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.
Anyone have the text of the bankers and tradesman article?
http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/2015/12/fannie-freddie-here-to-stay/
Most likely its a misstatement.
None the less it is there.
click on 18. CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016 ...search for "Section 702 in Division O"
Settlement? Senator Brown - Dem from the Buckeye State. His words not mine.
Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not.
That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could
be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will
be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases
and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the
third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, ``this
legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases.
Congressional Record December 18, 2015 114th Congress, 1st Session Issue: Vol. 161, No. 185 — Daily Edition
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/18/senate-section
Section 702 in Division O
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today I wish to discuss section 702 in
division O of the Omnibus appropriations bill. It is a provision that
would prohibit the Treasury Department
[[Page S8857]]
from selling, transferring or otherwise disposing of the senior
preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2 years.
In 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Housing Finance
Agency Director James Lockhart placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into
conservatorship and created an agreement that gave the Treasury
Department senior preferred shares in both entities. Since that time,
the GSEs helped stabilize the housing market by ensuring that families
had access to 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at reasonable rates and
lenders had access to a functioning secondary market. While the
government was initially forced to inject $188 billion into shoring up
these two agencies, it has since collected $241 billion. Taxpayers have
thus earned $53 billion during the conservatorship.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
I am concerned that someone could read the provision as limiting a
future administration's authority to end the conservatorship after the
2-year prohibition absent congressional action. Does the provision
prohibit a future administration from taking any action after January
1, 2018, if it is in the best interest of the housing market, taxpayers
or the broader economy?
Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not.
That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could
be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will
be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases
and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the
third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, ``this
legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases.
Mr. REID. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. Brown. If it turns out to be in the best interest of
borrowers, the economy or to protect taxpayers, the next administration
could elect to end the conservatorship on January 2, 2018. This is the
view of the Treasury Department as well. I would like to submit a
letter written to me on this issue that states that the provision binds
the Treasury only until January 1, 2018, and has no effect after that.
The agreement for this language to be included in the omnibus was
that the prohibition would sunset after 2 years and not create a
perpetual conservatorship. As then-Secretary Paulson described,
conservatorship was meant to be a ``time out'' not an indefinite state
of being.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Treasury letter be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of the remarks by Senator
Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Majority Leader. The FHFA and
Treasury Department could have placed the GSEs into receivership if the
intent was to liquidate them. The purpose of a conservatorship is to
preserve and conserve the assets of the entities in conservatorship
until they are in a safe and solvent condition as determined by their
regulator.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, December 17, 2015.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: In response to your request for our view,
the Treasury Department interprets the language of Section
702 of Division O of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, to
mean that subsection (b) imposes a prohibition that is
binding until January 1, 2018. It would not be binding after
that date.
Sincerely,
Anne Wall,
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
Cover of the new Fortune magazine.
Maybe this has been seen already.
http://i.imgur.com/mZqu0T0.jpg
Lt. Sobel has a question.
I got to "government owned" then stopped reading.
Is there any blog posts or anything to get up to speed on CIB?
What do you think the odds that one of the other large funds will vote along with Fairholme for the 30% to call the meeting or the 51% to oust them?
I should have done this a long time ago but drifted....I'm out.
From the LTW Prospectus date 12/15/00:
"Each Warrant represents the right to purchase shares or a portion of a share of Common Stock (subject to adjustment as provided herein), upon the terms and subject to the conditions herein set
forth.
"
Exercise Terms
3.1 Number of Warrant Shares; Exercise Price. Each Warrant will, upon
exercise thereof as provided herein, initially entitle the Holder thereof to
purchase the number of shares of Common Stock having an Adjusted Stock Price
equal to the Adjusted Litigation Recovery divided by the Maximum Number of
Warrants at an exercise price per Warrant equal to the number of shares of
Common Stock for which the Warrant is exercisable multiplied by $0.01 (the
"Exercise Price"). All calculations made pursuant to this Section 3.1 will be
rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth. When exercising Warrants, a Holder shall
pay a total Exercise Price of $0.01 per each whole share of Common Stock the
Holder will receive upon such exercise.
It can be found here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919568/000095013000006681/0000950130-00-006681-0002.txt
Again, a letter to the stock holders:
"After the trigger, LTWs may be exercised for shares of Stock with such shares subject to the same transfer restrictions as then apply to the Restricted Stock to which the LTWs related."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919568/000089183601000028/0000891836-01-000028-0001.htm
If some one can dispute these words then i'm all ears. Until then I gatta go with Mrs. Chamberlain.
Dumb question but whats the reason for the 85/15 split?
All red. Last buy was at .28. Ask is .3
The warrants are addressed here am I not correct?
Taken from the D/S filed 10/6/2010
b. Broadbill Declaratory Judgment Action.
On April 12, 2010, Broadbill Investment Corp. (“Broadbill”) commenced an adversary
proceeding against WMI related to the Anchor Litigation, discussed above. Broadbill’s complaint seeks
several declaratory judgments by the Bankruptcy Court, including a ruling that the holders of the LTWs
have allowed claims against—and not equity interests in—WMI. The Debtors believe the causes of
action in the complaint are wholly without merit and, on May 17, 2010, filed a motion to dismiss
Broadbill’s complaint on several grounds. First, the Debtors contend that Broadbill lacks standing to
bring any cause of action in connection with the LTWs. Second, the Debtors believe that Broadbill’s
claim for breach is unripe. Third, the Debtors believe that that the LTW holders do not have a right to
participate in any recovery from the Anchor Litigation. Finally, the Debtors believe that, pursuant to the
LTWs’ terms, the LTWs are plainly equity securities and thus constitute equity interests in, not claims
against, the Debtors.
On May 18, 2010, the Creditors’ Committee moved to intervene and filed a joinder to the
Debtors’ motion to dismiss. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet ruled on the Creditors’ Committee’s
motion to intervene. At a hearing before the Bankruptcy Court on June 3, 2010, two additional purported
LTW holders, Nantahala Capital Partners and Blackwell Partners (collectively, “Nantahala”), informed
the Bankruptcy Court and the Debtors of their intention to intervene in the adversary proceeding
commenced by Broadbill. On June 7, 2010, Broadbill filed its opposition to the Debtors’ motion to
dismiss, and, on June 8, 2010, Nantahala filed its own brief opposing the motion to dismiss. At a hearing
before the Bankruptcy Court on June 17, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court stated that it would enter an order
formally allowing Nantahala to intervene in Broadbill’s adversary proceeding and requested that the
parties submit a stipulation and proposed order to that effect. On June 25, 2010, Nantahala filed a
stipulation and proposed order that would allow them to intervene in Broadbill’s adversary proceeding.
The Bankruptcy Court approved the stipulation on June 30, 2010 and Nantahala filed an intervenor
complaint on July 1, 2010.
On June 16, 2010, the Debtors filed the 43rd and 44th Omnibus Objections in their
chapter 11 cases, seeking to disallow approximately 190 claims filed by putative LTW holders (including
Broadbill and Nantahala), on the bases that: (i) the claims are not actual claims, but rather equity interests,
US_ACTIVE:\43338029\60\79831.0003 57
and/or (ii) the claims must be subordinated pursuant to section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. On June
24, 2010, the Debtors moved to stay the Broadbill adversary proceeding, to consolidate the Broadbill
adversary proceeding with the proceedings to resolve the Debtors’ 43rd and 44th Omnibus Objections,
and to adjourn the hearing on the 43rd and 44th Omnibus Objections to September 7, 2010. On July 15,
2010, Broadbill and Nantahala filed objections to this motion. At the hearing before the Bankruptcy
Court on July 20, 2010, the parties announced an agreement pursuant to which Broadbill would file a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of the LTW holders, which would supersede all prior
complaints, and that the Debtors would withdraw without prejudice the aforementioned motion to dismiss
and motion to consolidate, and would adjourn the omnibus objection sine die.
On September 3, 2010, Broadbill and Nantahala filed the aforementioned consolidated
class complaint on behalf of the class of LTW holders, naming themselves as class plaintiffs. On
September 17, 2010, WMI filed an Answer as well as a Counterclaim based on section 510(b)
subordination. On September 24, 2010, WMI filed its First Amended Answer and Counterclaim.
If Broadbill prevails in the adversary proceeding on behalf of the class of LTW holders,
their claims against the Debtors will be treated as General Unsecured Claims pursuant to the Plan. Thus,
because the LTW holders’ claims are disputed claims, the Liquidating Trustee will reserve up to $194.1
million, the maximum amount payable in the event that LTW holders’ claims are allowed in full, or such
lesser amount
Some of you guys need to read the dockets.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100928000000000005.pdf
I was actually hoping someone would say something about this. It came out the 22nd along with Reply to the objections.
Amended Plan
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100922000000000025.pdf
Amended Disclosure
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100922000000000026.pdf
Reply of the EC
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100922000000000024.pdf
Live to die another day.
Its in Kerr-McGee's objection to the EC's ECA. Filed this afternoon.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100922000000000007.pdf
Anadarko and Kerr-McGee are at least talking to the EC...not really sure if that a good sign.
Even if it goes to a vote can it get past a vote by the Creditors?
Objection of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to the Motion of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders for Entry of an Order Approving the Equity Committee’s Disclosure Statement
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100920000000000011.pdf
Specifically, the Equity Committee Proposed Plan violates the absolute priority rule” as set forth under section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii)3 by providing equity holders with meaningful value under the Equity Committee Proposed Plan while failing to pay in full general unsecured creditors.
On its face, the Equity Committee Proposed Plan fails to pay in full the general unsecured creditors whose claims are classified in Classes 4, 5 and 6. Tronox’s liabilities, considering the sum total of governmental and non-governmental environmental claims and other tort claims (many of which are non-dischargeable or administrative claims), indisputably exceed its total enterprise value – regardless of whether compared against the Debtors’ valuation of the company or the Equity Committee’s valuation – by potentially billions of dollars.
The unsecured creditor constituencies in these cases and the Debtors have worked tirelessly over the last several months to structure settlements amongst themselves (the “Settlement Agreements”) to avoid costly litigation which surely would
have placed Tronox’s reorganization in peril and jeopardized any meaningful and timely recovery to creditors.
These Settlement Agreements, which are premised upon the
valuation contained in the Debtors’ Amended Plan (defined below), will resolve a significant amount of the claims asserted against Tronox, and are based in large part upon recoveries arising fromhe Anadarko Litigation – recoveries which may not result in a 100% return to those classes of creditors. There is not value enough available for creditors to receive a 100% recovery, and the creditors in this case have worked together to fairly divide up what available value there is. The Equity Committee
4 has co-opted these Settlement Agreements in its proposed plan espite representatives of Classes 4, 5 and 6 having never agreed to abide by these Settlement Agreements in the context of a plan of reorganization that redirects allegedly available value rising from creditors to interest holders.
Ignoring for argument’s sake the fact that general unsecured claims are not going to be paid in full, the Equity Committee has proposed a plan, deficiencies and uncertainties aside, which is strikingly similar to the Debtors’ Amended Plan but which gives value to the equity holders through warrants, which the Equity Committee Proposed Plan contemplates to be exercisable upon emergence, and through a rights offering slightly modified from the one which has been proposed by the Debtors. In light of these similarities, it is highly wasteful and confusing to have a competing plan process in these cases.
Finally, the creditors are being asked to vote on a plan for which there is not “adequate information” upon which creditors can make an informed decision. Specifically, the Equity committee Disclosure Statement fails to provide, among other things, (i) information regarding proposed exit financing, (ii) information and justification for the proposed sale of Tronox’s interests in the Tiwest Joint Venture, (iii) information egarding a proposed convenience class, (iv) information egarding the proposed Class 7 treatment, (v) information regarding the eligibility of certain interest holders to participate in the ights Offering, (vi) information regarding Class 8,
Events of Default:
1. The Event of Default under Section 8.1(b) of the Credit Agreement solely due to the breach of
Section 5.14 of the Credit Agreement arising from the occurrence of the Termination Event under
and as defined in the Plan Support Agreement.
2. The Events of Defaults under Section 8.1(b) of the Credit Agreement solely due to the breach of
Section 5.15 of the Credit Agreement arising from (i) any failure of the disclosure statement as to
which the Credit Parties obtain Bankruptcy Court approval on or before September 30, 2010, to
relate to a plan of reorganization that satisfies the definition of “Plan of Reorganization” as set
forth in the Credit Agreement or (ii) any failure by the Borrower or any other Credit Party to seek
confirmation of a plan of reorganization that satisfies the definition of “Plan of Reorganization”
as set forth in the Credit Agreement.
3. The Event of Default under Section 8.1(o)(xiii) of the Credit Agreement solely due to the
termination of the Plan Support Agreement.
4. Each Event of Default arising solely due to (a) the failure of any Credit Party timely to provide
any notice with respect to any of the Events of Default described in the preceding paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 or (b) the failure of any representation and warranty set forth in the Credit Agreement or
any other Credit Document to be true and correct as, when and to the extent required therein
solely as a result of the occurrence
Tronox is going to have to enter into its Forbearance on the DIP.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100919000000000002.pdf
It basically is going to have to default on its DIP.....i dont think the market thinks thats good.
Objections to the ec should have been filed by friday.
Any movement in the price is basically meaningless until a plan gets confirmed. If the EC plan doesn't get accepted next Friday then the current one is confirmed by default and even then the way some of the dockets have described it its going to be some crazy vote for both/one/neither.
Wake me up when September ends.
The IPA isnt a Long Hammer is it?
Madclown
What do you think of this docket?
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100915000000000001.pdf
Agenda for tomorrow.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0910156/0910156100915000000000004.pdf
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/
Click on Court Calendars -> Judge Gropper -> Dates are at the top.
Anyone hear anything from court today?
Anyone know whats going on in court today?
General Growth did this a few times back when it was trading on the pink sheets. The one thing i've learned is that the markets will always require more patience than you think but so long as the information that keeps coming in is favorable to your position then there is no reason to do anything.
I'd hardly say common holders are out of the woods completely yet.
Damn....I went to the bars too early...Thanks Mad.
It looks as if the debtors and the EC have agreed to all a dual solicitation process...if both Disclosure Statements are approved.
"The Equity Committee proposes that each voter will receive a single solicitation package. Inside that solicitation package will be (i) a CD601273879v24 ROM containing the Debtors’ disclosure Statement and related materials, (ii) a CD-ROM
containing the Equity Committee Disclosure Statement and related materials, (iii) individual ballots that will be color-coded for each of the Competing Plans (e.g., blue paper ballot for the
Debtors’ Plan and yellow paper ballot for the Equity Committee Plan), (iv) if applicable, a single subscription form that will be applicable to both the Debtors’ and the Equity Committee’s
respective Rights Offerings (the “Rights Offerings Subscription Form”), (v) a paper copy summary of the differences between the Competing Plans, and (vi) a paper copy set of instructions that will advise voters as to how the Ballots and Rights Offerings Subscription Form, if applicable, should be completed. The Debtors have indicated that such procedures are
acceptable to them."
But they agreed to be in the same package....Hope everyone has a computer.
"Parties will have the right to (i) accept each of the Competing Plans, (ii) reject each of the Competing Plans, or (iii) accept or reject only one of the Competing Plans. A blackline showing the differences between the Debtors’ Solicitation Procedures and the Omnibus Solicitation Procedures is attached hereto as Exhibit B."
So the EC wants to set it up as a battle between which one provides a better return to each class. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems from September 2nd EC Disclosure Statement that the EC basically made the pie larger and gave bigger pieces to each class?
There are already objections to the old plan.
This is to go a head with the Debtors plan....the ECs is on the 23rd.
MC or someone else might have a better idea but what keeps all classes a head of the equity from voting for this plan and not the ECs? Could they cram this plan through before the ECs?
That would explain why the share are still trading so low.