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.
I wonder why so many people are ready to sell the share at 6 cents when eventually it looks as the price will be well over 35 cents. Is this because of Dime or nobody except for the board members know what's going on with wamu?
PAGE 15 ---
As part of the resolution the Equity Committee has reached with the Debtors and other parties in interest, the Equity Committee has agreed, subject to confirmation of the proposed Seventh Amended Plan, to waive any and all rights t opursue claims for equitable disallowance and causes of action against AAOC (hedge funds) and the holders of senior notes, senior subordinated notes, CCB notes, and PIERS, and will DISMISS with prejudice its appeals of the GSA and prior iterations of the plan.
Ask the trusted source.
Looks like most people never have been in a situation when equity won something and the company came out of bankrupty and how common shareholders were treated afterwards.
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=7954746
ARTICLE XXV
PROVISION FOR TREATMENT OF COMMON EQUITY INTERESTS (CLASS 22)
25.1 Treatment of Common Equity Interests: Commencing on the Effective Date, and subject to the execution and delivery of a release in accordance with the provisions of Section 41.6 of the Plan, each holder of Common Equity Interests shall be entitled to receive such holder’s Pro Rata Share of thirty percent (30%) of (a) subject to the right of election provided in Sections 6.2(b), 7.2(b), 16.1(b)(ii), 18.2(b), 19.2(b) and 20.2(b) of the Plan, the Reorganized Common Stock and (b) in the event that all Allowed Claims and Postpetition Interest Claims in respect of Allowed Claims are paid in full (including with respect to Allowed Subordinated Claims), any Liquidating Trust Interests to be redistributed, each to be shared on a pari passu basis with holders of the Dime Warrants to the extent that Dime Warrants are determined pursuant to a Final Order, to constitute Equity Interests or subordinated to the level of Common Equity Interests in accordance with section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code; provided, however, that, in the event at the Confirmation Hearing and in the Confirmation Order, the Bankruptcy Court determines that a different percentage should apply, the foregoing percentage shall be adjusted in accordance with the determination of the Bankruptcy Court and be binding upon each holder of a Common Equity Interest.
Ok. Thank you very much for clarifying.
Why is P lower than it was a month ago? Even with the fact that P's will be getting 70 % of the new co and Qs may or may not be getting the 30%, pending mediation result of Dime vs Debtors.
Any thoughts?
what does the short report say?
I bought 100 P at 40 on 10/10/2011
I bought 100 P at 25 on 11/11/2011
I sell 100 P at 30 on 12/12/2011
For tax purpose, how does it affect? Or it does not affect? Any suggestion? There are few options for tax that I see in scottrade.
1. First in First Out
2. Last in First Out
3. Highest in First out
4. Minimum Tax
5. Maximum Gain
6. Average Cost
What is the better option once should choose, if someone buys and sells not more than 15/20 times in a year and only involvement is with long term stock. Thanks.
page 103 -DS
WMI believes that, in total, the Tax Group is entitled to federal and state Tax Refunds,
net of tax payments estimated to be owed to taxing authorities, of approximately $5.5 to $5.8 billion in
taxes in the aggregate, including interest through a projected future date of receipt. Over 90% of this
amount reflects the federal income tax refunds already received, with certain unrelated federal tax refund
litigation still pending.49 On August 27, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Stipulation Regarding
Establishment of Segregated Account for Tax-Related Payments, among the Debtors, the FDIC Receiver
and JPMC, pursuant to which the parties agreed to a protocol for the deposit and retention of the Tax
Refunds, as they are received, in a segregated interest bearing account, pending approval and
consummation of the Global Settlement Agreement. This account has been established and all Tax
Refunds received since the execution of the Global Settlement Agreement have been deposited therein.
This includes federal Tax Refunds (approximately $5.278 billion in amount),50 and state Tax Refunds
totaling approximately $4.3 million.
Allocation of the Tax Refunds. The ownership of the Tax Refunds is in dispute.
Pursuant to the Global Settlement Agreement, the parties thereto have agreed to share the Tax Refunds as
follows:
The First Portion. The amount of net Tax Refunds (including state and local income
taxes) that are received, and would have been receivable absent the Worker, Homeownership, and
Business Assistance Act of 2009’s extension of the federal net operating loss (“NOL”) carryback period
(the “First Portion”) will be allocated as follows: 20% of such refunds allocated to the Debtors and the
remaining 80% of such refunds to JPMC. The Debtors currently estimate that the First Portion of the Tax
Refunds will be approximately $2.7 to $3.0 billion in the aggregate, approximately $540 to $600 million
of which will be allocated to the Debtors’ estates.
The Second Portion. Any additional net Tax Refunds, attributable to the Worker,
Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, will be allocated as follows: 69.643% of such
refunds will be allocated to WMI and 30.357% of such refunds will be allocated to the FDIC Receiver.
49 Certain of the pending federal tax refund litigations relate to claimed deductions for the amortization and
abandonment of certain assets in certain tax years of a predecessor company in the time period 1991 through 1998.
These assets were acquired by the predecessor company in exchange for its acquisition of certain failed institutions
in the early 1980’s. The first of these refund claims was filed in the U.S. District Court of Western Washington at
Seattle (“District Court”). In this case, the Debtors and the Government each filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
seeking a determination as to whether the Tax Group was entitled to a tax basis in the specified assets. The District
Court ruled in favor of the Government. Washington Mutual, Inc. v. United States, No. C06-1550-JCC (W.D.
Wash. August 12, 2008). The Debtors appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(“Ninth Circuit”), which reversed the decision of the District Court. Washington Mutual, Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207
(9th Cir. March 3, 2011). The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to determine the amount of tax
basis and the corresponding amount of tax refunds. The government did not appeal the Ninth Circuit decision to the
United States Supreme Court. A trial to determine the amount of tax basis and refund is scheduled to commence on
March 26, 2012 in the District Court.
50 The Debtors estimate that, in the aggregate, another $200 million to $500 million of net Tax Refunds could be
recovered through ongoing tax litigation and negotiation. Because such refunds are part of the First Portion (as
defined below), WMI’s portion of these refunds would be 20% of the total received.
As described more fully in Sections III.B.6.b and V.B.5.g(i) hereof, pursuant to the terms of the Seventh
Amended Plan, a certain portion of WMI’s share of such refunds will be distributed to certain holders of
WMB Senior Notes, in the aggregate amount of Three Hundred Thirty-Five Million Dollars ($335
million). The Debtors have received the Second Portion of the Tax Refunds in the amount of $2.779
billion, approximately $1.94 billion of which would be allocated to the Debtors’ estates, including any
distribution that may be payable to holders of WMB Senior Notes.
Per the Global Settlement Agreement, the Debtors currently estimate that their share of
the total estimated Tax Refunds will be approximately $2.17 billion, after the distribution that may be
payable to holders of WMB Senior Notes.
(iii)
SNH ultimately paid the price for untimely greed and helped us learn a bit more in bankrupty situations. I think- after everyone getting paid for more than what they spent, it will turn out to be something like - on-the-job training for many.
Anyone scrared of what might happen in the next half hour?
We = who else than voo?
Agree, I think we're in a far better after September than before. What do you think about JPM's role in this mediation? Do you think they are not worried about the mediation since they were "let go" ? Do you think JPM wants this case closed as soon as possible so that they are out of it? If they do want then don't you think, they'll play their own game to make all parties happy with whatever they can, from the back door and make the settlement work?
Hope it comes out well for equity with whatever the outcome of the mediation.
Thanks. This is just an assumption of "No settlement" scenario.
So if the reasons for settlement failure are not provided publicly then will the Judge order something like "EC to move forward with prosecution of SNHs and further discover granted?" To what extent, if granted? What about the other parties involved? What if SNHs and EC were ready to compromise but some other party screwed up the mediation?
All based on "No settlement" scenario.
I'm guessing that way that it will be ordered will give the market hints on what went wrong by whom?
If the status on 11/4 comes like "No settlement" and judge provides the same info on 11/7, does anyone think the REASONS for "no settlement" will be provided?
Lol, true. Now I hate to say that I'm not someone who can afford to be in these Pink Stocks. These are just outrageous business practices. Most of the time, just scams. There are thousands of opportunities out there in NYSE and NASDAQ I believe & where you can see more clear picture of what is going on.
To CMA (cover my ass)herself. Or to get a second opinion to make her September opinion/order stronger enough in the law community?
Although JPM is officially out of the mediation room for now, they might be driving the mediation from the back door. Was reading this article in seeking alpha and perhaps it makes sense to feel the same..
"The very lucrative nature of this settlement leads American Banker to believe that JP Morgan may eventually chip more into the pot to pay shareholders. Banker concludes in their most recent article, “Many creditors are looking to JPMorgan Chase to drive mediation discussions, as it can't get the benefit of its deal until Washington Mutual's Chapter 11 plan is in place.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/296155-washington-mutual-reorganization-part-2-fund-insider-trading-charges-prompt-mediation-order
Any thoughts on the appeals?
Yes, with the statement of "At least these 4 hedge funds were involved in insider trading" I hope that they already know who else is involved. This would be a great bargaining ammunition. I feel that the 5 page letter that EC is sending to Lyons, perhaps has any further details to that.
Slap on the face--
In the non-bankptcy context, a corporation has standing to bring an action
against a fiduciary who has engaged in insider trading even if the corporation canot
identify an injury that it has suffered as a result. Challenging this point, Aurelius claims
that there is no legal support for the Bankptcy Court's assertion that the Debtor here
would have had a defense to the SNH's claims outside bankptcy. (Aurelius Br. at 24).
Aurelius is flat wrong. Just this past summer, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued an
opinion reinforcing the long-standing principle that a corporation may bring a claim
(known as a Brophy claim) against its own fiduciary for insider trading. Kahn v. Kolberg
Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., 2011 WL 2447690 (DeL. June 20, 2011). The Court held
specifically that injury to the corporation is not a prerequisite for the claim, rejecting a
position taken by a lower court in the Pfeifer decision:
These sizable holdings allowed the funds, either alone or in coalitions with other funds, to assume a prominent role in the
management of the bankrptcy, working closely with the Debtors' professionals to resolve major litigation on behalf of the Debtor and draft a plan of reorganization. At the same time, at least four of these funds - the Settlement Note Holders - continued trading
the Debtors' securities. Because their role in the Debtors' affairs gave the SNH access to non-public information bearing on the ultimate recovery anticipated by the
Estates, this trading activity constituted unlawful insider trading, or, at the very least,
n inequitable abuse of the hedge funds' position in the management of the bankruptcy.
Perhaps EC thinks or knows more than these 4 Hedge funds were involved in Insider trading.
Whats going on with GMR?
Haha..things getting mixed here.
That was you? I have been trying to beat the record but only around 150000 range.
Need some stress relief? Why not kick Rosen's ass! It’s free, very low in calories, and FDA approved! The
high score thus-far is 171,714! Please feel free to note your high scores in the Rosen comments page.
http://wamuq.yolasite.com/misc-crapola.php
Not sure why they are so worried in hiring of the professor. Bet they are going to be uncovered more than they wished for, by the presence of Mr Professor.
What are they hiding. I hope the mediation fails in such a way that it looks to the judge that Mediation failed because SNH didn't provide this and that which is lawfully needed for EC to make any thoughts before they'd even think about settlement. And hope EC and use the same reason in the court to persuade the Judge to not only assign a mediator but while doing that, make some rulings like - SNH can no longer make A, B and C scenarios in settlement talks and should provide those to EC, unconditionally.
I guess it depends on how the judge will rule "going forward" and what aspects of the mediation are settled vs what not. We'll see. We have Professor joining the team for which creditors were opposing but the judge approved. Lets see the significance of all these and see which exit it takes. We're pretty much in the junction to different highways, exit yet to be taken. Each exit will bring different outcomes, which you already probably know.