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.
I'm reading the FDIC's response in the Mintz case.
"the Warrant Agreement stated:
6.3. Control of Litigation. The Bank will retain sole and
exclusive control of the Litigation and will retain 100% of any recovery from the Litigation. "
"Warrant holders therefore always understood that the entity that had issued the
warrants was not the entity that would recover any proceeds from that litigation."
If I have this right, the FDIC said that according to the warrant agreement the bank receives the proceeds. The holding company WMI has the obligation to the warrant holders to issue the shares. So JPM would get the money, WMI has the obligation to issue shares.
I know others have touched on this but I think I'm finally getting it.
Someone mentioned that JPM has not put out a press release. That may be a good sign.
This isn't what you're looking for but the link will take you to the documents. I had copied the following to my dimez notes because I think it shows that the original intent was to protect warrant holders from any future unforeseen circumstances. Dimez holders were clearly meant to somehow receive the proceeds from the litigation regardless of any future events. What's "right" is obvious. Hopefully what's right counts in court.
http://www.secinfo.com/dRM18.229.d.htm#26eq
4.4 Other Events. If any event occurs as to which the
foregoing provisions of this Article IV are not strictly applicable or, if
strictly applicable, would not, in the good faith judgment of the Board, fairly
and adequately protect the purchase rights of the Holders of the Warrants in
accordance with the essential intent and principles of such provisions, then the
Board may make, without the consent of the Holders, such adjustments to the
terms of this Article IV, in accordance with such essential intent and
principles, as will be reasonably necessary, in the good faith opinion of such
Board, to protect such purchase rights as aforesaid.
Jared - I can email you the Mintz documents on pdf. I can't get into it now but there's a lot on the distinction between WMI and WMB. My email is bobperryh@gmail.com.
Oops. Never mind.
There are a hundred million outstanding. They're not owned in odd lots. This is owned in chunks by sophisticated investors who have enough of a stake to fight for our money. Just in the last week million share prints were going up. I don't mean to suggest that the best strategy is to sit back and watch. But I'm pretty confident that our side will be well represented. I also don't think that JPM has any intention of voluntarily upholding the warrant agreement.
There's been a lot of good information here. I mostly read because I don't usually have much to offer. Keep up the posting.
David J Greene is the only holder I remember. I have to believe that there are other smart large holders who got into this knowing that they might eventually have to fight for their money. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that anyone here is that type of a holder. As big as my position is to me, I'm not.
There was always the question of JPM stealing the money. But, this decision is a great and huge positive. First hurdle cleared. More to come.
Me too! You beat me to it. I hope this is an omen.
Good find but I don't know that it refers to dimez. It refers to "Dime Benefit Restoration" and the call is with Towers Watson:
"With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer solutions in the areas of employee benefits"
I think this is referring to a benefits settlement with old dime employees.
Court of appeals in washington is closed. I checked there . I don't know where else there would be news.
If there were no worries, they wouldn't be trading at ten cents, or 3 cents not long ago. All the analysis is interesting and I appreciate reading legal interpretations much more knowledgeable than my own, but I don't think you have any clue as to what will happen here. I don't mean that in a nasty way. I do know that at ten cents it seems like an ok risk/reward to me.
Dr. Who?
From Jones Day website:
Summary: The United States Court of Federal Claims recently awarded $356 million to Jones Day's client Washington Mutual Bank (now JPMorgan Chase Bank), with additional damages still to be awarded that could increase the award to as high as $450 million.... JPMorgan Chase is the successor by acquisition to Anchor Savings Bank,
Why do I get the idea that JPM and Jones Day aren't in this for the 15%? It would be nice if a judge would say ok here's your 15% and 85 goes to dimez holders but I don't think that's going to happen. Eventually someone is going to have to represent dimez holders right?
Thanks. I'm not a lawyer and don't understand most of. A couple exerpts:
The “Bank,” not the holding company, has always
owned 100% of any recovery in that litigation,.....the warrants are obligations of WMI rather than of the
FDIC-Receiver,
The FDIC-Receiver therefore is well within its rights to pursue recovery of the litigation
proceeds, which always have been owned by WMB or its predecessors. In doing so, the FDICReceiver
has not taken on any obligation to holders of the litigation tracking warrants, who must
look to the WMI bankruptcy estate for any claim with respect to those instruments.7
I paid 30 cents a long while back. 2 1/2 cents a short while back, and at both times the risk/reward made sense. At 9 cents it still makes sense to me, but can't bring myself to buy more. Enough is enough I guess. It's more interesting than buying IBM, but if it's worthless one day I suppose I'll feel differently.
Just rambling. When might we next hear something?
I agree with the judge. Punative damages should be added to cover the anguish the gov't has caused to dimez holders with it's "scorched earth" policy. I've been scorched and I want payment.
Auger or eager? I'm going with auger. I hope.
To the government "on causation you are going right in the teeth of a very extensive analysis" that "came out against you."
"I have a hard time seeing our way clear to saying...judge Block did not correctly assess the Lang memorandum or the SEC filings"
I like the line Judge Block wrote a book about it, 150 pages.
I understood very little of it. But there were a few comments about Judge Block's decision which made me think they respect Judge Bloch's decision and would be reluctant to overturn it.
That said, I have no legal experience, and my opinion shouldn't be worth much.
That was fun to listen to.
Thanks very much both of you.
Pacer help needed.
Logged on to pacer and wasted 8 cents. Searched for anchor savings fsb vs US but can't don't see the right case. The number 95-39c comes up invalid.
What court was Friday's hearing held in?
And any other tips would be appreciated.
Thanks for the information.
I know nothing about the legal issues, but seeing as these were created for the purpose of separating the lawsuit from the bank, I don't see how we would not be entitled to the proceeds. I own dimeq. I don't own wamu. I want my money. Or my wamu stock. If wamu isn't trading by the time this is decided I should receive the cash.
In the case of another lawsuit, who would be fighting for us?
Anyone own dimeq? Entitle holder to award from winstar case paid in wamu stock.
Thanks for the reply. I had a Pacer account a while back for another stock I was involved in. I should try logging in again or rejoin.
Anyone here? Does anyone have any new information?
Thanks
Thank you all for posting information.
If anything, this seems good to me. JpM should be getting Wamu's share,15%, and we should get ours. I don't see why they would have a claim to 100%. ASB had no LTW's.
Does this change anything as to whether we should or shouldn't file the claim form?
I guess I should just fedex the form at this point. It has to be in tomorrow. It just seems that if we're just another creditor of wamu we won't get anything.
Wamu creditors, Jpm and IRS fight over 55 million winstar award from wamu purchase of American Savings Bank. US judge told gov't to turn money over to Delaware bankruptcy court.
On Dow Jones. I can't cut and paste. If the dime award is 350 million, it'll be some fight.
Anyone know what this decision means to us?
I wasn't available for the call. Did it take place? Can anyone summarize?
New to the board. I've been reading posts here for some time and finally decided to actually register.
I just spent some time going through old filings. Everything I read says the warrants are exerciseable for stock. For instance:"The LTWs are securities that represent the right to purchase, upon the occurrence of a trigger, shares of our common stock"
I also realize their are clauses that say the rights of z holders are to be protected and I just read article 4.4 from a post here. I was about to ask where it came from but just found the filing.
I don't know if I can justify any further investment on article 4.4 alone. It does clearly say that the original intent has to be protected but after reading what seems like hundreds of times that the warrants entitle me to shares of common stock, I just don't know.
Of course at 3 or 5 cents the risk/reward is attractive. I'd like to have bought the piece at a penny.
Does anyone have a link to the original warrant agreement? Or anything else that says our interests are protected?
Thanks for all the useful information.