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.
Bloody Hell, Can this be True?!!
Quote: "A bankruptcy remote company is a company within a corporate group whose bankruptcy has as little economic impact as possible on other entities within the group. A bankruptcy remote company is often a single-purpose entity.
In practice, due to the concept of limited liability, most companies in developed legal systems will be de facto bankruptcy remote from other members of the group (except in limited circumstances where creditors are permitted to pierce the corporate veil). However, in financial structuring, references to bankruptcy remoteness usually imply additional steps being taken to protect group members from attendant liability, such as by using an orphan structure to remove the legal ownership of the bankruptcy remote vehicle from the group, while retaining the economic benefits of it. Such structures are used where the vehicle's activities may give liability to the group as a whole, for example, under certain environmental protection legislation, or in relation to tax liabilities in certain countries."
Orphan structure or Orphan SPV or orphaning are terms used in structured finance closely associated with creating SPVs ("Special Purpose Vehicles") for securitisation transactions where the notional equity of the SPV is deliberately handed over to an unconnected 3rd party who themselves have no control over the SPV; thus the SPV becomes an "orphan" whose equity is controlled by no one.
Exactly as AZ pointed out, Merry Christmas to all!!
Quote:"Gold, As you said: "Yes, even after 1 year it is called Rule 5010 under Section 350(b)!!" then the so-called 14-day waiting is a moot point. As I posted early BR indicated the 14 days already passed since he filed the 350 application. its at 2:06 where BR said ".....being final report which was filed in accord to the local rules 14 days prior to the commencement of this hearing. IMO this is why the hearing date was revised from Dec 17th to 19th.."
Hey Nice to hear from you AZ, Merry Christmas!!
Yes, even after 1 year it is called Rule 5010 under Section 350(b)!!
Quote:
Closing and Reopening Bankruptcy Cases
Generally, after a bankruptcy estate has been “fully administered”—e.g., the debtor’s chapter 11 plan has been confirmed, all bankruptcy claims have been resolved, and the plan is “substantially consummated”—the court, pursuant to section 350(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, is required to close the case by issuing a “final decree” in accordance with Rule 3022 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”). Once a case is closed, the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the debtor and its estate normally terminates.
However, section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 5010 authorize the court, on motion of the debtor or another party in interest, to reopen a closed bankruptcy case “to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.” Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9024(1), a motion to reopen a case is not subject to the one-year time limit that generally applies to motions for relief from an order of the court. A decision on a motion to reopen is committed to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.
Common reasons that have warranted reopening a closed case under section 350(b) include: (i) the discovery of unadministered assets which were unknown at the time of closure; (ii) amending schedules to add a previously omitted debt or creditor; (iii) avoiding a lien impairing exempt property; (iv) granting the debtor a discharge if the case was closed before a discharge was granted; and (v) enforcing the discharge injunction under section 524(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. See generally Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 350.03 (16th ed. 2016).
Neither section 350(b) nor any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code specifies what constitutes “other cause” for reopening a closed case. In the absence of statutory guidance, bankruptcy courts have broad discretion in making this determination. For example, courts have granted motions to reopen a case to modify a chapter 11 plan or to interpret a provision in a previously confirmed plan. Id. (citing cases).
Courts are generally reluctant to reopen closed cases. Reopening a case removes the element of certainty and finality that comes with full administration of an estate and entry of a final decree. For this reason, courts consider a number of factors in determining whether reopening a case is justified under the particular circumstances of each case. For example, bankruptcy courts in the Southern District of New York have applied the following six-factor test:
The length of time that the case was closed;
Whether a nonbankruptcy forum has jurisdiction to determine the issue cited for reopening the case;
Whether prior litigation in the bankruptcy court determined that another court would be a more appropriate forum;
Whether any parties would suffer prejudice if the court grants or denies the motion to reopen;
The extent of any benefit to any party by reopening the case; and
Whether it would be futile to reopen the case because the requested relief cannot be granted.
See In re Easley-Brooks, 487 B.R. 400 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013); In re PlusFunds Grp., Inc., 2015 BL 113361 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2015). The moving party bears the burden of establishing “other cause” to reopen.
The bankruptcy court in Atari considered a motion to reopen a closed chapter 11 case under section 350(b).
Any bankruptcy can reopen provided there is a valid reason to reopen the case and is approved by the court. It is the Law!!
Yes we will all probably be here until we know for sure the Fat Lady sung...
you have to consider the Big Players will not be thrilled to have to pay taxes next year. They want to use that money to make more money before they get taxed on it IMO.
The Question is, Did Suckman and EC allowed JPM to still "the Sausage" for 1.9B??
The problem I see is that if money is coming who is there to enforce payments?. Also why have not Kosturos left office yet if there is nothing to distribute and bankruptcy is close?? We certainly do not need him for the WMILT left over distribution?
that would be the last nail in the coffin for retail to finally get their fair and reasonable equals nothing!!
Quote:""""As far as DA BOYZ imho they know exactly what is there or a real good idea as they fully intended to take this private but you had to HOLD 1 mill in H's to even be allowed to then buy in at 25$ per share!!!!!
This is NOT MY OPINION THEY DID INTEND and TRY to take it PRIVATE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ya had to own a million dollars in H's and pay $25 a share POR 6 REMEMBER THAT
AND IT WILL NOT SHOCK ME if they try again!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
When will the FDIC seek to be released?or does it even matter at this point?? WHo would like to go against the government deep pockets anyways??
I don't think is so much his fault, Suckman and WillieJam were supposed to protect our interests but seems like they just sold our arses down river long ago....
I still do not understand how Rosie got the job as he was protecting JPM interest talking about a conflict of interest... He sounded like he did not even know who actually hold our escrow information
LOL Joe. Merry Christmas, buddy!!
I refused to believe we released JPM for a few thousand shares on a $1 share company. No way no how!! There's got to be more to the story..
Did Suckman really let JPM stole all of the assets for 1.9B and then convinced us to sign releases too? Anybody?
Without WAMU JPM would not have made it thru the recession at all.
JPM was $23 a share in January of 2009 and today is worth $137 a share. That is a six fold increase thanks to WAMU. Will there be any justice in this fiasco??
She was sloppy and not really fighting for us common folk but I have to recognize after hearing that audio at least she had the cojones to stand against HosenCrap ...
Yeah like the WMILT has kept the waterfall on a really tight leash all these years and only paying PIERS in small increments when they could off pay them off at once. You know theres gotta be a reason for that. If there was no money why did it took so many years to close the bankruptcy?...
That is exactly my point The Big Players have been very quiet. Either they knew all along there was no money or they knew exactly what is behind door #3 and are just waiting..
That is what was talked about in court and disputed by Griffin. Rosie said they have a record for class 22 but not class 18 but yet WMILT is not supposed to have that info anyways. Mary said that's was the brokers job but she did not cared either way...
AZ I have a question, Do you think the hedgies will be opening a lawsuit against the estate knowing now that their preferred escrow markers are not even on record? Or they just gave up on their shares long time ago? LOL
I just finished listening to the audio, that was harsh!! Is that how the story ends?? Why keep the markers alive if there is no money left..
The dream turned into an 11 year nightmare....
Or is Hosen pulling my leg again!!
Thank you for the audio file!!
Thank you for audio file!!
THAT"S A BOLD STATEMENT!!, Quote:"Is it plausible that he has been working for BR, JPM, FDIC, or one of the Hedge funds.....or some other entity that is either let off the hook or gets a windfall at shareholders expense once cases are closed? Pethaps his whole purpose was to mislead us all along to limit any support for someone like AG to fight the finalization of the theft."
He must have his reasons but you know Bankruptcy can be reopened Right?!!
BBangBob u know bankruptcy can be reopened, RIGHT?!!
Have not heard the audio but Im not surprised...
Calm down!! another milestone passed, The court process is slow. COOP is the Tell watch COOP move when WMIH business is solved..
NO, do not quit your dayjob just yet!!
TODAY IS THE DAY!! 2:00pm Eastern time
QUOTE:"There will probably be two to four annual distributions to Marker Holders into perpetuity"
Someone needs a shrink badly!!...
Calm down, there is money u just have to believe!!
Nah, your definition of DD is vague cannot compare to AZ's DD which is second to none. You did not even know what a Trust was until AZ Cowboy brought it up!!
Quote:"I have done a lot of due diligence on DSTs or Delaware Statutory Trusts"
Yes we know according to you Class 19 is the pot of GOLD at the end of the Rainbow and Big Players only own Class 19. Everything else is secondary.
Don't forget your parachute gonna be a Long Way Down from Cloud 9.
FINAL COUNTDOWN! ~24 hours left.
I agree this orchestrated charade was planned a long time ago. And the lawyers were allowed to milk the estate leftovers for all this years...They know exactly what is behind door #3...
sixth sense, my dear Watson!!..
I got that, but I still think she does not own any valuable escrow since she did not release!! Thats why she is fighting so hard to get paid something before this ends and at the cost of BBangBob and gang...
She not gonna get it though
Griffin claiming $307B in assets, of that $222B in mortgage loans minus $279B in liabilities equals to $28B??