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.
not exactly as I recall. I think only 51% of the new company has to remain.
Excellent letter, but I would correct this:
(symbol WAHUQ) has increased in value nearly over 1000% from $0.02 on Sept 25, 2008 to $20.05 on January 20, 2011.
for
(symbol WAHUQ) has increased in value nearly over 100 times (100000%) from $0.02 on Sept 25, 2008 to $20.05 on January 20, 2011.
100% of 0.02$ is 0.02$
1000% of 0.02$ is 0.20$
10000% of 0.02$ is 2$
100000% of 0.02$ is 20$
What's the problem with this?
3 days later they presented a Global Settlement that included JPM and the FDIC so to reach that GS they should have some talks obviously.
Is there something I fail to see?
Would it apply to our (BK) case?
I guess someone has to ask for it, will the EC ask for the board removal? SH meeting?
After reading Bribri Rotten's latest filling, the most repeated phrase I read is this:
"The Plan will be amended consistent with the Opinion"
Now I ask. How can THJMW determine if this new plan is "fair and reasonable" if we don't get to know the details?
Is "The Plan will be amended consistent with the Opinion" a enough valid legal statement to make The Court change a decision?
I don't think so. I would lean to believe that this is a bait that Mr. Rotten threw to THJMW in case he gets lucky and fishes an aproval.
Also I have to admit that I was a little bit dissappointed for such a short doc. I expected a longer doc, replacing paragraphs, as he did with the different versions of the POR.
Guess we will know pretty soon if this holds watter or not.
GLTA longs
I know and thats the point I wanted to demonstrate that not every letter hits the docket.
You are my proof, thanks.
If that letter did hit the docket I think its some kind of covered message.
IMHO
Could be. I also remember a muscled guy in the avatar.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure some poster from this forum claimed to have sent a couple of letters that never appeared in the dockets.
How and why did this letter hit the docket?
I mean, if it was an insultating and 100% letter The Court would just simply dismiss this letter, throwing it away directly to the garbage can.
But instead, they filed this letter.
I guess 'someone' wants to let 'others' (debtors?) know what the general opinion is out in the street, regarding this WAMU case.
IMHO.
I hope you are right.
Do you know if "no releases" equals "no settlement"?
Because I am also afraid of the judge aproving the deal and allowing us (equity) pursuing claims through litigation outside the BK court, thus not having legal fees paid by the state.
I doubt we could make a fund collectively to support all the legal costs to pursue this claims, specially against these two monsters (JPM and FDIC) who have almos unlimited resources to have us fighting and appealing for many years to come.
TIA
third party releases = releases from the (common and preferred) shareholders to FDIC and JPM so that we don't sue them after the settlement is aproved.
Good morning uzualsuzpect.
I am concerned about WHO and HOW decides what is a fair amount in exchange for the third party releases.
I am a bit worried because after having seen how THJMW has decided to be fair many points from the (dead) POR that we (equity) considered unfair. I fear WGM will come up with another joke of POR (v.7) offering a ridiculous recovery in exchange for the releases.
Does anybody know how are those releases valuated and by whom?
TIA
But it doesn't say anything about throwing money for the releases, they just expected THJMW to grant them (for free), but I don't know what's next.
However, I understand that we are all (EC, JPM, FDIC, WGM and Hedge Funds) stuck in the mud, and unless we colaborate (some putting or refusing to some money, others granting releases in exchange), we are going nowhere.
Just my 2 cents, IMHO.
I have the same feeling.
When any guy from the 'big moneys' realizes that:
- hey now there are at least 5 billion (17B per Tricadias withdrawn claim) NOLs. At a 35% rate it makes 1.7 (or 5.5) billion fresh cash!!
- Hey, the Hs MAYBE (repeat maybe) are downgraded to be equity, more money would spill into preferreds, and maybe (repeat maybe) some to commons.
- Hey PJS comes up with their valuations (of course more optimal and optimistic than Debtors one). More money there!!
So then someone realizes that preferreds are 30-50% in the money, trading for 2% of it's F.V.
No pumping here, just having the same 'explosion-feeling'.
Best regards, Wamuer friends.
THJMW contradicted herself. GS reasonable or not?
From her own Opinion:
http://ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-6528.pdf
Page 2
Although concluding that the Global Settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court finds that the Debtors’ Plan is not confirmable unless the deficiencies explained herein are corrected.
Page 20
The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement as a whole is reasonable.
So, on page 2 she says that the GS is reasonable and on page 20 she needs "each part of the settlement evaluated" to tell if it's reasonable, then is it or isn't it reasonable?
I don't get it.
THJMW contradicted herself. GS reasonable or not?
From her own Opinion:
http://ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-6528.pdf
Page 2
Although concluding that the Global Settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court finds that the Debtors’ Plan is not confirmable unless the deficiencies explained herein are corrected.
Page 20
The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement as a whole is reasonable.
So, on page 2 she says that the GS is reasonable and on page 20 she needs "each part of the settlement evaluated" to tell if it's reasonable, then is it or isn't it reasonable?
I don't get it.
Manipulation? I captured this sequence:
91 21,2500 15:49:17
200 20,2000 15:49:05
35 21,5000 15:48:09
60 21,4900 15:46:38
58 21,6000 15:46:11
Why would anyone sell shares for 20.20$ when they are trading +21$?
Sorry; I captured P's sequence but guess they are doing exactly the same with Us,
today in FF i think there was a +750.000 buy also. Slightly before 10 AM
https://chart.consors.is-teledata.com/module.chart?LANG=de&ID_NOTATION=1554182&QUALITY=BST&TYPE_CHART=STAIR&TIME_SPAN=1D&SHOW_PREV_CLOSE=1&TYPE_IND3=SST&INDICATORS_COLOR1=000000&INDICATORS_COLOR2=00FF00&INDICATORS_COLOR3=0000FF&TYPE_IND5=VOLUME&ID_TYPE_SIZE="
Are you kidding? He will recommend investing in JPM as the Media started announcing this year they may hit the 50$ mark...
EOM
BTW, THJMW didn't opine about 'charity purposes'!!!
So, I just recalled it right now.
The Court didn't give us her opinion on the 'charity purposes give away'!!! LOL
Is that what she understands for GOOD FAITH? I don't
not because you have to first make full all the upper classes, preferreds included.
And Brian Rottem can always gift more money to the FDIC, JPM, his mother (I'm talking on charity purposes, of course)
NOL money cannot be added straight to the 'assets money'.
NOL money can be used to discount payable taxes, in one or many years, but because of that they (NOL money) cannot be counted as full value money (as a cash asset would).
I think they're usually valued at 35% of FV, so they would be like 1.7 billion (cash money).
IMO
H's being diluted in Equity should leave 5% FV in preferreds.
NOLs of 5 billion noted by the Court.
The Court also claims to need valuation of assets to be able to decide if GS is fair.
For example.
P's PPS Manipulation?
91 21,2500 15:49:17
200 20,2000 15:49:05
35 21,5000 15:48:09
60 21,4900 15:46:38
58 21,6000 15:46:11
Why would anyone sell shares for 20.20$ when they are trading +21$?
I have to say I am dissappointed with current PPS... I expected more... somewhere between 30-50 $...
But how would they deal with 'valuating the assets' issue as requested by THJMW?
Please help, I have a doubt.
Since ineptors (an invented word mixing 'inept'+'debtor') have an extended GS agreement (debtors-FDIC-JPMC) valid untill Jan 31st, what are the chances that they come up with a new POR v.7, under a lightning fast voting and presented to the Court by Jan 31st?
Any chances?
BTW, I will start calling BriBri -> Brian Rotten... makes sense to me
I remember his offer was under current market prices, then I don't quite understand what was he really offering or what was the point of his offer...
FF +13.64%
Green day ahead, guys!!
What happened to the (german?) investor that would buy all WAMUQ shares before Dec 31st?
If I recall correctly, there was a German investor that said he would buy all WAMUQ shares from third parties... do you guys remember the story?
I want to see what happens with preferreds and Hs...
I already read them:
"The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the
settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement
as a whole is reasonable. This is not to say, however, that this
is a mere math exercise comparing the sum of the parts to the
whole. Rather, the Court recognizes that there are benefits to
be recognized by a global settlement of all litigation
(eliminating costs of continued litigation and delay in
distributions to creditors and shareholders) that may recommend a
settlement that does not quite equal what would be a reasonable
settlement of each part separately. Nonetheless, the Court must
consider the reasonableness of the resolution in light of each of
the separate claims being resolved or released in the Global
Settlement."
I think it only allows non-valuation on litigation and claims that are of uncertain value, as The Court (and nobody) can tell the future.
But I think that the rest of the assets (real state for example) there has to be some kind of (real) valuation. (Audited maybe?)
I think we are OK.
The current POR 6, as it is, is dead now.
It has to get some modifications if it wants to get passed.
A couple of interesting points for us (equity):
1.- page 18:
"The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the
settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement
as a whole is reasonable."
2.- page 100 (about the Debtors NOL valuation of 100 million being now 5 billion):
"Therefore, the Court cannot accept, as the Plan Supporters
contend, that the rights offering is of no value."
3.- page 101 (about the PIERS)
"If WMCT 2001 was merged into WMI, then the PIERS claims could be
viewed as equity."
point 1: I guess it's time for a valuation hearing. Do you want to bet if we discover that the Debtors had undervaluated/hidden assets? I guess some more money will appear here.
Point 2: 5 billion NOLs instead of 100 million... uuuhhh Rosen, what're you gonna do with them? Can't hide them now!!
point 3: PIERS could fall down to be equity, so the waterfall would start sooner falling over the Preferreds... WAS WMCT 2001 merged into WMI??? ANYBODY??
Guess, overall, we are better now, even though I got some sour taste on Walrath's opinion...
I think we are OK.
The current POR 6, as it is, is dead now.
It has to get some modifications if it wants to get passed.
A couple of interesting points for us (equity):
1.- page 18:
"The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the
settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement
as a whole is reasonable."
2.- page 100 (about the Debtors NOL valuation of 100 million being now 5 billion):
"Therefore, the Court cannot accept, as the Plan Supporters
contend, that the rights offering is of no value."
3.- page 101 (about the PIERS)
"If WMCT 2001 was merged into WMI, then the PIERS claims could be
viewed as equity."
point 1: I guess it's time for a valuation hearing. Do you want to bet if we discover that the Debtors had undervaluated/hidden assets? I guess some more money will appear here.
Point 2: 5 billion NOLs instead of 100 million... uuuhhh Rosen, what're you gonna do with them? Can't hide them now!!
point 3: PIERS could fall down to be equity, so the waterfall would start sooner falling over the Preferreds... WAS WMCT 2001 merged into WMI??? ANYBODY??
Guess, overall, we are better now, even though I got some sour taste on Walrath's opinion...
That would put us equity holders 10 billion out of the money, right?
I think you are wrong.
You guys talk about 'giving' doesn't cost money.
Let's say, they offer 30% to preferreds and 1$ to commons.
That would be:
3M Ps x 300$ =900 million
20M Ks x 7.5$ = 150 million
1.7B Us x 1$ = 1.7 Billion
TOTAL = 2.75 BILLION
Now, let's think they're silently buying shares at this (current prices).
3M Ps x 19$ = 57 million
20M Ks x 0.60$ = 12 million
1.7B Us x 0.06$ = 102 million
TOTAL = 171 MILLION
So, my question (and biggest fear) is:
Why the heck are they going to settle for 2.75 billion dollars, if, given the time and pacience, they could buy all the shares for 171 million $.
I know they cannot buy 100% of the shares because many of us are not going to sell, but, the more they buy (now), the less they pay (later). So my take is they are not going to settle in the near future, and will only pay when they are obbliged to do so.
Just my 2 cents.
And don't start with the '4% rule'. I think they can easily avoid this rule by just asking a 'friend' company to buy the shares on their behalf.
I guess this is the last years MM's 'shake'...
With billions in NOLS entering after tomorrow
With the POR presumably being turned down...
I cannot understand why would preferred shares drop so much (even more than commons). I only can think in an artificial shake.
Any L2 info out there?
TIA
FUNNY LOL!!!
It made me laugh... you go to thailand and keep thinking on Wamu. You're sick!!
(We all are, I guess)
hi there WithCatz!
I guess since debtors couldn't provide a reliable expert testimony nor audited accounts, the next logical step after POR is denied is to start from the beginning fixing those 'black holes' left by the debtors.
Valuation hearing is one of them.
List of sold/seized assets is another one.
IMHO.
Thank you very much for your opinions. I learn a lot reading them.
I know but they can buy a big percentage of the shares, enough to win any voting or election.
And I laugh about the 4% rule... they have so many subs and sub-subs that they can easily buy... whatever they want.
Do you think Bribri has gone this far to surrender now, no way.
He will file for an extension, and keep trying to have the POR aproved leaving equity out in the cold.
He already placed a bet for all or nothing, so if he has the POR aproved (doubt it) he wins, and if he loses (POR dissaproved, EC in control), he would probably lose all (including facing criminal charges, and being disbarred).
I think there might be another exit I don't know if someone thought about it. They are buying TIME. Time to have their 'friends' (TEPPER + debtors + JPM) silently buying as many shares as possible to have a vast mayority in whatever election/voting comes next.
1.7 billion at 0.06$ = 102 million $
3 million Ps at 20$ = 60 million $
20 million Ks at 0.6$ = 12 million $
It would take them 'just' 174 million $ to buy all equity shares.
Wouldn't you do that instead of paying multi billion dollars???
I'm gonna puke <EOM>