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.
How do we know the EC and susman have these magical valuations we are waiting to see or be presented...what if they don't?
I'm just asking cause time and time again we think one thing and the reality is a complete 360!
Back to lurking...Oh Mary from Y had a darn good post!
That is how I interpret it but some of those deficiencies, in order to properly clarify, they may not actually want to or be willing to do so cause that would mean evidence to clarify and etc and some compensation for the releases. So while it may read bad, maybe the underlying deficiencies are a catch 22 for the debtors. I don't know but I hope my thinking is inline with how it will play out!
But WHO THE F knows!
Not sure what to make of this but if the plan for the EC was for everyone to show thier cards...that has been done. Hopefully they have valuation or the missing 3.1.a. Now knowing exactly what the judge is looking for to approve the plan and knowing what BR has if they have this in thier POR it would be very hard for BR to refute and the judge not to consider it....
JMHO, but we will see. I think a denial is a denial and they have to start from scratch otherwise wouldn't she have just said make these opininons and then the court will approve. Why deny if you will simply turn around and approve with minor housekeeping items?
Why make the extension if you were going to approve anyway...still does not make sense to me...but that's life. Ill just watch to see what the pps does on Monday!
Right I never mentioned which way the decision would be and I won't speculate on it merely saying there is a decision (possibly) and only 7 days after it should have originally been made so why the extension or notice for delay...just seems odd if in fact there is a ruling today!
Not necessarily the media but the fact he is qouting Brian Rosen does say something...it's not like he said BR indicated he was unsure what the judge meant. So if BR believes she was referring to a decision on the POR than I'm some what inclined to strongly believe that is what she was referring to. Otherwise he would have clarified or not have such a misleading statement. There is nothing gained or lost by misleading in this instance...
but like I said WTF DO I KNOW...this is just my opinion based on reading that article from a party who was in the court room reporting what the primary party to this case told him and Ilene's observations/conversations at court yesterday.
Well the article posted brings me back to another question why open the gate for an extension till 1/31 if 7 days after the original date for confirmation decision you have a decision. I mean how much more could she have gotten done in 7 days, rather than just knocking this out the week after Christmas. Technically only six days cause I'm sure she is not drafting the opinion as we speak.
I don't think an additional 7 days would have helped or merited putting off a decision, unless as some have speculated it was to maximize the estate value with NOLs. BUT WTF DO I KNOW?!
IMHO this makes me speculate she was sitting on her opinion...but for whatever reason your guess is as good as mine!
Okay I'm done for the day back to lurking and then home to get a good workout in. I'm to scared to be on this board when the news hits one way or another cause I honestly don't know what I'd do one way or another. heheehehehehehehe...lol!
Well I guess we ARE in fact waiting for a ruling on the POR...Man I was excited to have a nice fun and relaxing weekend...now I may be somewhere standing in a corner in utter silence!
GLTA...:)
I don't know what to think other than it's interesting with the pause and all, but I'm kinda leaning with Catz on this one. Given the context of the hearing and the back and forth during the 3 minute clip and her direct response to the LTW's lawyer when she gave him a hypothetical question. Plus its only 7 days since the orignial date to rule on the POR where she indicated that she needed more time. I don't think an additional 7 days would have helped or merited putting off a decision, unless as some have speculated it was to maximize the estate value with NOLs. So I think it's just for DimeQ but I only listened and took notes.
However, Ilene may be spot on with her account of the lawyers demeanors and conversations that they suspect it's a ruling regarding the POR leads me to believe it may very well be. I mean if there was any doubt surely Rosen could have interjected and asked for clarification on DimeQ or "all the matters"
It also doesn't help that she said "all the matters" instead of all of your matters or all the dimeq matters. Any who those three words are just about as confusing as this case has been at some points.
Well GLTA...Ilene thanks baby doll!Either way we will have something to read and can maybe learn from her ruling, especially if it's consistent in touching on some of the issues that closely relate to those addressed during the confirmation hearings.
Of course in some very sick twisted way she could just be %!$#@@# with everyone for dragging this out 2 plus years. LOL
Back to lurking!:)
We should all sympathize with Mr. Shore...he is just one of us trying to make his case with no legal counsel or lawyer experience.
So although you will be denied Mr. Shore...I say to you keep your head high and continue to fight for what you believe in.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)):):):
NO PM catz, but I get it...LOL. And now stand corrected and see exactly what your talking about...there is a fine line between saying and telling and he may be doing more telling than saying...which I hope is just his way of being silly and having fun letting the time pass by and hope others are investing due to DD and not because of something they have read that tells them to do so.
:). Well aside from that who's ready for tomorrow! :)
I don't see how it's trash talk he is stating his opinion that any modification to the plan would make A>L assuming they don't give more money away to whomever else in the plan, which for the most part are close to being paid at par.
At least that's my interpretation of what he said. If you don't like his opinion...then fine, but no need to call it something its not (i.e. trash talk). Because depending on what happens tomorrow we will have another clue or possibly piece of the puzzle as to how this may possibly play out.
Besides the fact that our EC states the value of the disputed assets are somewhere around $30 billion, which if true belongs to equity, technically makes REAL's $24 pps real. Now I'm not saying its feasible or will happen, but there is some justification for that number no matter how small the possibility of it occuring.
Folks scream and yell 24 is to high and that we will get $1-$2 dollars and no one asks for thier head, calls it trash talk or for thier posts to be deleted. REAL and DG are simply sharing what they believe just as we all are based on the possibilities of getting paid or having justice served (depending on which category you fall under/into).
I don't think he is pumping...merely freely expressing what he truly believes. And if he is pumping then we all in one way or another pump the hell out of this stock simply by believing and being here everyday that there will be some type of settlement. We don't know anymore if there will be one yet we are here everyday offering support, unity and DD as in hopes there may be one. So why can't we just simply support DG's and Real's belives. Heck I mean if they come true its not like it will hurt us in anyway. Well it may hurt some; those that don't want to see DG or Real proven correct. LOL
Just my 2 cents. I'm done I'm obviously bored at work to type this.
GLTA and let's hope tomorrow will be one of those under the radar omnibus hearings, but yet rich in detail and substance of great importance. And since I'm long over due for a delaware road trip I think Ill drop in!
:) Back to lurking! I'm so gonna get flamed for this...:).
Kristin, thanks for the heads up...and the links from last night they were very insightful.
My day was great and will be even better come Thursday should be very very interesting.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
It hints at it in the article...5gb thumbdrive from BOA...
quick question for the board for clarity...the nols and BOLI/COLI are two separate things, correct?!
If this is the case then there is a potential upwards to almost 10 billion dollars on the high end give or take of money coming into the estate that has not otherwise been valued or accounted for, correct?! (Well at least known to us)...
Is it of no coincidence that JPM has a bogus claim of 10 billion dollars. Me thinks they knew these additional values existed and when there was a possibility of them coming to light here comes JPMs bogus claim marching in. Things are starting to make some sense now...
Thoughts?!
Not so sure there gop, I think had they come out on the 24th they still could have tapped into the 5.5 billion by establishing new business...though I could be wrong. They would have never told us this as it would mean more money for the estate, but I don't think it would have been an outright forfeiture of 5.5 billion had they emerged. The 100 milllion was for existing/old assets.
Maybe there were levers in place and with us out of the way they could simply trigger those to tap the 5.5 billion by taking on new business. Maybe something Rosen and crew knew all along, but would never tell us and would be one of those "oh we didn't realize the value or the tax law levers until we took on new business" and of course we were canceled.
But this is just my speculative opinion I'm not quite sure how the NOLs work, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was quite possible given the corporate tax friendly triggers we have. :)
it's pretty certain this NOL value just moved from $100MM to $5B.
So they are saying ... it's a whole new ballgame now, Judge!! That POR you are deciding on doesn't work now!
My thoughts exactly! But who really knows...we have all been wrong with our thoughts.
Happy holidays to everyone hope you all have a relaxing holidays!
I read through this quickly, but it is more than interesting in that this alone from reading it makes the POR unconformable as the EC puts it in Black and White that the estates value has increased from 100 million to 5 billion based on suggested value of abandoning WMB stock in 2011 rather than Dec. 24th. What's more is that no one has done a valuation on what the exact amount would be if the abandonment took place in 2011...
I guess they were to arrogant to plan for this contingency as there were confident the plan would be done by end of the year.
Just my two cents....Thoughts?
From huffington post
WikiLeaks Founder: We Have Enough Information To Make An Exec At A Major Bank Resign...Seems like its BOA and not JPM...
Link below...
thoughts?!
An upcoming data dump by WikiLeaks will be damaging enough that an executive at a major American bank will resign, the organization's founder Julian Assange told the U.K.'s Times in a recent interview.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/wikileaks-founder-we-have_n_799555.html
I think the judge has known something for quite sometime now and has been calculating her moves since early last year when she infamously asked Rosen (paraphrasing) why the rush...to confirm the plan. She never intended to or wanted to rush this and the filing yesterday is a clear indication of this.
Rosen knew going into 2011 that it would be a problem a very long time ago hence the need to rush and get done by the end of the year. Now what exactly the problem is I have no idea and won't speculate.
But the important thing to note here or question to ask is what does 2011 do to the estate...not speculatively, but factually?! If the NOLS are increased in value as some say they are then great, but I think this is just one small piece of the puzzle as to what 2011 does to the estate and why Rosen is in such a rush to get the plan confirmed before the. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I suspect it has more to do with than just the NOLs...Just my little two cents!
Am I reading this right in that if they agree to an extension it will go till the 31st of Jan, which Could be the judges way of saying settle this by the 31st or its toast. And if they don't agree to the extension then she has to render an opinion (which is not really a decision) by the 29th, which if she is saying she needs more time, would cause her to deny it to be safe rather than sorry....
just my thoughts and opinions!
Well thanks to the Snow I will not be making it to Court in the morning...roads will not be drivable for me to make it with it being in the teens will put ice on the roads...sigh!
Sowwy everyone mother nature has spoke...so what would take a 2 hour drive could be 4-5 hours!
Maybe he couldn't or would let his objection to the letter stand I don't know, but I guess we will find out on Friday...though I don't think it will do anything as far as an S goes, but will provide significant insight and a key piece of the puzzle!
Has this information been sent to the EC/Willingham and now the links are broken or get an error coded did you happen to have a saved copy of the documents you can post a link to or email to me. I'd forward to Al Scott at the PSBJ...
Thanks!
I think what they are saying is although the lawyers and judge know what's in the sealed docs, they are not evidence and cannot be referred to by the parties for arguments or relied upon by the judge to use as a basis for her ruling because they are sealed, due to confidentiality and debtors work product.
However, if they were to become unsealed, something the debtors certainly would not ask for nor could the EC request due to confidentiality agreements and stipulations...then the information no matter how damning can be used and presented as evidence for the judge to make in her determinations and can be used by all other interested parties in this case. So there is where the leverage comes.
If its damning and the debtors know I expect them to fight like hell or come up with some bs law that puts the judge on her toes to research applicability and then issue a ruling versus one from the bench. I won't dare mention the S word, but it is possible depending on just how bad the sealed information is.
make sense?! Atleast this is my understanding of it...CATZ and DON may very well have a different interpretation and understanding, so please feel free to correct where I may have errored.
I'm in!
THat was the time frame given for the judges decision or to get out of BK per the debtors?
I kinda heard that but assumed that no one would want that seeing as how that would increase equity's chances of recovery, well the debtors and creditors atleast, and they would file some type of motion compelling the Judge to render a decision as quickly as possible for X, Y, and Z reasons.
Interesting, so now I'll just wait and see happily optimistic like 8 year old going to his first Major League sporting event. :):):)
Goddess of Wamu...you go gurl...but your still mine! :) LOL
Now it's my thinking that she would need to get the decision done before this year as I recall the debtors stating that they needed to get out of BK and reorganized before 12/31 for those recieivng NOLS to legally have a two year claim to them or something to that affect. So if she waited wouldn't that in and of it self be unfair to the debtors and also an indication that she is denying the POR. My WAG is the decision comes well before Jan.2011.
But hey I don't know much...so back to lurking and work.
Thoughts?
Ilene,
Though I told you last night on the phone great job. I listened to the Audio and WOW you gave it your BF. LOL
Thank you and Thank you again for your effort and hard work! Now I have you back and I can be your true number one! heheheheh. TTYL
Is what nelson discussing now..."Cram Down?" We (EC) takes over liquidating trust because all debt and creditors have been satisfied...?
I heard that too...no longer being recorded.
I wonder if this means from this point forward it would not be available in the audio archive?
So she is ruling on the POR/GSA tomorrow? I thought that was happening on the 17th and this would be taken under advisement until then!
Clarification please anyone?
What is interesting Jes?
Ilene is in court!
Can you post links to those two slides sly?
Billions and Billions! :)
Ilenes up!!!!!!!!
NVRmnd she will be up in closing arguments!
Ilene probably will not get to address the court tonight. From a text she said, "One of the friendly attorneys came up at break and told me how the process works and said that I will have to wait until all the witnesses are done. then time"
Don't know what there is to defend she has not spoke yet and is entitled to do so if she so chooses and I support her 1000%. And if anyone has a problem with that please let me know...
Thanks!
I can text Ilene...yes that was our Ilene from I hub. She though cross was over and court about to adjourn so she wanted to address the court for five minutes. The judge will allow her, but not during cross period.
I told her to still address the court as she has support from ALL of us on I-HUB. SHE WILL ADDRESS THE COURT ONCE CROSS IS DONE. IT WILL BE GOOD I THINK. :)