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.
Remember that the proposed settlement for a POR has to be voted on by partially impaired classes (less than 100c on the dollar) and the judge has to sign off on it. If the proposal gave pref's 10 cents on the dollar but commons nothing (who don't get to vote on the POR b/c they are completely impaired), then only the pref's would get to vote to approve/reject the POR. This is why if you own commons you should own some pref's so that you have a vote on accepting/rejecting the proposal. AIMO
Steve
By the way, I really hope you get your $8+/share
Seriously? Ouch. Since the BK, about 90% of the time this has traded under .20. Well 200k is a bit more of a commitment if that's true.
Nothing to worry about, just would hate for people to believe that pref's would "gift" money to commons.
FSSHON, is that a question you could ask the FDIC under the freedom of information act? Seems like we've had some success with this lately and mine as well keep striking while the iron's hot.
I want the examiner to find out who was withdrawing and who ordered the removal of FHLB money
Under the same logic, why hasn't the bond holders pledged to give some to the pref's? or at least guaranteed that the H's are paid in full?
In BK the absolute priority rule says that classes must be satisfied according to their class priority or else the judge will not pass off on the POR. BK code 1129(2)(B)(ii)
Remember for every dollar that the pref's want to "throw" to the commons they'll lose a 48.5% payout (if no cayman's)or 24.3% (w/cayman's). It would just be hard for me to give up $243 to see a common shareholder get $1/share.
Thanks. Why do you think the announcement of the tax refund settlement hasn't effected the pref share price?
You personally made those adjustments right?
Are we supposed to feel sorry for you? Ya maybe someday I'll be able to add 4.5 + 3.5.
I agree with you on the liability for the Cayman's but it's just one more tool that BR is using in his woodshed to try and screw equity.
I thought the Cayman's were worth over 4.5BB.
Nope. The pref's need to see about 9BB first before any money spills into commons
Only WaMu can convert the P's to commons. Also, I've never thought of anything like that before but what would that accomplish for JPM in the big picture? An under the table purchase of WaMu commons kind of like exercising in the money calls?
The prospectus doesn't give WaMu the option to do so until Dec of 2012
Section 10. Mandatory Conversion at the Company’s Option.
(a) On or after December 18, 2012, the Company shall have the right, at its option, at any time or from time to time to cause some or all of the Series R Preferred Stock to be converted into shares of Common Stock at the then Applicable Conversion Rate if, for 20 Trading Days within any period of 30 consecutive Trading Days (including the last Trading Day of such period), ending on the Trading Day preceding the date the Company delivers a Notice of Mandatory Conversion, the Closing Price of the Common Stock exceeds 130% of the then Applicable Conversion Price of the Series R Preferred Stock.
Hey, give a little credit to Boston now!!! It's good that they said "one" because it kinda humanizes the loss suffered by thousands and thousands.
Thankfully I'm only a post-holder but I have lost thousands b/c of the dot-com and the financial crashes.
Now one Washington Mutual shareholder says he has discovered a way the New York bank could pay more if regulators were to ask.
Bloomberg News
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and J.P. Morgan, as it turns out, never completed a “final settlement” of the sale, even though the $1.88 billion was delivered to the FDIC after Washington Mutual’s Sept. 25, 2008, seizure. Legally, this means the deal isn’t yet done.
I'm not sure where the Bloomberg News comes in. Maybe it was accidental
UZ, Can you post the link to that bloomberg article? I can onl find the WSJ blog article. Thanks
I don't think you have a case b/c it would have to be proven that the sale was illegal and that you were forced to sell your shares, but if you really owned 600,000 shares pre-bk then you should have plenty of attorney contacts in Vegas.
Contact a securities lawyer. I would not rely on random people's thoughts on IHUB if you suffered millions in losses. AIMO
Steve
You would like to sue b/c you sold the shares? Or did someone impermissibly sell them from your account?
The P's popped back in December to $80-90 based on positive press from The Street stating that they could be worth $400-600 b/c of the tax refunds. At that time the commons were around .17/share. Commons didn't run to .70 until just days before the "settlement".
So based on past trends, the pref's would pop first but right now all the momentum is in the commons.
Me too, but not gonna lie, the fact that the FDIC hasn't closed most of the deals tells me that it's not as big of a deal as I had hoped. To me, this is just something to keep my interest until JH's findings are released.
True, it's another small Seattle news source, but the Seattle Times and the PI have got to be looking to break the news mainstream.
New article:
http://thesunbreak.com/2010/08/17/is-chase-squatting-in-ex-wamu-branches
Is Chase Squatting in Ex-WaMu Branches?
Maybe our "brazen squatters" in Magnolia and Kirkland are simply adopting best practices. Almost two years ago, in late September 2008, federal bank regulators seized Washington Mutual and sold it to JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion. All around Seattle the WaMu signs came down and Chase signs went up.
Now a WaMu shareholder, armed with a FOIA, claims to have a document showing the deal has yet to reach a final settlement. The PSBJ reports:
Lam noticed that on pages 7 and 9, the original WaMu purchase and sale agreement allows the FDIC to extend the settlement date. He says he asked about it, and the FDIC confirmed in phone calls and emails that the settlement date was set for Aug. 30, 2010, and could be extended further.
The PSBJ's Al Scott called the FDIC and JP Morgan Chase for comment, only to be told they were "looking into it." [Ed: I'll be downtown later this afternoon putting up TSB signage on Chase branches, since there's apparently some confusion about when Chase bought WaMu and when they knew they'd bought it. The market rewards nimbleness!]
At the time of the sale, WaMu had assets of $307 billion and deposits of $188 billion, so the $1.9 billion "sale" price represented a remarkable bargain for JP Morgan Chase, who took over WaMu's assets while WaMu shareholders' claims were wiped out by bankruptcy. Those shareholders have been waging a battle ever since, to reclaim at least part of their investment.
The FDIC's Sheila Bair justified the seizure and sale, commenting: "I was worried. We needed to protect the depositors and the taxpayers," but "[l]awyers for multiple groups of investors and lawyers for WaMu's former parent company, Washington Mutual Inc., have also conducted investigations and found enough to file lawsuits claiming everything from market manipulation to mismanagement," reports the Wall Street Journal, in detailing the news of a probe into WaMu's demise, as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
Elsewhere the WSJ notes that, "J.P. Morgan's multi-family lending business got a boost with the acquisition of failed Washington Mutual Inc. in 2008. Those have been among the best performing WaMu loans on the bank's books."
BU
Do you think the reference of the "settlement" could be to a document that's not public information?
Excellent link!!
Adjustments reflect (1) the exercise of options by the acquirer, (2) either any repurchase of assets by the receiver or any “put back” of assets to the receiver by the assuming institution, and (3) the valuation of assets sold to the acquirer at market prices.
BU was partially correct so we need to give him credit for that. But by only focusing on the first element, because of not seeing one word ("and"), the whole statute is completely misinterpreted.
Funny how almost on a weekly basis there's been major positive developments for shareholders yet the prices remain relatively flat.
AIMO
Steve
I'm just not following you.
You said that this means nothing right?
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/WaMu083010SettlementDateExtension.pdf
Before I answer this, I think it's important that you know that I am only in pref's and have been for almost 2 years so I might come across as a little biased. It seems that a lot of U holders are waiting for a quick settlement and I don't feel that it's coming anytime soon.
Could FDIC and JPM have already reached a settlement before the final date?
This sentence can mean two things: 1) they already have reached a settlement as of now or 2) there could be a settlement up to the Aug 30th date. So I'll answer both.
1. Highly unlikely and would have already been announced
2. Also IMO, highly unlikely b/c if the examiner reports that the assets are worth XX amount but the FDIC settled for a different amount then either the government or JPM shareholders will be ticked. It just wouldn't make sense for the FDIC to "settle" an amount w/JPM before the examiner's report.
Basically, it's like me thinking about buying a car off of you for 2 years and just before Kelly Blue Book is about to update the values I decide to throw the dice and come up w/an amount before the expert does.
Remember that the agreement date of Aug 30th, according to Boston on Y-board, can be extended. The FDIC has the ultimate CYA contract at the whim of JPM
AIMO
Steve
Iron Mountain is a company and is generally mentioned concerning the Dime warrants and IMO isn't as pertinent as other things on this board. Dime warrants ticker: dimeq
POR--Very important. Plan of Reorganization. In a ch. 11 BK, the partially impaired classes have to vote and approve of the entities reorganization. A partially impaired class is the class that will receive a fraction of their claims whereas an impaired class or often called completely impaired class will get nothing and is not allowed to vote (because they are deemed to vote NO). A class that is whole--meaning they will get paid 100 cents on the dollar on their claims will also not be allowed to vote because they are deemed to vote yes.
This is important b/c it is quite common in BK that attorneys will try to pin classes against each other in order to get the plan approved. For example they could try to give a bunch of money to pref's and nothing to commons in hopes that the pref's approve of the plan. This is where attorneys make the big money and is important that all classes are represented i.e. creditors committee and equity committee.
P&A agreement: Purchase and Assumption agreement b/t the FDIC and JPM. Recent information has surfaced concerning the probability that the FDIC never set a price with JPM concerning the WaMu assets they purchased.
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/WaMu083010SettlementDateExtension.pdf
AIMO
Steve
Have you read this? I was skeptical as well but this website and the link I gave to you IMO make it clear that the price b/t the JPM and FDIC for the WaMu assets is not set in stone.
http://madblab.com/post/jpmorgan-failed-to-disclose-final-wamu-purchase-price
Please do not ever feel like I'm ganging up on you. I read these posts for a reason b/c of multiple interpretations of the same facts. AIMO
Steve
I'm not suggesting you're making accusations. You could be right but there's several hundred people on multiple boards that have read Boston's emails to the FDIC per FOIA and have interpreted them as if the FDIC doesn't have a price set in stone w/JPM. Like I said, you could be right so I think others would appreciate it if you could provide some links to what you have read and/or to why you feel the way you do. Thanks
AIMO
Steve
Are you saying that all of the chatter of the P&A agreement not being final b/t the FDIC and JPM is bogus?
Means NOTHING.
In terms of what?
Good info from Boston over on the Y board and mentioned over at the common board. If Boston is legit, then the FDIC is 100% covered and much smarter than most people gave them credit for.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=531272&mid=531272&tof=1&frt=2#531272
By the transfer of WMI assets from WMI to the FDIC for no equal transfer from the FDIC to WMI that a Constructive Fraudulent Conveyance took place.
Under your explanation--WaMu would be the entity that committed fraud (obviously not possible b/c WaMu was seized). Remember, under the legal definition it's the debtor (person/entity that declared BK) that gave up the assets (WaMu) that gets in trouble for a low purchase price--not the person/entity that made the bargain purchase (FDIC). The problem is we don't know what an equal transfer would have been. This is probably why the FDIC has kept their P&A agreement open w/JPM until Aug. 30th and reserved the right to extend said date. Constructive fraud is essentially the lack of consideration received for the assets measured quantitatively. One of the reasons the FDIC can seize banks w/very little to no consideration is b/c the business benefits of the bank's customer's insured deposits would be consideration.
Because WMB was not undercapitalized and was liquid the FDIC is required to get fair market value.
The meaning of the term fair market value has been litigated in BK for a very long time w/many different interpretations. As I've said in previous posts, sometimes fmv means liquidated "fire sale price" other times it means what it sounds like. Here's a couple cases that show the discrepancy:
In re Walsh (D.C.): FMV is the value of the asset in the liquidation value
In re Mitchell (Texas): FMV incorporates an exposure of the item to appropriate market for a reasonable period of time
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to embarrass you or make you feel inferior. The best part about this case is if you don't agree w/me about the outcome we'll both find out together because of JH and his team.
AIMO
Steve
For the last time:
A fraudulent conveyance is a charge against the debtor. The debtor is the person/entity that declared bk. WaMu declared BK.
So the logic goes fc-debtor-WaMu.
Your logic: fc-debtor-fdic--wrong. FDIC was/is not the debtor in BK.
Just like you can't charge someone for murder if they sold the knife to the person that killed someone.
You can sue the FDIC for not getting enough for the assets but not for fc unless the FDIC intentionally conspired w/JPM to do the deal.
I agree that no matter what we don't know how this will go until the examiner reports and the judge makes her decision based on the data. But the distinct feature in our case is that we have an examiner which is rarely used and generally only under the circumstances of the judge catching a whiff of foul play in terms of info and/or asset valuation.
It definitely looks like commons are toast in Abiti but what about the preferreds, if there are any, in that company? If there are pref's, did the judge align them to the unsecured class that will be able to have rights to purchase new shares?
Steve
By the way, who does this sound like:
"They had to have acted intentionally to deceive for their personal gain or acted intentionally to deceive WaMu"
I strongly feel that if the examiner comes up w/a much higher valuation for the WaMu estate, then shareholders that were holding on March 12th at the time of the "settlement" was announced could and should file a class action lawsuit against Brian Rosen and his firm for intentionally acting to decieve the WaMu estate and equity.
I think the examiner will provide all the evidence that shareholders will need to make a successful case against him.
Steve
Erevno, IMO it's better to believe in the law than other people's misinformed opinions contrived by 2 years of group think. Just because FDIC didn't maximize the value of the WaMu estate doesn't mean they committed fraud by illegally/fraudulently conveying WaMu's assets to JPM-- meaning they had to have acted intentionally to deceive for their personal gain or acted intentionally to deceive WaMu.
Banks sue the FDIC all the time on the basis of asset valuation NOT on the basis of a fraudulent conveyance b/c of poor asset valuation.
"a few responses were somewhat hostile"
Group think: Tendency of the members of a group to yield to the desire for consensus or unanimity at the cost of considering alternative courses of action. Group-think is said to be the reason why intelligent and knowledgeable people make disastrous decisions.
AIMO
Steve
Thanks I like that link. Keep in mind that this is citing the BK code:
Basis for fraudulent conveyance and preferential transfer under the bankruptcy code
* Found in 11 USC 544, 547, and 548
11 USC is the BK code and 544, 547, and 548 are the sections that it is citing. Under those sections--especially 547 which refers to fraudulent transfers--it is referring to the debtor.
One of the main reasons for appointing a trustee is to reclaim contested property which is what is contained in that article and those sections are how the trustee can recapture that property.
Just so we're all on the same page I'm saying that the FDIC will not be convicted for selling WaMu for too cheap under a fraudulent conveyance theory. HRoller if you agreed w/Mordicai then we're in agreement. There is a difference in reclaiming WaMu's rightful property such as the 4BB deposit than with stating the FDIC should pay 3x RICO charges for federal racketeering under a "fraudulent conveyance" theory that they purposely gifted WaMu to JPM with the intent of detrimenting the WaMu estate...
For sure we can sue the FDIC to get a higher asset valuation and that's obviously what is going on right now with the appointment of JH.
This is contradictory to your argument which is why I cited it to you. LOL. The FDIC is not a debtor in bankruptcy when they take over a bank.