on Feb. 25.
We know Rosen has done this assumption that all parties agree before(when the GSA was first announced), but I just do not see JPM and FDIC backing out now when they have so much to gain.
A more interesting, IMO, discussion would be about the implications of FDIC and/or JPM not agreeing to an extension or continuation of the GSA. Specifically, would WMI then resurrect the claims and lawsuits against JPM and FDIC? Does anyone actually ever see that happening? No? That is why the GSA will be modified/extended, IMO.
<"You're confusing the binding nature of the agreement, vs. the termination of the agreement.">
I am not confusing anything.
I quoted Steinberg and Rosen saying that the GSA expires on 1-31-2011 and will need to be extended.
You can break down the wording of the agreement all you want, and you may be correct.
Rosen and Steinberg said it expires on 1-31-2011 unless extended.
When an agreement expires, it is done, and terminated.
They said it....not me.
"Mr. Rosen did recite that the GSA will expire as of 1-31-2011 unless extended, and I do think that whatever is done here, we should know if there is a GSA still in place..." - Arthur Steinberg in the 1-20-2011 hearing.
Rosen replied, "Obviously we aren't going to waste the Court's time. and ours as well in filing a wrap, if in fact there is no extension of the GSA."
In Rosen and Steinberg's opinions, the GSA does in fact expire on 1-31-2011, and is not open-ended.
Rosen scheduled a hearing on his "wrap" for Feb.25, so he assumes the GSA will be extended.
Section 7.3.
Termination of Agreement.
This Agreement may be terminated by any Party, at their sole option and discretion, in the event that (a) either the FDIC Board or the Board of Directors of WMI (or the Operations Committee thereof, if applicable) shall have failed to approve this Agreement by October 19, 2010, (b) any other Party hereto materially breaches any of the covenants set forth in Article V hereof or any of its other undertakings in this Agreement, or (c) the Confirmation Order is not entered by the Bankruptcy Court and the effective date of the Plan does not occur on or prior to December 31, 2010; provided, however, that, upon the joint instruction and notice provided by WMI and JPMC, and the consent of the Creditors’ Committee, the date set forth in subsection (c) above shall be extended up to and including January 31, 2011.