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.
Do Common Shareholders have to grant releases or only preferred owners?
I do find it interesting that we get $75 million and $125 million line of credit for the New WMI so we get little millions when the company we once owned stock in was worth over $60 billion and were bought or robbed for $1.9 billion. But we are supposed to be happy now that we get something in this thing like little millions to share amongst tons of shareholders, yes that is fair I think, NOT. WAMU was worth billions and we get little millions anyone find a problem with that?
I kind of like page 20 top of page last sentence in paragraph. But after other creditors are paid though, that could be a huge court settlement amount though.
Alex Jones interview of Max Keiser.
http://thevictoryreport.org/2011/12/14/listen-max-keiser-alex-jones-on-mf-global/
GLTA Here, this is what we are dealing with in America, if you want to call it that still today.
Jamie Dimon Will Have His Comeuppance in 2012
The race for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s replacement was a dead heat as recently as late last summer. Two financial services thoroughbreds – Jon Corzine and Jamie Dimon – were touted as equally likely candidates. Only a scratch or a spectacular mid-race collapse would disqualify either of them from serious contention.
The Treasury Secretary buzz for Jon Corzine was so strong MF Global juiced the bonds his comeback firm issued in August with special terms in the event he was selected. Investors would receive a higher interest rate if Corzine, viewed by the markets as indispensable to MF Global’s success, had to leave his Chairman, CEO, and (now we know) Chief European Sovereign Debt Trader position to serve the President.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, has successfully sustained the myth, even in the wake of new claims by mortgage bondholders, that his bank is “facing fewer mortgage problems than competitors,” according to The Wall Street Journal. Despite the fact that Bear Stearns/EMC and Washington Mutual – originators, securitizers, and servicers JP Morgan Chase inherited during the crisis – face huge amounts of litigation, Dimon’s charm has so far insulated his bank from the kind of investor skepticism plaguing Citigroup and Bank of America.
It’s not a stretch to imagine that Jon Corzine’s days as a wealthy free man may be numbered. The longer the mystery of the missing MF Global $1.2 billion goes on, the more we see him bob and weave in front of angry legislators, the more arrogant and entitled his excuses for knowing nothing sound, the more likely it is prosecutors will make him the poster boy for criminal prosecutions of Wall Street banksters.
Until recently Corzine was viewed as untouchable given his gold-plated, triple-crown of former titles – Senator, Governor, and Goldman Sachs CEO. He has also been one of the Democratic Party’s and President Barack Obama’s staunchest political and financial supporters. Last month he made back-to-back appearances in the Senate and the House where, instead of pleading the Fifth, he hemmed and hawed, neither admitting nor denying responsibility while claiming no knowledge of anything that went on at MF Global outside the range of his Blackberry and the Bloomberg screen.
Last week the rollback of support for Corzine from the Obama administration began. According to BusinessWeek, “Corzine was one of 41 donors who bundled more than $500,000 this year for Obama’s re-election effort, according to documents released by the campaign Oct. 14.” On Dec. 24 the magazine reported that President Obama’s re-election campaign returned $70,000 of Corzine’s personal campaign contributions.
So my first prediction is an easy one: This is the beginning of the end for Corzine. It’s gloves-off time. Look for an indictment by the Department of Justice’s Preet Bharara before the end of 2012 for criminal misappropriation of customer funds at MF Global.
My next prediction isn’t so obvious.
I think the Obama administration will pull Jamie Dimon down along with Jon Corzine.
They’ll do this to regain momentum with working-class voters—the 99%. Winning the November election, less than a year away, will require a significant show of prosecutorial force against banks and senior executives yet to be held accountable for the impact of the financial crisis on the middle class.
Jamie Dimon will have the misfortune, I believe, of catching a significant amount of fallout from the MF Global mess. As MF Global’s primary banker, JPMorgan Chase has been consistently accused in the media and by the attorney representing a customer coalition of taking advantage of the firm’s vulnerable financial state. Bloomberg News reported that the MF Global trustee said “certain” actions of JP Morgan Chase “are likely to be the subject of investigation.”
What JP Morgan Chase may have allowed – the use of customer funds to meet MF Global’s corporate obligations – is something JP Morgan was recently severely sanctioned for in the U.K. The bank’s London unit was fined a record 33.3 million pounds by the FSA, Britain’s financial regulator, for commingling client funds in its futures operation.
Dimon’s bank was also Bernie Madoff’s main bank. The trustee liquidating Madoff’s firm filed a revised lawsuit against the bank in June demanding a minimum of $19 billion in damages. JPMorgan Chase “was an active enabler of the Madoff Ponzi scheme,” The New York Times quoted David Sheehan, the attorney for Madoff bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard, as saying in June. The bank’s executives “not only should have known that a fraud was being perpetrated, they did know,” according to the statement from Sheehan.
In November a judge tossed out the claim against the bank, saying the trustee had no standing to bring claims on behalf of Madoff's clients. It could do this only for the bankrupt Madoff firm, the judge said. Picard, the trustee, plans to appeal because, as the Journal reported, the claims were reduced by billions. The trustee said he had “no choice but to appeal.”
In July, JP Morgan Chase agreed to pay $228 million in restitution and disgorgement in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in which the bank “admit[ted], acknowledge[d] and accept[ed] responsibility for illegal, anticompetitive conduct by its former employees ... from 2001 through 2006, [when] certain former JPMorgan employees at its municipal derivatives desk, entered into unlawful agreements to manipulate the bidding process and rig bids on municipal investment and related contracts.”
Financial crisis litigation chickens have also come home to roost for JP Morgan Chase.
The bank and Jamie Dimon must answer to the OCC for faulty foreclosures related to the two firms picked up as a bargain during the crisis – Bear Stearns/EMC and Washington Mutual. As I write this, Deloitte, the former auditor to Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, is the “independent” consultant reviewing the foreclosure process and working on an estimate of JPMorgan’s financial exposure to borrowers.
JP Morgan Chase is still subject to negotiations with the state attorneys general who are pursuing their own multibillion dollar settlement with the top mortgage servicers over foreclosures. The banks have yet to sign on to any final agreement and so the check is still blank.
In April, the bank agreed to pay $56 million to settle claims in a class action lawsuit brought by soldiers over improper foreclosures of military families’ homes.
New York City Comptroller John C. Liu (who himself is under investigation over dubious campaign financing practices) and the NYC Pension Funds recently filed shareholder proposals calling on the boards of JP Morgan and two other financial services boards to “hold senior executives financially accountable for losses that result from excessive risk-taking or improper or unethical conduct.” JPMorgan has paid, according to the Comptroller, more than $100 million over the past 18 months to settle state or federal charges in connection with mortgage securities.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed suit in September against 17 domestic and foreign banks, including J.P. Morgan Chase. The banks “falsely represented” the quality of the loans that were bundled into securities and sold to investors and “significantly overstated the ability of the borrower to repay their mortgage loans,” FHFA was cited as claiming in The Washington Post. JPMorgan Chase faces claims for selling $33 billion worth of fraudulent securities to the GSEs.
There’s more MBS exposure for JP Morgan Chase, but perhaps the biggest mistake Dimon made came right before Christmas when he joined the ranks of the rich in denouncing protesters and those hostile toward the privileged 1%. Bloomberg reports: “Jamie Dimon, the highest-paid chief executive officer among the heads of the six biggest U.S. banks, turned a question at an investors’ conference in New York this month into an occasion to defend wealth.”
With everything Dimon and JP Morgan Chase are facing, lunching with guys like Stanley Marcus who refer to OWS protesters as “imbeciles” was not the smartest PR move.
Francine McKenna writes the blog re: The Auditors, about the Big Four accounting firms. She worked in consulting, professional services, accounting and financial management for more than 25 years.
If you all will notice these links, no main stream media outlet I can find anywhere has carried this story, so you tell me who is being paid off here with this type of news. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM................ No guts no glory.
http://thepoliticalcoffeehouse.com/2011/12/15/jon-corzine-threated-with-death-jamie-dimon/
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=224618
http://theforceiswithinyou.twilightlegend.net/t5415-jon-corzine-threated-with-death-by-jamie-dimon
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1526/321/Jon_Corzine_Threatened_With_Death_By_JP_Morgans_CEO_Jamie_Dimon.html
A simple Q & A cannot be issued due to this means they actually have to answer common sense question which the EC team is incapable of without Jamie's input. Sorry folks no movie tonight and the news is not good. Q & A forthcoming in next two months, you heard it here first, and it will not answer anything we want to know or have asked, incompetance that is an understatement here, like they have to reread what they put out to understand it all themselves. Too funny. C'mon lawyers took you months to put it out there now you don't know how to plainly describe it in English. Too Funny. My laugh for the day.
Calculations will all be wrong as they can do whatever they want to here for themselves, not the sheep here. also has anyone seen the savior Q & A coming soon to a theater near you? No, hmmm....
big surprise, shows how much anyone cares what information they give you or anyone, they don't care.
Dude, they can really make it anything they want as there is not real precedent in a case a large as this one has been without any asset list of what was taken over or purchased. To me it is all basic manipulation to see what the sheep (that is us) will accept here. They can make it one for one shares, they can make the value set at $24 pps, they can do whatever they want and they have already proven that fact over the last three years, anything can happen and they can make the numbers work anyway they want them to, period. We are but pawns on their chessboard with a no balz Judge.
Yes things that make common folk go HMMM...... that's right lawyers are answering the Q & A that will take a few months they are into it now two weeks, so lets see how close I come to a few months before we see anything at all from these great people.
Voo, and folks who vote on things without details. Take care.
Have a New Year everyone here, lawyers have a Happy New Year.
Yes. eom.
Yes unless one writes them a letter and asks if it can be shared by the masses, that is the way I see it coming across and not very professional in my mind, in consideration other holders here is all. MW if he is to make a statement or provide other information can find a means to get the point across to many here as he would wish to. Nothing stops that from occurring. But as you suggest then he should never have responded to this letter and allowed this person to post to the world if he has taken a vow of silence on such matters. Cannot be both ways, er can it?
Oh yeah they are rich, rules are different I keep forgetting.
Catz I love your stuff here as you know. Please answer one question for me. Does Michael Willingham represent all Equity Shareholders on the Equity Committee, yes or no? If no then I understand your comments, if yes I stand by my statements here and his lack of support and information to all shareholders here.
So in Mr. Willingham's overall support for all shareholders then apparently he knows certain information and can share with all of us but choses to only answer to certain people here or on other boards. To me this means he in fact does not represent us as shareholder'SSSSSSSS, but does respond to ONE SHAREHOLDER. This causes a concern voiced by many by now about his sharing information with the folks he is representing here, I THINK. Sorry again if I upset all of your postiive thoughts here.
Down, down, down we go, Q & A in legalese lingo expected soon will not help me at all. Common language I can deal with, but lawyerspeak, I need an interpreter. Hope you all do not get you're bubbles bursted here. By the way where is this simple Q & A anyway, we are paying for this too I assume. Nice bunch of cash for someone performing this function now. Let's see what this brings to us as far as explaining things here. I do not expect to get much out of it and that is what is taking so long, let's see how can we word this to keep them hooked in here?? HMMMM.
They usually know something the rest of us do not know. That is why the drop. They know what is going to happen.
Yeah you folks are right why tell us any facts now, nothing has changed and they are still lying to you and you are eating it up. Some of us don't take kindly to lying folks. You acceptors obviously don't care or believe the tooth fairy is coming as well. I am a realist and if that causes you to think I am negative here then so be it. I like truths not half truths we have had enough of those over the last three and half years now. So yes we would like to see some sound numbers sorry for asking questions, good questions about our investment here. Maybe you folks should be asking about sound numbers or facts too here? Maybe you all already know and are not sharing the information wtih the rest of us here. Or your just blind to the lies going on they are feeding US all. And as for common shareholders v. preferred's you guys are right the preferred's deserve everything here and the common holders like myself we deserve nothing, which is just about what we got now folks.
That America went down the tubes with the first donation to a foreign country that is against the Constitution, once that happened and then Bailouts, Lobbyists, and TARPs got out there we were no longer America. The rich folks needed to get richer so they can control the world we live in. In D.C. they outwardly paritipate in crony capitalism and brag about it and we let them do it. The likes of JPM, GS, BOA get away with things because they are the rich mafia and cannot be controlled. Where else but in America can Warren Buffet brag that he pays less tax than his secretary does. Just letting this be known and people joking about it tells you all you need to know, instead of fixing it, it becomes the latest anecdote. No one wants to fix anything but they want to control everything. I agree with you America no longer exists, I don't know what you would call us anymore, maybe Red China West.
Yeah all of a sudden they want to be fair? I don't think so, they want us to think they are trying to be fair, quite the difference.
Tell that to the GM shareholders preferred or otherwise.
One buys what one can afford at the time commons or prefered's this does not mean that one should be screwed more than the other, why not just join JPM and FDIC in the screwing pens with the rest of the sheep they rip off.
I do find it interesting that in the world we live in today JPM and the FDIC can do what they did, everyone know the facts and nothing gets done to them about it. Just goes to show you all what we are up against here. Money trumps everything. I am holding long as most here but yes I am nervous and not so postitive about what I see and read as well. Sorry you folks think this relates to being negative to use your words myself. I am not going anywhere and hope there is some sliver of hope here that we can recover something worth value. I prefer though to see justice done regardless if I lose my investment here.
One of my questions for the Q & A session for these fancy lawyers to answer is why after Equity has lost millions of dollars are we only offered 30% of value in the newcompany, why is the deal not a share for share 100% invested in the new company or optional buy out for the shares held period. Not this if this happens, or if the sky is blue on Wednesday Preferreds get 75% if DIMEQ sigs onto the agreement on Saturday. Just simple like me, one for one share for all our time invested and losses already experienced from the original investment, no whipped cream, no cherries on top something I can understand, not a bunch of he said, she said and if the Moon is full on Friday we get a new percentage if TPS and DIMEQ make a deal in another courthouse somewhere else not related but related to a BK case that should have never occurrred, blah, blah, blah. Simple a one for one share in the NEWCO for what is currently held by Preferreds and Commons or a buyout of the value set prior to the takeover in September 2008 from the initial JPM offer of $8 per share period. End of story.
To have to hold and present a Q & A report about what is in this POR7 speaks volumes to what its language really means to others lining their pockets here. I see this as the perfect example as to a teacher giving a lesson that totally understands its meaning and never once reaching any student with her hyperbole and expertise on the subject matter, thinking all the while they were getting through to them. Its called elitistlawyerspeak, other words doubletalk.
Absolutely they do not want anyone to revisit their robbery with their buddies the FDICK, they want to evade, confuse, change, revise, prolong this BK so we all forget how we ever got to this place to start with. To confuse and continue is their aim here until money is all wasted. They will win, we will lose. It's written in the Rich Book.
True enough at this point you would think some firm numbers would be the obvious thing for these so-called professionals to have come up with. But just like the diappearing act of the original Asset List, they expect we will continue to accept their vague decisions and proposals because it suits their needs, not ours. For once I would like to see some solid numbers depicting what is part of our deal, if it's zero then state so and why, if its $24 pps state so and why, if is somewhere in between state so and why.
These seem to be reasonable requests and they have had ample time to state so and why by now. The Judge is letting them play her like a violin and she is very loose with her courtroom and let's things just tag along like its just one more day in my courtroom without concern over whose playing her at any given moment in time. Perhaps she is waiting for the shoe to drop from our EC representatives whenever the leader of our pack might show up in court. The time has come Sussman to step up into the batters box and take a swing or two. How about it Sussman can you hit the curve ball?
Totally based on your bullet points this is no deal for Equity at all, going from one unknown to another unknown is how the rich folk deal with us poorer ones. Keep em' guessing and they will never know the real deal here. If we have already lost what we have to this point what is a few more cents to pay to get to the real truth and proper settlement here. One could always file that we have been misrepresented by our own EC and they have become the ones we were first fighting against here in agreeing to this latest POR 7. I am with tombrady on this one. f em all what the heck is a few more cents to lose at this point to get this done properly if that can ever be done here with all these unknown's we are no better off than in 2008 when the initial robbery occurred, we are still in the dark and the latest offering is not acceptable to me and my small position.
Just sitting around wondering why TPS is so concerned about commons getting more than they think we deserve here based on their filing. Seems they were not around to help out when JPM and FDIC robbed WAMU in the first place, why were they not concerned about commons and preferred's then getting screwed, no only now do they have an issue with commons perhaps getting a piece of the action we so well deserve regardless of any shennanigans, the shennangans began with our robbery by the FDIC and JPM, no commons. So TPS stuff it.
I stand corrected here won't be the last time. Too many eggs in this basket to keep track of them all. Everyone wants our money. TPG is correct. WTF is TPS now, get outta town.
Merry Christmas to the board and our reprenstatives here with this case.
Giving was defined one time by Mr. T. He said "if one owns 100 pairs of shoes and gives away a pair they do not wear often if at all, that is not giving, but if one owns two pairs of shoes and you give away your favorite pair that, that is giving". Happy Holidays all.
I think the TPS complaint is sour grapes and they are just attempting to change the game here for their benefit. It is a delay, delay, and delay tactic by them to make this extend out further and the Honorable Judge should see right through this, have them prove these conditions occurred. Maybe they are mad because EC had proper representation for the commons and they did not have great attorneys fighting for them, well boys that is their problem not ours, but now it is ours. I hope they Judge kicks them down the road and let JPM deal with their needs. Boo Hoo TPS you shoulda never put money into this days prior to this takeover, don't you think JPM knew what occurred here with your money so now they can swoop in and take your money along with ours. It was all in JPM's plan folks, they knew about TPS investment in WAMU and how long after did this end within a week, a month? JPM is no dummy and they are outright dangerous.
Thank you I will. eom.
OK so it is a draft, so I have no comments until the real deal is on the street then and all this hubbub is over nothing real here. Sorry but as most here we are a little on the edge more than normal. I consider your information grateful in that any confidential information of course should not come out now but a REAL POR Document should. Again we are guinea pigs so the rich folks can determine and see our reaction to the junk they spew out and where the pitfalls all are. Someone laughed at me the other day about rich lawyeres listening to what is said on a message board, but I believe they get some of their best reactions from such communication like this forum. GLTA here.
So you are saying that what has been made public for all of us to read they cannot shed any light on it's contents, WTF?
As MW has been intimate with the EC in lieu of a petition against him, although it might get him off his duff and know we are serious about his lack of information forthcoming to us shareholders, may I suggest a strong letter signed by all shareholders that he get his act together and provide some further detailed information or a removal will take place. This gives him a professional courtesy to provide it or remove himself if he realizes this pressure will end his stay here. I think a strong letter to him versus an immediate petition to remove him entirely from the situation is in order. JMHO.
So if POR7 fails again and part of our money has gone into supporting the first 6 PORS that failed, do we get out money back on those failed attempts at a settlement? Or can the lawyers always present POR's that they know will never be accepted so they reap the rewards of their payments from all our assets? I think those who state the Honorable Judge has to step in and MAKE them settle this thing no matter how long the court room saga would go on, as all the time she has allowed them to settle this behind closed doors has not happened and to me at this point she should be telling them who gets what, and to heck with their findings. We need a Judge with balls as someone stated here prior to make sure these HIGH PAID attorneys do what she is expecting them to do, get everyone on the same page and get a POR without pores in it. GLTA here.
Link to law firm for MF Global.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mf-global-hires-two-banruptcy-law-firm-advisors-chapter-11-looms
GLTA Here.
Just so you are all aware MF Global is being represented by Weil, Gotshal and Manges law firm. Funny how money flows in these cases, can one invest in a law firm?