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.
It is reality bud. Perhaps you are upset that the Coop price has gone up too quickly for you to buy back in.
Ridiculous. Rozen is not going to jeopardize current or future legal business with the large institutions and hedge funds that own large chunks of Coop.
Rozen was able to destroy the share price of the legacy shares by saying there were no assets. Here Coop has more assets than its current price/market cap. There may be a small selloff if some are disappointed if certain things are not discussed at the hearing. My thinking is the date was set way in advance, to give the LT/Rozen some leverage over remaining creditors to either settle by that date or face a contested hearing.
Wouldn't such a liability have had to be reported on JPM financial statements all these years?
The trust cannot transfer, sell, gift the assets back to Coop per the trust instrument.
1.6 No Reversion to Debtors. In no event shall any part of the Liquidating Trust Assets revert to or be distributed to any Debtor or Reorganized Debtor.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951812000255/mm08-0112_8ke102.htm
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/revert
4. verb
If property, rights, or money revert to someone, they become that person's again after someone else has had them for a period of time.
[law]
When the lease ends, the property reverts to the freeholder. [VERB + to]
Synonyms: return, go back to, be returned to, be once again in the possession of More Synonyms of revert
I do not think the fact that the bankruptcy case is not closed yet has had any negative impact on Coop share price. WMIH EMERGED from bankruptcy and has since borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars and had three acquisitions. All done without court approval.
There were other non Deutshe Bank trusts . Perhaps WMI retained some of the interests in those trusts. And Libor is still pending, but the case is five years old so some settlement might be brewing. It is my hope that although escrow markers would come after WMB bond payments, that escrow markers might be thrown some money to settle the matter, just as common markers were thrown something although technically not entitled to anything .
Oh and let us not forget that the Zombie common shares do not exist, so yes 75/25 to the end.
The Standing Motion stayed the equity committee from pursing its claim of equitable disallowance pending mediation. The mediation was successful and resulted in a POR which basically settled and compromised the equitable disallowance claim. The judge even changed her earlier "colorable" finding. After the POR was approved, the Standing Motion had/has no relevance whatsoever.
Very unlikely that Rico had any impact on what was settled. First, Rico was never listed as a claim in the lawsuit against JPM. A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same transaction in the same lawsuit against the same defendant. The debtors did not do so. So JPM's position would be Debtors waived that claim and was not worried about it period. Second, the Equity Committee was not at the table...the Senior Note Holders, and Debtors represented by Rosen at the time represented Equity. Thanks to them JPM walked away with almost everything. Third, the examiner basically said any and all claims the debtors had against JPM and the FDIC would be unsuccessful. The statute of limitations has long expired on filing Rico, so no damages will be forthcoming to escrows on account of Rico and it serves as no threat to JPM to do anything.
The Deutsche Bank case indicates that those some 125 trusts were originally owned by wmb and its subsidiaries. The FDIC in its answer to questions posed by bidders stated "all interests" in those trusts would be sold to the successful bidder. Deutsche Bank sued JPM for put back obligations as owner of those trusts. JPM asserted it was indeed the owner of those interests in the trusts, but denied the put back obligations. The court ruled the FDIC receivership was responsible for the put backs because JPM did not agree to pay off book liabilities not because the FDIC receivership still owned the trusts. Since the FDIC agreed to indemnify JPM for such things, the receivership had to pay JPM $645 million , In the real world , a party does not pay another party that owes it money. Instead the party claims a setoff from what the other party owes it. Very unlikely FDIC receivership would have turned over $645 million to JPM, if JPM is required to pay the receivership anything in the future.
Lastly, JPM assumed about 180 billion in deposit LIABILITY. Only about $40 billion cash went to JPM. JPM had/has to pay the rest off with its own assets or the assets of wmb. So JPM paid 1.88 billion plus $140 billion for wamu assets.
So, intercompany claims debunked. Washington Mutual Preferred Trusts debunked. Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001 debunked. Deutsche Bank trusts debunked. Assessable wmih stock debunked. Next.............?
You are confusing the GSA with the POR. The GSA was incorporated by reference into the POR. The equity committee took no part in the issues settled by the GSA. The equity committee was involved in negotiating/mediating other terms of the POR which kept equity alive and getting ownership in the reorganized entity and the nols therein.
If you read footnote 4 of the Motion To Abandon, it clearly states that the Fifth Amendment Claim had been released. What the debtor was telling the court by that footnote is that you might as well allow the abandonment to take place because all of these claims have already been released regardless of whether the court allows the abandonment or not. Moreover, the case was dismissed, and the releases do not make an exception for the Fifth Amendment claims. Whatever comes to equity will be determined by the terms of the POR, terms of the trusts outside the bankruptcy and the receivership, and the amount left in the fdic receivership after all creditors have been paid including whatever proceeds come from Libor litigation.
Remember the Global Settlement Agreement was negotiated by the Senior Note Holders, the fdic, and jpm. Imo the SNH only cared about their full recovery and unfortunately they had the ability to settle and do so with other people's money (those further down the waterfall). So what did they give up in return for JPM releasing/ returning the $4 billion deposit which ensured the SNH's full payment? The fact that the equity committee asked Walrath to let the GSA be renegotiated and for equity to participate in that renegotiation, tells me the equity committee thought/knew the GSA screwed equity. Once Walrath refused to have the GSA renegotiated, Susman was extremely limited in what he could recover for equity. Rumor has it that the chamber meeting was nothing more than Rozen being admonished for not providing information/documents .
There is a five year catch-all statute of limitations for criminal offenses which applies to Rico. The four year is for the private rico cause of action.
18 U.S. Code §?3282.Offenses not capital
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)In General.—
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
Well the ten year treasury rate at end of the first quarter was 2.41. At the end of the second quarter it was 2.00. Yesterday the last rate was at 1.899. At the first of the year it was at about 2.70. So the markdown taken for the second quarter should have been mostly recovered already. The 30 year mortgage rate was at 3.85 per cent.
Rico barred by four year statute of limitations.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/limitations-period-in-civil-rico-litigation-5836
I did not say anything about the REITS having common stock. The preferred capital trusts had common stock at one time. The TPS owned the preferred shares in the preferred capital trusts. The TPS had to exchange those preferred shares in for Reit shares. The preferred shares went to JPM, TPS got Reits. The por cancelled the Reits. However, the Reits shares were included in the definition of preferred equity interest so the TPS ended up with escrow markers.
I was referring to the last 30 days. The 30 year mortgage rate did not decline as great as the ten year, but apparently the mark to market for mbs is pegged to the ten year.
Yep look at the one month chart comparing coop with the ten year rate.
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/blog/921504.aspx
Ten year treasury rate is up 6 basis points this morning at 1.835.
I would add that the trust instruments could have provided that the Common in these particular trusts was automatically cancelled in the event the exchange of the preferred for reits was triggered.
23.2 Cancellation of REIT Series: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section23.1 hereof, on the Effective Date, all REIT Series shall be deemed extinguished and thecertificates and all other documents representing such Equity Interests shall be deemed cancelledand of no force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 23.2 shall have no effect on,and shall not result in the extinguishment or cancellation of, the Trust Preferred Securities and, in
accordance with the Global Settlement Agreement, JPMC or its designee is the sole legal,equitable and beneficial owner of the Trust Preferred Securities for all purposes.
So, the Reits were cancelled. TPS took the position in the adversary proceeding that no conditional excahnge took place. JPM won. Given that the article I posted indicated these loans were toxic, I sincerely doubt anything would be left after the preferred got paid off . JPM has had all these years to collect something on these loans by dealing with the borrowers directly. The author of the article I posted the other day does not consider that in addition to foreclosure, JPM would have been able to take the property back by getting deeds in lieu of foreclosure and then selling the property to get back some of the loan principal. JPM would also have been able to talk the borrowers into making a new note (probably with a lesser principal than the toxic one) with JPM directly. But even if something is left, it would be the owner of the common stock of these particular trusts (which is not the common stock of wmi the debtor). I have found no mention of this Common in the POR and do not know whether it too was transferred to JPM by the receivership or the sec 363 sale to JPM. The LT does not account for it, the sofas did not account for it, wmih did not account for it, Coop does not mention it. The por only mentioned that WMCT 2001 was kept by wmih/coop. Here is one of the prospectuses I found online the other day that explains the setup.
http://wmish.com/joshua_hochbergs_joke/epic_fail/4533/WMIPC_500002044.0001-28.pdf
Large what would be the point of discussing these things? How JPM accounted for the Preferred Trusts does not undo the exchange transaction nor bestow on the LT rights to reclaim ownership thereunder. The fact that WMCT2001 had only unsecured WMI notes (the debentures) as security, is the reason escrows will not benefit therefrom, not because it wasn't set up properly. These are but 5 of the many trusts set up by WMB etal. My posts were specific to those 5 trusts, not to any of the others which I have acknowledged in general do provide for residual interests depending on the performance of the mortgages placed in each such trust. Escrows share of those residual interests will also be dependent on whether or not the receivership or global settlement agreement or Section 363 sale did not upset/change the original ownership interests in that residual.
A review of my past posts clearly establishes that I have never been the cheerleader for the LT , MW, the judge , or JPM, starting with my support/desire for an equity committee. I cite the provisions of the POR, disclosure statement , etc to support my assertions. That does not mean I am pleased with those provisions. It just means I recognize I have to accept reality and live with the consequences of the existence of those provisions.
You are confusing WMB (the bank) with WMI (the holding company)
No, you need to read the article or the prospectuses.
Yes, you are correct that WMB sold the loans to investors through an off balance sheet trust created by a WMI subsidiary. Since WMB no longer owned these loans, JPMC could not have bought them from the FDIC.
I never said JPMC bought from the FDIC. In the POR and GSA
the parties agreed that JPMC got ownership of the preferred shares of these particular trusts. The original investors in those trusts relinquished those shares in excahnge for WMI preferred shares
Now, WMI, as a holding company that also owned the securitization company as a direct subsidiary, was on the hook for bad loans according to the details of the trusts and had to own a percentage of each of the trusts in order to comply with this requirement.
How does this change the fact that JPM got ownership of these particular trusts?
WMI’s off balance percentage of a stand alone SPE Delaware Trust could NEVER become the property of JPMC through the FDIC seizing WMB, nor could it be part of the bankruptcy until and if it received payment from the trusts prior to or during the bankruptcy. Never said it did, see above.There are trigger clauses that protect the corpus and the potential disbursements of the trust in the presumed unlikely event of a bankruptcy. And yet you ignore the only important fact that because of the seizure a mandatory exchange event was triggered causing JPM to end up with ownerhip of these trusts.
So, those are the facts.[color=red][/color]
You are also confusing Preferred shares of WMI with preferred shares of WMB, which never existed because WMI owned 100% of the WMB stock. You are confused. These particular trusts had there own preferred shares which were exchanged for WMI shares. WMB only had common shares.
WMB was never publicly traded.
Banks never are, only Bank Holding Companies like WMI, are publicly traded.No relevance to the matter being discussed.
No, when wmb (or any person or entity) sells for consideration an asset but the conveyance is faulty , the Seller might still have bare legal title but it is subect to a constructive trust claim by the buyer. The seller is determined to hold for the benefit of the buyer. What should happen here , is the investors in those faulty conveyances/trusts should be asking a court to impose on JPM ( the possessor) a constructive trust for the investors benefit. Neither wmb or JPM imo would be allowed to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the investors. We really do not know if JPM is screwing the investors though. And it is hard to think that the deadbeat borrowers are getting harmed.
Well the purpose of a capital trust is to raise cash from outside sources. If the holding company had the cash , why not simply loan the cash to wmb in exchange for a promissory note? Moreover, if the loans were as toxic as the author pointed out, obviously the plan was to unload the risk on third parties. Go to the court documents concerning the TPS parties for the names.
I already did. See post 587317. Wow, if only it were true that the wmi preferred shares the original investors got in exchange, were not entitled to markers! Got a link?
No. Read the article. WMB transferred the assets to the trusts which were paid for with the cash of the original third party investors.
WMB etal got cash for the assets it transferred to the trusts. So wmb etal was not harmed by this "taking" because the assets belonged to the original investors who owned the preferred stock in those particular trusts. And the orginal investors agreed to the conditional exchange in the event WMB was placed in receivership, so how can that possibly be construed as a taking with respect to the original investors?
Technically, these particular trusts were "off balance sheet". So how could there be book value for them? The cash wmb received for the mortgage assets therein is already accounted for in the other assets of WMB. In a sense these mortgages were gifted to JPM by the original investors, and imo never constituted part of the receivership assets of wmb.
The point missed here imo, is that JPM stepped into the shoes of the original investors of these particular trusts. The investors got their preferred shares in these trusts "exchanged" basically for WMI preferred shares which are now represented by markers. So the investor entitled to the assets of these particular trusts is none other than JPM. So although JPM is taking fraudulent shortcuts in the foreclosure process, JPM is nevertheless entitled to those assets in these particular trusts per the POR and GSA.
Article which also establishes nothing will be forthcoming from the Washington Mutual Preferred Funding Trusts to escrow markers.
https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/
Perhaps the investors never thought that bankruptcy judges are nitwits at best.
Page 84 of the disclosure statement:
In February of 2006, Washington Mutual Preferred Funding LLC (“WMPF”) was formed
to issue securities qualifying for regulatory capital under applicable banking rules and regulations. The
only assets of WMPF were indirect interests in various residential mortgage and home equity loans and
other permitted investments. In 2006 and 2007, WMPF issued approximately $4,000,000,000 liquidation
preference value of perpetual fixed and fixed-to-floating rate preferred securities (representing 40,000
shares) which were acquired by various issuer trusts which issued the Trust Preferred Securities in a like
amount to investors. Specifically, the Trust Preferred Securities include those certain (i) Washington
Mutual Preferred Funding (Cayman) I Ltd. 7.25% Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Securities, Series
A-1, (ii) Washington Mutual Preferred (Cayman) I Ltd. 7.25% Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred
Securities, Series A-2, (iii) Washington Mutual Preferred Funding Trust I Fixed-to-Floating Rate
Perpetual Non-Cumulative Trust Securities, (iv) Washington Mutual Preferred Funding Trust II Fixed-toFloating Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Trust Securities, (v) Washington Mutual Preferred Funding
Trust III Fixed-to-Floating Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Trust Securities, and (vi) Washington Mutual
Preferred Funding Trust IV Fixed-to-Floating Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Trust Securities.
On September 26, 2008, pursuant to a letter from the OTS, dated September 25, 2008,
WMI issued a press release stating that it had exchanged the Trust Preferred Securities issued by WMPF
for 4,000,000 depositary shares, each representing 1/1,000th of a share of a related class of WMI’s
preferred stock, as applicable, of Perpetual Non-Cumulative Fixed and Fixed-to-Floating Rate Preferred
Stock in Series I, J, L, M and N49 (defined in the Seventh Amended Plan as the “REIT Series”)—none of
which were outstanding prior to September 25, 2008. At the direction of the OTS, on September 25,
2008, employees of WMI and WMB executed an Assignment Agreement, which purported to assign the
right, title, and interest in the Trust Preferred Securities to WMB as of that date.
The Trust Preferred Securities were subject to a conditional exchange feature whereby
they would be transferred to WMI and the prior holders would receive, in exchange, the REIT Series,
upon the occurrence of an “Exchange Event,” defined as, among other things: (i) the undercapitalization
of WMB under OTS’ “prompt correction action” regulations, (ii) WMB being placed into receivership, or
(iii) the OTS, in its sole discretion, directing the exchange in anticipation of WMB becoming
“undercapitalized” or the OTS taking supervisory action limiting the payment of dividends by WMB.
Pursuant to the Global Settlement Agreement, and as more fully set forth therein
(a) JPMC or its designee will be deemed to be the sole legal, equitable and beneficial owner of the Trust
Preferred Securities, (b) the WMI Entities will be deemed to have sold, transferred, and assigned any and
all right, title and interest the WMI Entities may have or may ever have had in the Trust Preferred
Securities, (c) any obligation of WMI to transfer the Trust Preferred Securities to WMB, including in
accordance with that certain Assignment Agreement will be deemed to have been fully satisfied by the
contribution to WMB of the Trust Preferred Securities as of September 25, 2008 and thereafter sold and
transferred to JPMC in accordance with the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and (d) all Claims
against the Debtors, the WMI Entities, the JPMC Acquisition Entities, the FDIC Receiver, or FDIC
Corporate with respect to the Trust Preferred Securities will be released and withdrawn, with prejudice.
49 As previously stated, the Trust Preferred Securities had a liquidation preference of $4 billion. Thus, every $1,000
of principal amount of REIT Series is equal to one (1) depositary share. Every $1,000,000 of principal amount of
REIT Series is equal to one (1) share of WMI’s preferred stock.
US_ACTIVE:\43837453\28\79831.0003 85
Please refer to the Global Settlement Agreement for a complete description of the proposed resolution of
disputes relating to the Trust Preferred Securities.
Since the Petition Date, WMI has not made any distributions on or in relation to the Trust
Preferred Securities or paid any dividends on account of any class of WMI’s equity securities, including
preferred stock relating to the Trust Preferred Securities.
The ten year treasury is up today about 7 basis points to 1.625.
8 k quote: during July and August 2019, Originations funded $7.7 billion in volumes, with Originations pretax margins greater than 1.0%
in other words the last two months have generated more than $77 million or 85 cents (approx) per share just for the origination segment of the Coop business.
Well if creditors and shareholders still have enforceable rights in instruments cancelled in the bankruptcy process then it must follow that the marriage certificate is still binding after divorce, a Will is still valid after ripped up , the policy limits on a cancelled car insurance policy must be paid upon a subsequent accident,....
Did you catch the absurd attempt to ignore the POR terms by the excuse that WMCT 2001 was a separate entity? Who ever argued that it was not? That fact is inconsequential to the analysis because of the way the trust was structured. There was a trustee (Wells Fargo) and the trustee duly filed a claim on behalf of the Piers holders in the bankruptcy case. Once the court determined how much of that claim was going to be allowed the trustee's role was complete. The trustee did not even have to be the disbursing agent , because the Liquidating Trust was to make the distributions to the Piers holders directly. The Pier shares went poof in exchange for a position in the waterfall and possible entitlement to the issuance of a Liquidating Trust Interests. WMI therefore had no further obligation under the WMCT 2001 to anyone thereunder., just like it had no futher obligation to any other creditor and equity holder once the POR became effective and it transferred all of the property WMI agreed to transfer to the liquidating trust per the terms of the POR. WMCT 2001 was originally set up with the belief and understanding that WMI would share/profit something like 3 per cent from the proceeds raised from the Piers investors. Delaware allows for trust ownership to be evidenced by Common Shares. WMI owned all the common shares of the WMCT 2001 and as such had full authority to vote those shares once its obligations to the Piers went Poof and the Trustee became irrelevant/neutered. Under the terms of the POR, the Reorganized debtor WMIH explicity kept those shares and promised to dissolve the WMCT 2001 in the POR. And WMIH did and could fulfill that promise as sole owner of the common shares of WMCT 2001. So it is of no consequence that WMCT 2001 was a separate entity and maybe not a party to the POR, because the decision and power to dissolve rested with the Reorganized Debtor WMIH the sole shareholder thereof.[color=red][/color]
The fact that Rozen failed to mention it in his response to Alice's objection (after the LT notified the world it filed claims therefor) means it would have destroyed his assertion that nothing is coming back. So there must be some substance to those claims.
What I just posted does not indicate escrow markers will not get anything. It just debunks AZ theory that something is coming via the WMCT 2001. I have always acknowledged that there may be some residual interests in mortgage backed security trusts coming back. And we do know that the LT has filed claims for the Libor litigation pursued by the FDIC, and WMB was hurt by Libor more so than probably all of the other banks combined that FDIC is suing on behalf. We also do not know if the Class 18 claims are being settled with remaining set aside shares of wmih which might free up some millions of cash for disbursement to escrow markers. We have been told the remaining shares in the disputed share escrow are going exclusively to common markers. So why do I still have preferred markers in my account if nothing more is forthcoming?
The WMCT 2001 prospectus tells us that
"The preferred securities [the "Piers"] represent an undivided beneficial interest in the assets of Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001, which consist solely of subordinated debentures issued by Washington Mutual." see
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000091205701521510/a2050803zs-3.htm
What is a debenture?
Debenture Definition - Investopedia
Search domain www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debenture.asphttps://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debenture.asp
What is a 'Debenture'. A debenture is a type of debt instrument that is not secured by physical assets or collateral. Debentures are backed only by the general creditworthiness and reputation of the issuer. Both corporations and governments frequently issue this type of bond to secure capital. Like other types of bonds, debentures are documented in an indenture.
So basically the Piers were sold to investors , a little over a billion dollars cash was raised , and in exchange for that cash WMI issued its unsecured notes and then later funded the trust with funds to pay interest on those notes which then made its way to the investors. I assume the full billion dollars cash was transferred to WMI and was used as working capital, to fund loans to subsidiaries, make loans, buy securities and remained assets of WMI. WMI's obligations under the debentures was discharged per the terms of the por and are worthless and do not generate any "continuing" income for the trust. See Por Section 32.4. So the assets (the debentures) went poof. Now if not all the billion dollars was transferred to WMI, in all likelihood the money was transferred upon the effective date to the Liquidating Trust. Wells Fargo was the trustee and if you look at the first QSR you will find this entry
Transfer (to)/from Wells Managed Account - - - - - 493,835,752 see. http://www.wmitrust.com/wmitrust/document/8817600120525000000000002
Split and Large section 32.4 of the POR operates to cancel the WMCT 2001 trust and prospectus:
32.4 Cancellation of Existing Securities and Agreements: Except as
provided herein, any document, agreement, or instrument evidencing any Claim or Equity Interest shall be deemed automatically cancelled and terminated on the Effective Date without further act or action under any applicable agreement, law, regulation, order, or rule and any and all obligations or liabilities of the Debtors under such documents, agreements, or instruments evidencing such Claims and Equity Interests shall be discharged;
25.2 Cancellation of Common Equity Interests: Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 25.1 hereof, on the Effective Date, all Common Equity Interests shall be deemed extinguished and the certificates and all other documents representing such EquityInterests shall be deemed cancelled and of no force and effect.
23.3 Cancellation of Preferred Equity Interests: Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 23.1 hereof, on the Effective Date, all non-REIT Series Preferred Equity Interests shall be deemed extinguished and the certificates and all other documents representing such Equity Interests shall be deemed cancelled and of no force and effect.
23.2 Cancellation of REIT Series: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section23.1 hereof, on the Effective Date, all REIT Series shall be deemed extinguished and thecertificates and all other documents representing such Equity Interests shall be deemed cancelledand of no force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 23.2 shall have no effect on,and shall not result in the extinguishment or cancellation of, the Trust Preferred Securities and, in
accordance with the Global Settlement Agreement, JPMC or its designee is the sole legal,equitable and beneficial owner of the Trust Preferred Securities for all purposes.
1.103 Equity Interest: The interest of any holder of one or more equity
securities of WMI (including, without limitation, voting rights, if any, related to such equity securities) represented by issued and outstanding shares of common or preferred stock or other instrument evidencing a present ownership interest in WMI, whether or not transferable, or anyoption, warrant, or right, contractual or otherwise, to acquire any such interest, including,without limitation, unvested restricted stock.
1.73 Common Equity Interest: Collectively, (a) an Equity Interest
represented by the 3,000,000,000 authorized shares of common stock of WMI, including,without limitation, one of the 1,704,958,913 shares of common stock of WMI issued and outstanding as of the Petition Date, or any interest or right to convert into such an Equity Interest or acquire any Equity Interest of WMI that was in existence immediately prior to or on thePetition Date or (b) a Claim, other than with respect to the Dime Warrants, which pursuant to aFinal Order, has been subordinated to the level of Equity Interest in accordance with section 510
of the Bankruptcy Code or otherwise and whose shall count, for purposes of calculating Pro RataShare of distributions, shall be determined by dividing the amount of an Allowed Claim by theper share price of WMI common stock as of either (a) the Petition Date, (b) the close of businesson the day immediately preceding the Petition Date, (c) December 12, 2011, or (3) such other
date as determined by the Bankruptcy Court.
1.170 Preferred Equity Interest: An Equity Interest represented by an issued and outstanding share of preferred stock of WMI prior to or on the Petition Date, including,without limitation, those certain (i) Series K Perpetual Non-Cumulative Floating Rate Preferred Stock, (ii) Series R Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, and (iii) the REIT Series.
With respect to the WMCT 2001 , I am saying that prior to it being dissolved, any monies left therein on the effective date was transferred to the Liquidating Trust. The debentures mentioned therein were nothing more than unsecured notes of WMI which were discharged in bankruptcy and not assumed by JPM or WMIH. So those debentures are worthless and not a source of recovery for legacy shareholders.