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.
...and by the way your honor, can we move up the confirmation hearing to November 16? This way we can screw the commons before the truth comes out?
It seems to me like over the last month or so, we have no idea which JMW we will see. It was great to see the THJMW today, but I in my ultimate worry state, while I wait for this to end, have to wonder what will happen next time and is something causing her temperment to change at various hearings. We can only hope she continues through the rest of this as she did today.
Can't the BOD change direction with an examiner report and have Weil settle with equity to at least come out free of prosecution and keep all this sealed? All it takes is one threatening to give up all the needed information and ALL parties would then have to be in self-preservation mode and have to work something out IMO.
TURB -- I thought that commons were assumed to vote no and therefore votes would not be sent ballots. I could be wrong of course.
Thanks Catz -- Greatly appreciate the insight!
Catz - If # 3 in your analysis is true (#3 Doesn't prevent the Estate WMI/Rosen/Debtors from giving them away anyway to make a 'settlement') that would make perfect sense as to why the stock is not rising. I would think we are screwed at that point unless Susman really has some damning evidence, but I would think if Susman had anything the examiner has it too. If the information the examiner produces is useless, then how can Susman use it if everyone settles? Would litigation then have to proceed at Willingham's expense?
So now that an opinion has been made by the judge, must the ruling be made public before anything can be done with that money?
Catz -- Question if you have the time --- In regards to these valuations from examiner, and very hopefully subsequent POR filing from Solomon, EC, etc. -- Wouldn't any POR that Rosen presents be better than anything Solomon could present in that Rosen's will be written to wipe out equity, thus get more value for the others down the road? I would think everyone but equity and some others that objected to the DS would vote to remove equity and then later find the funds to emerge with a new company with themselves as owners. Not having to pay equity means more for them.
So if there are now competing POR's both with all creditors/debtors being paid in full, can judge rule in favor of one if it didn't get enough votes? Can she say, use Solomon's since everyone gets paid in full? I assume FDIC has no vote here, but I could be way off on that. Also, if a POR is voted on, regardless of examiner's findings, does any illegality get dropped or does Susman or some other firm, if Willingham or someone else is willing to pay them, bring up lawsuits later? I would assume after POR chosen that Susman can't get paid from the estate's tab any longer.
As always, thanks for your superb contributions/opinion/DD.
SlyOne -- I believe the judge can throw away a vote even if all sides are in agreement, which in this case they will not be. The commmon equity (represented by EC) is stated by Rosen as voting no. IMO, therefore THJMW cannot allow a settlement with any illegality, unless of course the EC (as well as remaining objecting creditors, etc) agree to it. Then as others have said, everything will be redacted, we will never know what the documents contained (what illegalities occurred) and will hopefully make a very nice profit. Your messages leaves out the fact that there are still many objections besides the EC.
As far as examiner treating all sides equally -- If that is true, then he must state what he finds, since he should not care about who the facts affect. he should only say what he believes happened based on the facts and back it up with the information he has uncovered.
Having said all that, I still believe there is a possibility we all get screwed. I won't waste my time imagining how Rosen can pull that off -- It would drive me insane.
UZ -- So are we actually as objectors to the plan (or shareholders) going to get some type of ballot or are we assumed as common shareholders to vote no, therefore our votes are already counted?
Lawrence147-- Another insightful post. Virtually every post offering any insight today has dealt with DS vs. POR or allowing it to proceed vs. confirmation. I am not much of a legal eagle, but I am still having a very hard time time getting beyond one critical issue:
The whole purpose of this BK case is to maximize returns to the estate in order to pay off debt and come out of BK if possible. It is now months after THJMW questioned if this was Rosen's true intent. Yet hear we are with the DS now approved and being worded in preparation for a confirmation hearing. There are those that say THJMW is just giving Rosen a thicker rope to hang himself. I can't agree or disagree with that because I can't get past the fact that every time Rosen shows up in court, THJMW isn't asking him if he found all the assets yet to move this thing along. If he says yes, then she should say "let's see them and make sure they agree with examiner's findings." If he says no, then she should say "Don't come back into my courtroom without them"
Someone please explain to me why my logic is flawed.
Voodoo -- Legally and logically I agree with you. I count myself in the 90%. The question was asked earlier, why didn't THJMW reprimand Rosen for DS Version 6? At this point I am not counting on, but rather praying for justice. If she would say no DS until after examiner's report, this thing would be settled in 3 weeks. Now who knows how long it will go on, or if EC gets anything?
I have a bad feeling there won't be many arguments.
If everyone else is on board, why would they argue. THJMW (?) went out of her way to get EC then examiner, then basically threw it all away, IMO by allowing this hearing to happen with no examiner report. Did I hear Rosen say that he answered the 600+ objections in one of the responses? He didn't answer mine. All I wanted to know is what all assets JPM got for 1.8 billion. I don't recall that being answered.
Nelson didn't fight real hard, IMO.
If the EC is the only group against the DS, what would stop it from being voted in favor of settlement regardless of any illegality or anything that shows up in examiner report?
I lost audio too.
Catz -- Since you seem to be getting a better understanding of how this whole process works, I have an question related to your example below. If the DS reflects how the taxs will be divided, so be it. If I don't like that FDIC is getting some, I would protest it at confirmation hearing. If I believe that it is illegal for FDIC to receive any, should I not be able to protest it before confirmation? Wouldn't everything in the DS have to actually be legal?
I don't expect anyone to know 100%, so I appreciate any feedback.
On a side note, I'm sure that any revoting that needed done after viewing the examiner's report would be the one time when Rosen doesn't remember to mail everything needed.
If there is such a concern about running up expenses, why doesn't THJMW just have all parties stand down until examiner's report is complete? No one will get paid for this week. After the examiner's report is complete, discussion on the DS/POR can then begin. It doesn't take a genius to see through Rosen's B.S. . Hopefully THJMW can see through it. Everything is critical at this juncture.
Biz -- Do you still have old version of Bair's speech when she mentioned holding companies or is this something that we are going to have some kind of conspiracy to deal with?
Biz -- The point I was trying to make, (maybe not so elequently --been a long week already) is that there is so much DD from this board alone, plus the common sense question of "How in the world can JPM have legally purchased WAMU for 1.9 billion?" has not been answered with any numbers proving anything. It is my opinion that there is no way the examiner can file a report that does not include a good many assets that have not been mentioned in any of Rosen's DS/POR submissions. So, IMO, he either submits a report with assets, some mention of possible illegality of the purchase and other things against JPM/FDIC/Rosen/ or all of them. Or he submits a report saying he has not found the assets because the questions he has asked have not been answered and the documents have not been supplied. I don't know if he is allowed to ask for additional time again.
Forgive my poor grammar -- trying to do too many things at once!
Chiron -- Can there be a third outcome from examiner? Something like --- BAsed on the information I have, this is where things are. However, I was unable to get all the information I needed to answer all questions about assets, etc. Would something like that mean THJMW would have to approve DS/POR, then also proceed with the TPS case at same time as confirmation hearings?
On a side note --With all the DD done by this board alone, by even the income statements of JPM saying X billions of dollars attributed to WAMU, how can the examiner not find issues with buying of WAMU for 1.9 billion?
william48 -- again the plan is laking any meat. THJMW told him don't make any changes because she doesn't want to deal with it while examiner is still working. So shouldn't she make her ruling on v5 which will never fly. There are still no numbers for V6 to fly either. I am of the belief that if this passes that the confirmation hearings will be basically a witch hunt against EC, no numbers will be needed, examiners work wasted, unless trustee is very capable, if THJMW allows one to be appointed. Again, why would she confirm/reject plan before examiner's work is finished? It just opens herself up to series issues, IMO
If she doesn't plan on approving, why doesn't THJMW just say that no hearing on it will take place before November 1?
Jest -- Definitely the post of the day. Can the author of that article be reached with your new proposed title?
Chiron -- Excellent succinct post. My one question that I have been asking for months (I mean years now), How can the examiner say DS/POR is good to go with still no valuation of assets? Also litigation has been mentioned quite a bit. Even if DS/POR were to be allowed to go forward after examiner's report, can everything be concluded with TPS and possibly Willingham having lawsuits that I would assume would be filed even before confirmation hearings would be complete -- Or would a go ahead fromexaminer mean that everything in this deal is considered to be on the up-and-up, even with no numbers?
Uz,
Why would the bondholders settle for $335 million when they are due at least 10 times that? With the examiner's findings pending, why would they not wait. IMO they would easily be guaranteed at least the $335 million any time down the road. Any kind of damaging information in the examiner's report opens up much more potential for them.
As I'm sure some have speculated, this now also opens up the possibility of using the extra money that they would have had to pay out to put equity in the payout column and end this thing. For the $3 billion (my estimate -- just using a number here), they can offer common over $1 per share. At this point, as others have again suggested, based on depositions, etc, Susman most likely knows much of the outcome. If the assets aren't there, he would most likely then take the $1 plus. Rosen would most likely know the outcome as well. So why would he offer anything if outcome is in his favor (which I still haven't gotten pas the point that he should be representing all equity and trying to maximize)? Or are we at a point where all parties have an educated guess as to the outcome of examiner's report but aren't sure enough to go all in with their hand?
Catz,
In my opinion, I find that other parties that either have objections or are not in agreement for whatever reason, other than the EC, would at this point jump into Rosen's corner. With the examiner's report coming and the risk of some fraudlent finding, I don't see anyone wantiong to risk it. Also, wasn't the FDIC in agreement before, now they appear to at odds with JPM, so I can't see how they can come up with another agreement without everyone being on board (EC included). Also, I seem to remember in various hearings attorneys from other parties, say they still have a right to back out of current agreement Rosen has been pushing.
I know Rosen would never say before the right time that settlement is being negotiated with EC, but if examiner has findings many of us here believe are out there, Rosen had better be working on one whether or not he says he is.
He is however a snake so I am stuck teetering between believing justice will be done and we will get screwed.
That examiner's report can't come soon enough for me.
forest -- I believe voting is a majority, though as I have read 1000 times in all those DS copies Rosen sent me, that since EC is out of the money, by default our vote is no. I am not sure if that vote is by EC members, common shareholders or if we will in reality be sent something. Since many of us hold one type of preferred or another, that are theoretically going to get at leat a miniscule settlement, we may get that vote as well. Assuming every group that agrees to the DS/POR votes yes, I don't know what exact vote counts would be. I also THINK that the judge can add to or delete from the POR settlement. I have done a little DD on confirmation hearings and votes, but I need to do a whole lot more before I can speculate on what may happen with this one.
Fish -- Why would she approve the DS on the 24th when she didn't rule before? If she is not going to use the information from the examiner, she should have ruled prior, since she isn't allowing any changes to it.
I could see her ruling against it and making it clear that without some real numbers this thing will never get passed, so either give me numbers or settle. IMO we stand to be a serious underdog if these confirmation hearings go forward with that POS DS. That will be telling me she just wants to get this over with, so she will let the votes speak and unfortunately at this time there appear to be enough votes to get is passed.
If she rules the $4 billion to WMI, that could change things. I agree with others that if she went through years to get to the point of an examiner, she might as well let it play out, unless she were going to rule against it.
If she were to rule in favor of it, in my opinion, there would no longer be any cooperation with the examiner? Why should they? If he has to be done by November 1 and the confirmation hearings also start November 1, that will prevent any further information from coming out. I am no expert on confirmation hearings, but at that point, isn't Susman and TPS' burden to get it rejected as opposed to Rosen having to fight to get it approved? Aren't all the people that agreed to the DS/POR still going to be in agreement?
With all that being said, I in all honesty have no idea what will happen this week or at any hearing, although the thought of having this approved makes me wish I had sold and waited to buy back in after approval.
Question about depositions --- Let's say examiner deposes Rosen. Can EC ask questions? How about other attorneys from Weil?
Thanks.
Climber -- I don't think the EC is doing much in that area right now. I believe that task is being handled by examiner. Theoretically it should be easier to get them to talk if it is examiner rather than EC attorneys. It is the hope of myself and others hear that Susman and company are giving examiner information through word of mouth, documents, etc on who should be supoenaed.
I find it absolutely amazing that these people can create documents like these in the blink of an eye, yet with all their mass amounts of reources, they can't find any documentation as to what he assets are in this case.
I am sure they will try to do something negative to EC, but I honestly don't have any educated guess as to what they hope to accomplish other than finding some back door to abolish the EC.
Climber -- Susman basically has taken over as far as we're concerned. While technically the estate WMI is entitled to certain assets, Weil, etc (Rosen) has decided to not attempt to determine assets in order to end this thing and get something for debtors and certain creditors, as opposed to maximizing assets, which if they are what we think they are would benefit preferred and commons. Susman, the EC, TPS , and theoretically the examiner are attempting to have assets maximized. There are some here that believe Rosen (or someone) should got to jail for their lack of effort. That is up to THJMW to ultimate decide in the absence of a settlement. So for us the wait continues.
steved_45 -- Thanks for the quick summary of the thread. I did read most of the posts, admittedly way too late last night.
With all the things going on with JPM currently, it is not hard IMO to beleive that something may be going betwen JPM/FDIC in this deal. Again not much DD is needed to be able to see that side of the arguement. I am definitely not saying you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I agree with much of what you say, especially in the summary you gave me. I just differ on some of the why's. The government definitely dropped the ball on more than one occasion in this fiasco. To me, the question is, was it stupidity or conspiracy.
From your summary (with my comments in red): I feel b/c of the SEC's mark-to-market rule Sheila and the FDIC prematurely jumped the gun prematurely on emotion rather than logic w/o the proper stats. Agreed that I believe she jumped the gun as well. My question is, was it her decision to do such, or was she basically told what needed to happen and by whom? If it was purely emotion, lots of other banks would have been taken over as well. If TARP was known, why couldn't they wait a weekend? They waited for dozens of other ones. We still don't know the stats two years later. IMO, that means either the FDIC is so afraid to admit they messed up, they will now anything to hide the fact or they were in on something from the get go. Again, IMO, either way, we are in the midst of a conspiracy of some type
Thanks for the insight. I always appreciate other perspectives to help me with one stock and the market in general. You seem sincere in your arguments. Look forward to more discussion. Although in all honesty, I hope a settlement gets me mega bucks and I won't have to be on ANY stock board ever again!
Anyone know if there is a hearing of anything consequential this week?
William48 -- My thoughts -- I thought that November 1st was deadline for DS to be accepted for confirmation hearing (meets some legal minimum standard), not confirmation. I thought there would be discussions on all points at that time, then judge would decide if it is approvable or not. It would then be voted on, with judge most likely agreeing with vote, while possibly making changes.
With examiner asking for extended time, I think that may play into it as well. Since we still haven't seen any numbers, the examiner's report either has to have them (whether good or bad for us) or Rosen better have something (I would think examiner's report would either contain his numbers, Solomon's numbers or some other set) Without those numbers, I thought THJMW stated that she doesn't see how it can be approved.
I am not sure about exclusivity for Rosen, etc, if it still exists. I would assume if there are numbers that Solomon/Susman have found that differ from Rosen, if not in examiner's report, would be presented by Susman after examiner's report (10/25), or whatever, but prior to 11/1.
After being here for almost two years, it appears to me that there are still a number of issues unresolved that need to done prior to confirmation (asset list / TPS, etc) Either THJMW is going to rule rapid-fire to get this over with, there will be more delays well into next year, or a real settlement that includes equity. At this point I honestly have no idea which way it will go. Common sense says equity is the money, but I have seen over the past 2 years, many lies, magical accounting procedures by many many companies, elected officials, etc.
At this point, my biggest regret is that I didn't become a flipper of this stock. So now I continue to hold and wait.
dannoninvest -- I would assume that what we deserve (especially those that held preseizure) are more than JPM can pay. If we are found to be correct and this was a shady deal for which the judge would rule we are to be compensated, then IMO either FDIC will have to come up with a good portion of payment, or before any actual ruling, JPM/FDIC would settle for a little cash and then a legitimate buyout, meaning we would end up with stock in JPM as well.
backtrax -- I asked the same question yesterday. In my opinion it shouldn't matter whether or not shareholders want to get rid of BOD, we deserve a meeting according to law. After thinking about it, I now think(more like hope at this point) that Susman and crew don't want to pi** off THJMW any more than Rosen and crew has. If Susman knows enough that he thinks equity would be in the money, maybe he feels it's not worth his effort to push for it now. To me that is a good sign. THJMW apparently after all this time avoids making rulings if possible, so in my opinion Susman won't deal with it unless he has to.
If however, we end up out of the money, I don't know if Susman could push for meeting before plan is confirmed. I sure hope we don't get to that point. In my opinion that would be the last chance we have.
I am not looking forward to all the speculation this board will bring for the next 7 weeks, but I am preparing myself for a wild ride. A settlement sooner for close to diamond -guru's figures any time soon would be quite nice!
Ilenes -- Thanks for feedback. My point is that I wish in court someone would ahve pushed for shareholder meetings. THJMW herself stated that she could not rule on POR at this time. Therefore in my opinion, using her multi-track reference, or whatever it was, the shareholder meeting portion of the case should proceed, since there is no POR ready to be confirmed/voted on or whatever
Ilenes -- Several others have stated like yourself that if A>L we may get shareholders meeting. I thought point of shareholders meeting question was that one has not been held in 2 years and shareholders are entitled to one. Should it be THJMW's concern what the purpose of the meeting is? This case could very well go on for another 2 years, thus making 4 years without a meeting. Most of us on this board believe that getting a new BOD would be a good thing for us. I don't believe that should have any relevance on whether the meeting should be allowed or not. That should be decided by THJMW based on law, not what may or may not happen as a result of meeting. IMO of course
Thanks for the play by play again. Much appreciated.