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.
STICKY THIS.
Please make
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58955618
sticky instead of the one called "here it is", as no one really knows what that means :)
Regards,
doomie
Notice of Appeal re: Order Denying Confirmation of Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 6529]
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110119000000000003.pdf
I'm not sure one should interpret this as positive as you do.
For me, it sounds like the following:
------------------------------
Ok, we dont care about the releases any more and will deal with any class action law suits at the appropriate court. Let's just get through with the case now.
------------------------------
As Mr. Rosen wrote in his "Notice of Hearing [...]", he intends to change the POR/GSA that way that the releases will not be included anymore. I actually do not think he would write that if it's not agreed by JPM/FDIC/... . So what is actually left for us shareholders? OK, we do get a position in the Liquidation trust board, but come on, I think once this case is over, there wont be much attention left and these people will just do whatever they want.
Is there any hard evidence why it should not go the way Rosen intends to at this very moment? I only see a chance if there will be some kind of appeal by the EC or the UST or whomever else is 'fighting on our side'.
I'm open to every other well-based opinion at this moment!
Best regards,
doomie
"To be clear, the priviliged information was not provided to, or discussed with, JPMC, the FDIC or the US Trustee or any party other than the Equity Committee."
Thats page 9 of the objection. Doesnt that mean that there is no reason why the judge should unseal them?
You misunderstand her opinion IMO. She said that she needs to evaluate each part of the GSA seperately to be able to determine its reasonableness und its fairness. And thats exactly what she is doing in the following part of her opinion.
Be aware that this is only my opinion of her text, but thats the way I read it and thats how it makes sense IMO.
Please read my post from some minutes ago. Your quote just means that SHE (the judge) is supposed to take a detailed look at every point of the GSA to be able to approve it and thats what she did.. so she doesnt want to ahve a valuation hearing or whatever.
Yeah, the got the releases from the debtors, but not from everyone else, i.e. us. So we could still sue them, if I read that correctly.
I dont think she can just give it back with some hints on how to change it. Thats just not possible I think. She can either accept it AS IT IS, or deny it completly. And as the debtors have to change some (small) things, we had to deny it completly. However, after these changes, she can then accept it, I think.
But isnt that what she is doing exactly? She's taking a look at every part seperately and thinks that most parts are good as they are? I think you are reading that wrong.
Yeah, the debtors get it. Does that really matter for us? Wasnt it calculated like this anyways? Its nothing good for us is it?
Where exactly do you read that?
Why is TPS a win for us?
"In that
Opinion the Court concludes that because the Conditional Exchange
occurred, the TPS Holders no longer have any interest in the TPS
and instead are now deemed to be the holders of securities
representing preferred shares in WMI."
"Given these difficult
legal issues and the other consideration being given to the
estates under the Global Settlement, the Court finds it is
unlikely that the Debtors could achieve a result on the TPS claim
that is superior to the Global Settlement."
That means there are more preferred shares now but we do not get the asset behind it.. sounds like the worst thing that was able to happen..
CALM DOWN
I'm not so sure that this is that good for us. She basically allowed A LOT of stuff the Debtors have written, and only minor stuff needs some fixing.
I still need to read the entire document again, but somehow, I'm not that convinced at the moment.
You might wanna read WithCatz answer @Yahoo here:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=634744&mid=634744&tof=2&frt=3#634744
If you search for the phrase: "As much as I hate it, Rosen was right WITH HIS ANSWER", you will come to his post directly. Sorry, I cant copy a direct link to his post ATM.
doomie
I really have to look this up again, but from what Kosturos said, BOLI/COLI belonged to WMB before seizure and was thus part of the package that was transferred to JPM via FDIC. What JPM did with this is yet to determined for me. Putting it this way, I'm not sure whether it has to be accounted for. Well, of course, it should be part of 3.1a, but then again, there should probably be several parts that should be accounted for and are actually not.
I'm fairly confident that THJMW will take a look at that fact, especially after Ilena and BR "arguing" about that right infront of here. So I'm just curious about what her opinion here is (as probably everyone is right now ;)).
doomie
Concerning the BOLI/COLI: I dont think Kosturos actually said "yeah, they were transferred". At least I cant remember it that way. If I remember correctly, he said that they have been on the balance sheet of WMB and not WMI, so they obviously belong to JPM now. And he (Kosturos) does not know what JPM did with them in the last 2 years.
And thus, Rosen just said "no, your honor", meaning, that they have not been transferred FROM JPM TO someone else. Thats how I'd interpret Rosens answer, which is, to be honest, an awesome reply from him by not saying anything really and not giving THJMW any way to hold him accountable for that.
Just my humble opinion, I cant add transcripts from work at the moment, sorry.
Short break for Tricadia and the debtors to reach an agreement, if I understood it correctly.
THJMW: "Why can't we work out a languaguge that clarifies this issue (?)"
What do you think of this sentence?
Who will talk after him? When is it shareholder time? Can anyone remember the order here?
Nice move to take PJS numbers before Nelson can do that actually. One has to admin that he is just a great lawyer.
Oh this is bad...
He said that it does not change a bit for anyone, if I understood it correctly in the background. They said that they just forgot to include it in the last version or so.
I can't quote right now (we have to listen to the mp3 later), but he said something like:
EC: "Do you see that there are 4 paragraphs about ...?"
Smith: "I dont know whether its 4 or so"
EC: "Ah, I guess you didnt count them while determining whether the plan is reasonable and fair..."
That was one hell of a nice comment from the EC lawyer! :)
This is about the exchange event, i.e. changing TPS to normal preferred. Isnt that what we want? That TPS looses here? And then, when its about the downstreaming, TPS has to win so that everything stays at WMI. Or did I get that wrong?
doomie
Who is talking at the moment?
I think it would be great, both for the layer(s) and for the media. If you have the time and knowledge, I'd say: go ahead!
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100504000000000013.pdf
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100504000000000016.pdf
Is it one of those? I'm kinda confused I must admit!
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101126000000000007.pdf
What does that mean? Does it mean that the unsecured creditors are now allowed to intervene in the motion of the EC to hold an annual shareholder meeting? What consequences does it have? Why does the judge sign it NOW, only 5 days prior to a possible approval of the POR?
Thanks in advance,
doomie
Voting results
Are these the voting results?
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101124000000000003.pdf
From page #10 on, it looks like there are some kind of results, however, I'm not able to analyse them. Could you tell me more about it, please?
Thanks a lot
doomie
Alright, thanks again :)
Thanks a lot for your answers to my questions, it really helped me.
However, I think you got my question 5) wrong, possibly due to my lack in english. :) The real question was:
Do we expect some kind of "objection to the examiner report", which is possible til 29.11.2010. Meaning: Do you think the EC or the UST will object to the way the examiner has performed his task, or the way the examiner draw its conclusion? Of course this is already partly included in the objection to the POR, but do you think we might see a seperate objection to the report itself?
Thanks again for your answers! :)
dooomie
Yeah, this is my feeling too - however, I was more interested in whether this is possible from a legal point of view or whether, once the confirmation hearing is set, it has to be heard.
I'm wondering about the possible future:
1) Will there definately be a hearing 12/01/10 or can the judge just confirm the plan prior to this hearing by some kind of ruling? Can she also just reject the plan prior to this hearing?
2) Will the EC definately have the chance to say something prior to a possible confirmation or was this objection basically the last thing EC was able to do concerning a possible confirmation?
3) I've read a lot of opinions saying something like "the EC wants to hold their best cards til the end instead of just 'wasting' it now while objecting to the POR". This sounded very reasonable to me at the beginning but, going ahead with my first question, isnt that kind of risky due to the possibily of not being able to 'play these cards' now anymore due to a confirmation of the plan?
4) What do you think about the response to the objections from the debtors. It looks like they are actually responding to all objections, one by one. Is there the possibility for the objecting parties to file a response to the response of the debtors, if yes, til when do they have time? I mean, now is thanks giving and one wednesday, it's already 12/01/10.
5) Do we expect some kind of objection to the report from Hochberg, which is possible til 29.11.2010, AFAIR?
Thanks a lot for sharing your insight,
doomie
No, as already statet out by withcatz, its the objection by "washington mutual inc" concerning the request from "Dan Hoffmann" to unseal the "sealed document from the equity commitee".
doomie
What about something like:
69,701,828 Shares of WAMUQ common shares (xx.x% of the total amount of shares)
Just an idea!
doomie
Ah, I understand. Thanks a lot for your insight.
doomie
Sorry for my question, but I'm relatively new here:
Can the Debtors really postpone such matters as far as they want? I mean, can they just postpone it that often that I will not be discussed before other important things?
Thanks in advance for your reply,
doomie
Looks like the discussion about the shareholder meeting was postponed to a date "yet to determined", am I right?
with best regards