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.
IDCC does not have to provide guidance. If they normally do so and indicated they anticipated providing it this quarter so what. How can you possibly think this warrants the attention of the SEC? For us long-term investors we are happy to wait until we have the end of the quarter results.
LENOVO DROP KICKED
https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/19-2176.pdf
Score one round for the Good Guys.
Considering all of the circumstances this decision earlier today from CAFC looks better than expected:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1374.Opinion.4-18-2017.1.PDF
ZTE Drop Kicked (again):
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/rga/2016/march/13-0009.pdf
Looks like we stopped Wistron from trying to pull a fast one:
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/lps/2015/june/15-478.pdf
LG Drop Kicked by Delaware Court of Chancery:
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=210250
Great news!
Holty, do you mean the comment letters on the going dark issue? If so:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/81-939/81-939.shtml
I do not think that you can obtain what should be numerous general complaint letters that have been sent to the SEC about how GS has tried to rip off the WGCBP stockholders (even if you filed a FOIA request).
CAFC slaps pNokia again:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-133.Order.7-23-2014.1.PDF
I think that pNokia and Mr. Softee will settle sooner than later here. And, when they do it will be HUGE.
H-Man, it does not make sense that ARC would have anything to do with our preferreds. You can take the purchase price then subtract away the assumed debt amounts (along with any other acquired liabilities). ARC can not assume the preferreds if this is an asset purchase as it definitely appears. So, they have to provide some type of funds on their own and/or there needs to be seller financing.
Most disconcerting is that Dan Smith today puts forth another press release that is full of obfuscation. Why can we not know the current level of cash? Why can a dividend on at least one quarter of the arrearage not be paid NOW? And, the excuse of needing the funds for future capital expenditures is disingenuous as they could get equipment lease financing or simply delay these upgrades.
I detest it when companies act so unfriendly to security holders.
H-Man, your scenario does not make sense. This is clearly an asset sale (at least at this point in time).
What no one wants to say is that Goldman is going to do EVERYTHING to make certain that the preferreds do not receive a distribution. Yes, this is reprehensible but you know they have their attorneys trying to figure out how to make it so they maximize their return at the expense of everyone else. There is a reason why this does not trade at par + accrued. Just try and do a pro-forma balance sheet and unless you start making a myriad number of assumptions it is impossible.
Some good news from Delaware District Court today:
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/rga/2014/may/13-00009.pdf
A Big "Shout Out" goes to Jones & Day!
I think they know that all DIMEQ holders deserve their promised 85% of Anchor and that they could not be wiped out by any action from THJMW. We may need to start over but JPM should know that we are not going to go away.
Okay, enough of my pontificating here is the link for the Anchor oral argument recording from last Friday for your listening pleasure:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/search/audio.html
io_io: I give up. Which NYC forum? Is there any transcript? Who were these five pundits?
Is anyone going to object to the legal billings from Andrews Kurth LLP (Docket #9721)? Somehow it does not seem right that they dropped out half way through this matter (for unknown reasons) and now that there is a settlement want their fees. Objections are due by March 7 and would come out of the recovery of anyone who opted in.
Is nobody following this anymore?
PRESSURE BUILDS ON THE DEBTOR
I encourage everyone to read the entire Opinion issued yesterday by THJMW (linked below) with respect to the $49 million Tranquility Claim that was a Disputed Claim now allowed to proceed forward within the WMI bankruptcy. The passages below relate to the Court’s current view, stated therein, on 510(b) subordination and “equitable concerns.” And, this Opinion may contain some other items that may be of use to the LTW Plaintiffs:
“Even if the language in 510(b) was ambiguous, equitable concerns weigh against subordinating Tranquility’s claim. Tranquility did not purchase a security of the Debtors and did not assume the risk (and potential rewards) that a shareholder of the Debtors assumed.
The theory behind the Slain and Kripke article, and section
510(b), is that it would be inequitable to elevate a shareholder’s interest to the level of a creditor. This applies when the shareholder buys stock from an issuer but not when it buys stock from a third party. The example cited by the Debtors in oral argument illustrates this. If Tranquility bought stock of WMI from WMI, it would be assuming the risks normally associated with that stock, including the risk that WMI could become insolvent. . .”
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229111220000000000005.pdf [Docket #9224]
Now compare the language from the Opinion in the first quoted paragraph above to the passage below which comes from the S-3a issued on 12/15/2000 by Dime Bancorp when the Dime LTWs were first created:
“An investment in the LTWs involves different risks and considerations from an investment in the common stock of a savings and loan holding company such as Dime Bancorp.”
Also, I will admit that this Opinion did involve a lot of arcane securities law but it is easy from my perspective to see some other correlations with our overall case. And, I was actually somewhat surprised that THJMW ruled against the Debtor on this particular matter which shows her sense of fairness.
Putting DIMEQ in Tranquility's shoes, how had we assumed the day to day risk of owning WMI stock, when the LTWs themselves said that it could be adjusted to pay out the value in other property, including cash (or even Apple stock, as this Opinion references)? The answer is that we had not. If THJMW maintains her judicial and intellectual integrity, how could she possibly subordinate the LTW's under §510 (and doom us to Class 18 status) when there was no purchase of securities from the Debtor? Furthermore, wherein there was nothing in the DIMEQ security that had any indication that an owner of LTW was taking on a equity risk in the day-to-day operations of WMI, especially when the Dime Letter to shareholders told those receiving LTW's what DIMEQ were, and just as importantly, what they WERE NOT. How can this opinion NOT help us, in that THJMW is dealing with Weil using the very same §510 chicanery in Tranquility as it is trying to do with DIMEQ. The Class 18 subordination arguments from the Debtor seem weak.
And I like the fact that THJMW is signing off on this Opinion YESTERDAY, when you have to know that she will be writing (or has written) the DIMEQ Opinion.
I think that Tranquility is good for us as it gives our counsel even more leverage during Mediation than I already believe them to have. Pressure builds on the Debtor.
I do not think that Weil wants to have Steinberg rip them apart at the next confirmation hearing. This is a huge risk for the debtor as they need to ascertain a fair way to settle this entire matter and let go of their egos in thinking they can/must win at all costs. Even naysayer WallStreet is beginning to get some of the key points!
In the interim, Louis Lewis has provided a quality update in The Diligent Investor:
http://thediligentinvestor.blogspot.com/2011/12/dime-ltws-join-wamu-mediation-fray.html
I believe that momentarily we should be back in session.
Wall Street, thanks for your earlier posting expressing concern if any of the DIMEQ "old timers" are still out there. Yes we are though none of us are young any more.
Also, I note that several weeks ago that you were posting positive comments about the PIERS on the WAHUQ board. Since you like the PIERS, let me ask you a few random questions so that we can play along:
A) How has Team Rosen done overall on this WMI bankruptcy case from your perspective?
B) Does it bother you to see Akin Gump bring in a small army of attorneys and support staff for the DIMEQ trial and bill the estate (e.g. staying at Hotel DuPont at $450+ per night) while contributing nothing of value?
C) Can you explain the statement wherein the SEC provided a written opinion that the LTWs "effectively separated the combined entity into two components: the contingent asset and the remainder of the company." Has the DIMEQ now unspun/despun (sorry, but I do not know the correct word here)?
D) Do you think it is meaningless that current FASB rules clearly conclude that DIMEQ should be classified as a liability for accounting purposes?
E) Do you think Cha Cha makes sense in her argument that press releases are more important for someone like her to review other than the underlying legal document? If so, should we ignore the 12/18/00 press release from Dime Bancorp stating that the substantial portion of their economic interest in Anchor case was transferred to DIMEQ holders?
F) Do you think there is any obligation by Washington Mutual, Inc. BOD to DIMEQ LTW holders?
G) As an owner of the fulcrum security, does it bother you that Alvarez & Marsal admitted that they never read the DIMEQ LTW before they agreed to GSA which among other things resulted in JPM (thanks, S&C) getting a $250MM+ tax benefit on the Anchor Savings goodwill income tax gross-up that they were not even aware existed?
I could continue on but kindly "chew" on these for starters. And, I will answer your questions but I do need to see substantively better quality queries (as contrasted with your marginal previous ones) if you want to engage me.
MerchDeth: Kindly contact me ASAP. ulcanvayathotmail.com THANKS!
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110606000000000011.pdf
Yes, Counselor DRo the D&O insurance carrier for WAMUQ is now involved here as can be noted on above. Unlike with the Aurelius Capital involvement, you would think that they could assist with a settlement.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56437288/Special-Situations-Profile-DIMEQ-Warrants-11-18
And, insomniac the above summary report (dated 5/27/11) from Rodney McFadden also provides some good DIMEQ research info.
Chiron, you had it all correct on how JPM has been stupid here. Then you mentioned that JPM would have it settled if only they had a talented businessman like Romney:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/romney_fund_raiser_quits_after_indictment/
Me thinks JPM is bad but that Romney is not any better!
Linda, you seem like a nice lady but you are making presumptions that do not even make sense and then posting them to the boards. Your last post exactly proves my point. If I read your post you think tax claims (income, property, and other priority status claims) will get paid after accounts payable. Hummmmmmmmm.
No, you are incorrect. Read some more about corporate bankruptcy and start with the Disclaimer on MOR. There is a lot of discretion on what M&A/FTI is putting within the MOR. And, there is no order of payment listed therein, it is subject to the previously mentioned waterfall. Also, UCC represents in theory all unsecured creditors (whom have filed a POC) that do not have expunged claims.
Where did you come up with that? You mean the Debtor can decide on their own who they should pay here by putting it on the MOR? That is not correct. Senior (or secured debt) will be paid first, then whatever is left over goes to the unsecured, then whatever may be left over goes to equity. You can see that further if you read some of the legal bankruptcy billings where they discuss waterfall analysis. This is the monies that may come in and then the order in which they get paid. Too bad we can not see this piece of work!
NOL refunds and SJ may indeed be just around the corner so the MOR may soon show A>L but that certainly does not mean WAHUQ can be paid out. There has to be enough monies within the estate to pay out that will satisfy all those contingent claims that have been brought forth on the POCs filed (including resolving the unliquidated ones that involve lawsuits related to the bankruptcy and several that have lawsuits not tied into the bankruptcy).
Investing 101:
A) EC is a given. Trustee has requested it, that will be sufficient here.
B) WAHUQ Claim AMOUNT is resolved. Now it is treated as an unsecured creditor claim. This is a long ways from ultimate payment. There has to be more cash assets than total claims to enable payment thereon or in the event of an ultimate shortfall (possible though unlikely) the appropriate pro-rata amount will be distributed.
C) Trades less than 100 shares typically do not show up as "prints."
QUINN HAS DECLARED WAR!
This brief is great. To publish as an exhibit the direct phone lines along with cell phone numbers of senior JPM management. WOW! Or see Page 693 where JPM could not get some info they tried to obtain (in bad faith) from WMI even though they had an executed Confidentiality Agreement. So, what better to do then to go squeeze the FDIC to get it for them! Ethics?
Something has transpired recently here whereby QUINN HAS DECLARED WAR!
For DIMEQ info see the DIMEZ (old ticker) IH board.
Hey Gator, Mr. Penny, Marayatano and all of the other studs on this board. Have you called Wells Fargo? Have you offered them your encouragement to convert WAHUQ into debentures? If you have comments/questions, can you email me privately here (ulcanvay@hotmail.com).
Mr. Gator, it is not just you that thinks that WAHUQ trades really weird. I have been ledger posting each trade (you can get free time & sales at www.otcbb.com) for the past few weeks. The vast majority of the trades do appear taking place at the ask but on some big blocks they come through and are often done slightly under the market. That being said it does not make a lot of sense but then again so is the WAHUQ price which looks to be way understated from a fundamental analysis perspective. However, I am not a believer in all of these MM conspiracy theories. Most trade stocks like "bags of flour" and as such are just trying to squeeze a buck through their actitivies.
I respectfully disagree as with the bankruptcy there is an event of default with WAHUQ that took place. Why as noted on the legal billings did Perkins Coie get a new CUSIP and have discussions with DTC on the trust preferreds?
Looks like your calculations are correct from my perspective. And, there should not be any fees or expenses as WMI is responsible for these to be paid to the indenture trustee here. We also know Perkins & Coie has lined up a new CUSIP number and the DTC for the conversion into debentures which should be done mid-October. Now, the big question is why does WAHUQ sell for less than 25% of the value of the subordinated WMI debentures (which trade actively at ~70)?
Can you do us a WAHUQ screen shot? Thanks!
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090917000000000010.pdf
There continues to be discussion about the coversion of WAHUQ to a subordinated debenture (as should be done). Does anyone have any ideas as to the delay/holdup here?
Dan, you are the man! Thanks so much for doing this for all of us. These court sessions are exceptionally entertaining. I only wish I was not on the west coast so I could go see it live some time.
Give us back the art! This one is too funny. You think that JPM may be engaging in overkill with all these POC's mixing in some silly ones in with possible legitimate ones. I guess JPM thinks that WMI has some rare works of art that they are hiding at the old corporate headquarters. Rembrandt, Monet, Picasso where are those works of art as we would like for Jaime to have them all.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090330000000000287.pdf