Don, I am hoping/praying that your read is a correct one!
Dion

Rosen's filing harping and hinging on F&R remaining intact from Judge's opinion; thus he is postulating that 3 of the 4 "suggestions" made in the opinion to shore up confirmation can be addressed through a revised housecleaning amendation to the currently modified POR after which, despite the 4th suggestion to readjust the interest rates and the further suggestion that parties embark upon mediation, he plans to resubmit the POR again for confirmation once the 4 messy parts of his prior modification are mopped up, per the written opinion.

Whether this is posturing on his part while parties go to Mediation, esp.'with respect to the colorable IT claims against the hedges, his position is that this should not alter his ability to re-seek confirmation, with or without mediation or some resolution reached by the parties therein.

The F&R is a real thorn in equity's paw. Everything that Rosen does/says is focused through that lens and frankly, I'm not sure whether this gives him the standing to legally argue for confirmation approval, before mediation offers a change to the landscape by placing equity on the map.

Remains to be seen how the Judge responds now.

Dion

CWG - Agreed. However you fall short of naming the other party who was instrumental in "saving" us (or, let's say, keeping us alive): THJMW. Without her rulings, which I believe have been overarchingly functional as potential direction / guidance to the EC, we would have been finished long ago -- Nate Thoma or no.

I acknowledge the arguments by her detractors; but credit where credit is due, friends.

Dion

Large, you and Fish are, IMO, on the money!

I have never wavered from my belief that THJMW has been just and fair and -- even though some things she has ruled upon seem on the surface to run counter to equity's interests -- I believe she has been offering innumerable opportunities for equity to come out of this with a fair shake regarding the assets of the estate as part of a true "global settlement".

She could only rule on concerns entered at hearings as evidence; cannot cross-over lines separating pre-bk from post-bk issues; and has had to operate from the constraint of having WGM/Rosen as council for Debtor-In-Possession, which has controlled the scope and focus of litigious issues brought before the court over the last 3 years.

And yet, despite all this: she has kept equity alive and, I believe, has been rebuking the DIP and SNH interests and eroding their ability to disappear equity little by little, while guiding equity toward strategies and channels/avenues of redress.

She wants this settled, IMO, and wants it done under her watch; and further, she wants it done with equity at the table where a no longer "fair", but a reasonable GSA is still in play.

Kick my ass if you will, but I think she's been, and continues to be, equity's savior, many times over.

Dion

Cats, yr right - and this escaped my attention - that there was no Order from THJMW to select a mediator, much less provide a list of issues to be brought forth under mediation for her approval.

Fantastic eye for detail ( or omission of same) my friend.

Since it has already been shown that the kids can't play nicely in the sandbox together, I would hope to see an Order prepared by the EC (doubt that Rosen will prepare it, as protracting action on minutae allows him to bill WGM hours) to be submitted to the judge for her signature on Mon/Tues.

Dion

Radium,

You must have been a great kid! That was nothing like the dreams I used to have when I was 14!

:-; Dion

Cent,

Most certainly! Forward-looking event will set a spark and bring new buyers in. Not sure we're talking about a rocket to the sky -- but I could certainly see a jump into the .002s.

Moving above that level will depend on how well the R/M gets played; what NEWCO occupies the shell; by how much OS gets reduced (hopefully through buyback and not RS); and what kind of earnings potential NEWCO has.

The move toward pennies, IMO, is a bit of a ways off, and will require a steady accretion of smart business moves and profitability. Can certainly be done; just not expecting an overnight explosion. Would be happy with a double or triple from my current average; take my initial money off the table, and keep the rest to play with the house's money

Dion

Space,
Ya know -- win some, lose some.

I'd had hopes earlier; now I'm just holding (but not my breath) for any kind of good news or miracle.

I have other positions that are doing nicely. Can't be sour about every speculative investment that doesn't pan out according to plan.

I just make it a point to try to learn from each mistaken strategy I've employed; and if/when I see the same trading pattern / DD playing itself out, I at least TRY to check my impulses! Not always successful with this kind of self-restraint -- even after 7 years trading pinks -- , but I get better with each experience.

Best of luck,
Dion

W3: This was kind of my question (or at least part of it) to Catz -- whether there was any scenario under which the current GSA (which was kept fair and reasonable by THJMW, and where we have now lost some leverage as the threat of IT allegations by the hedge funds have now become public record under the Judge's written opinion on POR6.5) might be challenged, or overridden, or made to compete with a new GSA that had Equity at the center, and required the SNHs and the Debtors to sign on, and thereafter, JPMC and the FDIC to end it all.

New question: under what scenario(s) would the waterfall change that would place Equity in the money? (And please don't say A>L; I know that); but rather what specifically would need to happen to get us there?

Dion

Catz,

Thank you for your response.

I do see all the moving parts, but as my post indicated, I am struggling now with how these parts might possibly fit together.

Given that THJMW reiterated her opinion of the GSA as fair and reasonable (a strait-jacket for Equity interests), would there be any scenario under which the GSA could be challenged (i.e., in appeal) at/during which time a new GSA introduced, negotiated by Equity, with the SNH's signing on and then JPMC/FDIC/Debtors presented with the opportunity to attach themselves and end things?

Dion

Clawmann: You are correct, sir. I think I meant "foregoing settlement" in the sense of how such negotiation had been conducted up to this point -- prior to any settlement negotiations facilitated by a 3rd party mediator.

But good point, and I thank you and appreciate yr response!

Dion

For Catz, Fish, Mordicai, Radium, W3, or the like:

I've written this 3 times, trying to get it down to a core question without a lot of narrative, before posting. Here goes:

The GSA linchpin for bringing the EC into the "settlement that almost was" seemed to have been the agreement to drop allegations/pursuit of IT against the hedge funds. In return, there were provisions for equity to acquire controlling interest in NEWCO plus litigation fund plus new acquisitions fund to make use of the NOLs.

Now that THJMW has rendered her opinion in which the hedge funds' "Colorable" complicity in skewing the distributions/waterfall in POR discussions through their practice of IT has been made part of the public record, what impetus is there for settlemement under the present GSA? If the threat of DOJ investigating hedge funds' practice of IT was opaque prior to JMW's opinion, it sure isn't now - and if the DOJ is going to investigate, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. The generousity of the SNH's in the "settlement that almost was" likely had less to do with their having to return their ill-gotten gains back to the estate than the threat of a DOJ investigation that could end up in smears against the practices of the hedge funds and their reputations, or even jail time for some. Since this is no longer preventable, what would urge/force a settlement now?

The releases? It's moot for the SNHs. And as far as JPMC and FDIC, aren't they already released? And if they aren't, they could withstand years of litigation.

Impatience of creditors to be paid? If that didn't force settlement before, why should it now.

Or are we simply foregoing the idea of any new settlement at this point, and just heading straight into mediation?

But even with mediation, what is the linchpin for the EC or TPS to leverage the colloquia of interests in the GSA toward a favorable outcome?

Or is it something else -- could equity be moving toward negotiating a new GSA with itself front and center at the table? And if so, how would this come to pass?

Thanks,
Dion

New here - not sure if this has been posted or linked before. It's a "connection visualizer", showing a map of Matthew Dwyer's interests, from 247MGI to Yard Sale Drop Off, Inc. I found it interesting:

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Fort-Lauderdale/yard-sale-drop-off-inc-2778537.aspx

Dion

Volume dead. Any idea what's happening?
Dion

Now THAT is a bedtime story for adults that I'd like to read. Kinda like "Go The F*CK To Sleep" ...
Dion

Of course I remember RRamirez. That's fantastic!!!
Dion

I actually still believe in "the system" - problem here is, IMO, the constraints we are fettered by while this remains in BK court. I absolutely believe that the POR cannot be confirmed; having the GSA killed, however, is another matter - whether the arguments and evidence submitted rise to the benchmark established by BK law is still, IMO, a toss-up. With a GSA still left intact, debtor's counsel retains control. In that case, short of a settlement amenable to all - prompted by who knows what - the only way to stop Rosen's endless amendation hijinks is for this to head to DC and trial.
Dion

I wasn't really commenting on Peg's historic pro-debtor reporting - just noticing that her article was all over the place (much like the case has become).
Dion

Just to Reinforce how twisted-up things have become, even Peg's article - which usually read fairly clearly, even if one day she leans toward the Debtor's slant on things and their GSA numbers, and on another day appears to have digested some accurate information on the IT sneak-tactics of the hedge funds and looks to spin things in her reporting in equity's favor - reads this time like absolute spaghetti. Agree or disagree wih her on any given day, her prose is usually clear. This article, however, is all over the place.

Meatballs, anyone?

Dion

No arguments, I think, will be triggered by this. I go with Mordi on this one - it makes sense to submit it, IF there have been new settlement talks going on that are global and satisfy equity.
Dion

I don't see how this would cause a delay in the timetable as set. Unless I'm not reading it closely enough, there is not much contained in this "modification" to the modified plan that would cause counsel - with the exception perhaps of Dime warrant holders - to argue/file objections and thus require rescheduling of written closing arguments' deadlines , or judge's written opinion, being pushed back.

It's just some more milking of the estate, as far as I can tell. Hopefully, this too gets chalked up to the litany of motions for clawback of fees.

Dion

Don, I fully understand.
Dion

Is this a job for: Super Bet?
Dion

You could. But I don't.
Were it not for Nate, we'd likely have been assed-out, with the horses high-stepping over the corpses of equity, all the way to the bank.
Dion

IMHO, to buy a little time to try to effect a true global settlement amenable to all, esp the EC.
Dion

Answer, IMO: fleshes out the entire cast of characters against whom the debtors did not pursue potential valuation for the estate in litigation.

And, the Damning senate testimony was levied against WaMu, the bank - not WMI the holding company.

Very neatly packaged and understandable. And I agree completely with yr assessment of the ability for MW to correct F&R on her prior ruling. I salute you, sir!

Of course.
Christ, what a sour grape you are!
Dion

Agreed. That was less any admission of bad executive leadership on his part, as it was a cheap shot against WaMu (in the press, knowing there's ongoing litigation in which JPMC is involved).

What a card.

Dion

This is interesting! Can anyone guess what this might mean?
Dion

I have to admit, even though I've restrained my emotions for close to 3 years, I'm feeling pretty goddamned good about things right about now!

Dion

Thank you, Lawrence, for taking the time to explain that to me!
Dion

Correct. But the content remains shrouded. Dion

Lawrence, I would like to understand your point better. Could you explain to me what is meant by "disgorgement" (which you say is not a logical option in BK court), and "Subrogation to Equity" (as one of the two choices you are indicating as likely outcomes should the judget find IT occurred)?

Thank you! Dion

Ah. Your question is a good one, and a big (?) at that. We simply don't know at this point. If I were to throw out a guess, I would guess that EC did submit at least a preliminary valuation to the judge - enough to show A>L - but as to whether they have delivered a full, detailed valuation to date, or are holding that back to drop on the heads of the Debtors pending trial, is anybody's guess.

Dion

Voodoo - What I'm saying is that open discussion about PJS valuation did not occur during confirmation. Quite possible written valuation document was submitted by EC and entered into evidence for the judge's review; but as for finding a place during the audio or transcripts of the hearing where the PJS valuation was openly discussed, I am not able to find such a place. Sorry.

Dion

Voodoo -- In answer to your question to me yesterday about where, during confirmation, was EC statement of valuation (by PJS) brought up (if at all), I defer to another poster - tradeawait - in post 324584 - who offers a very good response, stating the following:

"I think all the PJS was trying to do was critique the other valuations and prove they are BS. We dont want our team to give the whole package! PJS hasnt given a valuation yet just imo it was only critique".

Not being able to say it better than tradeawait, I concur.

Dion

Agreed. The "system", and its representative officials - whether voted in or appointed - is/are fallible; however, it/they are also corrective. As the Constitution is a "living document", as opposed to a static monolith, amendation of rulings or laws that are shown to be artifacts of erroneous or obsolete interpretations of fact, can and often do change, subject to new information, conditions or precedent.

I have to believe that "fair and reasonable", in light of the information presented at the confirmation hearing by counsel for EC and TPS, will undergo "correction" - as evidence presented and testimony given at the hearing laid out new facts, allowed and submitted into evidence by the judge over vociferous objection by opposing counsel.

This is the process by which her prior ruling, made at a point in time when evidence submitted by the Debtor and not the EC allowed for her ruling of "fair and reasonable", can get "corrected".

As you say, you have to have faith.

Dion

Voodoo, good question - and though I don't offhand recall an exact point, I will go back through the transcripts that were posted and relisten to the audio that was uploaded this weekend and try to give you my best assessment on whether or where, during the hearing, this was intimated or implied, ok?

Dion

Same to you, Biz.
Sweltering 95+ and humid here in Manhatan, after a week of 100 degree temps.
Very, very oppressive.

I agree with yr thinking on the process and direction of the confirmation hearing.
If ever there was a time when we were golden, that time is now.
God knows if the principals are willing to go to blown trial after the testimony that was given; in the face of possible jail time, what hedgie, in his right mind, wouldn't consider any offer to plea down and flip on someone higher-up than he, esp if it brings culpability to the doors of the Debtors counsel, or WMI Board, or elements within JPMC / FDIC?

Now would be the time to craft a true global settlement that considers equity's position, not only as majority owners of NewCo, but revisiting the waterfall such that preferrers are paid in full face value before commons receive their share distribution in NewCo.

I truly can't believe that Weil/Rosen would allow this to get to written opinion by THJMW as, should she support the EC's objections - which I think were very well supported during the hearing - the whole process spins wildly out of control into a place of mayhem that I have to believe none of the perpetrators of this attempted defrauding of the estate wish it to go.

Haven't been commenting much because the board seems beset with hard core emotional opinions on both sides - optimists and detractors alike - and as usual, I prefer to digest the facts and testimony as they get laid out over time, knowing that gamesmanship is always a factor, but feeling confident that truth and justice is out there, if it can just be presented in a way that allows our judge to act.

So back to lurking, and maybe a cold shower for me.

Dion