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.
Thanks! WaS (Pun intended) a moment of excitement there. I've been around long enough not to get carried away. So I am back on the ground now. LOL!
Too many coincidences here. I am getting really "NERVITED" nervous and excited at the same time.
Very very interesting Vegas.
I have to say, I am really impressed at the pace this bankruptcy court is going. Equally impressive is LandAmerica having their ducks in a row and wants this proceedings expedited to their benefit. Many thanks to the folks who unselfishly share their DD here. I feel warm and fuzzy here.
LOL! Good one.
No one wants to sell at the bid here. Gimme some shares.
BAGABOOMBOOYAA! This stock is exploding.
Did you call me? I was at work all day. LOL!
We are not unsecured creditors. We are stockholders.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL! From the Northwest.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!
HAPPY NEW YEAR! From the Northwest.
Got that right Vegas!
I am liking this "Fraudulent Conveyance" scenario. Sounds pretty convincing. Any thoughts on this Z?
Good!
Check!
It really depends what the company is worth. Another thing to consider is will they be buying the whole company?
Thanks! That's what I thought. Just making sure.
What happens to shorts in a company going private?
Bottomline, anyone that can afford to lose $1,000 and have the patience to wait in this speculative stock may just come out a huge winner.
My sentiments exactly. How can you argue that?
If JPM does the smart thing and takes everything like Dragon posts for around $15 a share, I will be an overnight millionaire (after taxes) and well damn wont that be dandy?
If there is a buyout at $10 per share, I will be a millionaire before taxes....but still not complaining. Take the 35% and put it toward the bailouts! I'll happily pay my share.
If--as I suspect--WAMU comes out of bankruptcy, merges, or there is a deal outside of JPM, and the pps is between $2-$4...I can pay off my house, keep my beautiful corvette, quit my 2nd job, and have a smile of contentment on my face.
If I lose the remainder of my WAMU investment--which is a possibility--all I lose is another $3,500 or so. So, the possible above scenarios are worth the risk of the remaining balance of my initial 40k investment. I will still be looking to sell my Corvette. I will still be working two jobs. My house mortgage will keep getting paid. And I will shrug my shoulders, quote the old luvs commercial: "live and learn" and move forward, head high, just as always.
I'm ready to wait up to three years or so to figure out which of the above scenarios will be my fate. I can guarantee you, one of them will come to fruition.
Something has to be brewing between JPM and WMI. Is WMI threatening to sue FDIC? Possible they are. We know that FDIC has been sued and lost before.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1D81138F935A3575AC0A966958260
Unfortunately, even if FDIC loses, it is impossible to return the bank to WMI at this juncture. Other alternative is to work it out and buyout WMI at fair value or what ever is agreeablt to WMI.
I am not saying that this is going to happen but it certainly is a possibility. The latest filing appears to me that WMI is crying foul about the premature seizure and because they were not even able to access their records, at this juncture it is now very difficult to determine what there A/L are. Is the judge giving them time to work it out for themselves before WMI sues JPM/FDIC? Sounds like what is going on to me.
I still smell a buyout. Don't know if it happens this year though.
Worse, it was later than Dec. 16.
The information provided herein, except as otherwise noted, is what was available to the debtors and their professionals, in large part as provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan Chase”), as custodians of most of the books and records of the debtors as of the close of business in Dec. 18, 2008
Can you direct me to a link that says they must keep their share structure for the reorganization? Thanks.
It appears they prepared it hastily based on the information provide by JPM. They don't seem to trust the accuracy of information provided to them. Just had to file to meet the deadline?
I say long term and trade some.
Awesome. Long term hold here folks.
I thought I just heard Jim Cramer on The Big Idea just said that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be OK". That he believes they are not toilet paper. This is encouraging.
I thought I just heard Jim Cramer on The Big Idea just said that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be OK". That he believes they are not toilet paper. This is encouraging.
Gobble gobble! Happy Thanksgiving to the board.
Holy Crapola! Thanks for posting the link. BAGABOOMBOOYAAA!
What if a buyout occurs? Don't you think it can happen much sooner rather than later?
More on FDIC...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402238.html
FDIC Ordered to Pay Financier $72 Million
Judge Denounces Debt-for-Trees Deal
By Terence O'Hara
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Page D01
A federal judge in Texas, calling the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. a "corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it," awarded a Houston financier $72 million to cover his legal fees in a decade-long suit involving a failed savings and loan and the government's efforts to take control of a stand of endangered California redwood trees in the 1990s.
The FDIC, a regulatory agency that insures deposits at banks and savings and loans, filed suit against Charles E. Hurwitz in 1995, seeking to collect more than $800 million because Hurwitz indirectly controlled a Texas S&L that failed in 1988. The FDIC, after a series of legal setbacks, dropped its suit against Hurwitz in 2002. Hurwitz then asked the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case, Lynn N. Hughes, to order the FDIC to pay his legal expenses, arguing that the FDIC should never have brought the case in the first place.
On Tuesday evening, Hughes issued a scathing, 131-page ruling. In it, he cited evidence that the FDIC brought the case largely because of pressure from environmental groups, members of Congress and the Clinton administration. The reason: Hurwitz's Pacific Lumber Co. owned 3,500 acres of endangered redwoods in Northern California. Hughes found that the FDIC, in close concert with environmental groups, sued Hurwitz to pressure him into a "debt-for-nature" swap, in effect giving the government his trees in exchange for his supposed liability in the failure of the United Savings Association of Texas.
Judge Hughes, in his ruling, found that FDIC officials lied about the reasons for bringing the 1995 suit against Hurwitz.
Hughes said FDIC officials and lawyers, in depositions, "ranged from manipulative evasiveness to plain perjury." He cited records of two years of communications, including extensive discussions of legal strategy and political matters, between the FDIC and environmentalists over the proposal to use a banking-practices lawsuit as pressure on Hurwitz to give up the redwoods.
Hughes said FDIC officials "discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists. If the vice president called, they responded. If a congressman called, they responded. If a lobbyist called, they responded. They heeded every call but that of duty and honor."
David Barran, an FDIC spokesman, said the agency will appeal the ruling.
"This is certainly one of the most imaginative and colorful opinions in banking law," Barr said. "Judge Hughes has been overturned twice by the 5th Circuit in this case, and we're confident that history will repeat itself."
Hughes was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan. In 20 years, he has gained a reputation for issuing strongly worded opinions, several of them accusing the government of overreaching in criminal and civil cases. In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit twice overruled Hughes's decision to unseal internal FDIC legal memoranda in the Hurwitz case.
In an interview yesterday, Hurwitz said he felt vindicated. "It's an enormous burden to be sued by the government for a billion dollars," he said. "It's different than when you're sued by another corporation or an individual. There's a higher standard to overcome. I've thought about it every day for 10 years . . . You have to ask, what was this case for? Why did they bring the biggest case ever against me? It was for some trees."
The federal government and California bought the trees from Hurwitz in 1999 for $480 million.
The case is one of the longest-running and most political lawsuits arising out of the S&L crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which more than 1,000 S&Ls failed at a cost to taxpayers of about $200 billion. Several former thrift owners have won legal settlements against the government for breach of contract after Congress passed a 1989 law that rendered many thrifts insolvent.
But this is the only case won by a former thrift owner alleging a political vendetta against him by regulatory authorities, according to James J. Butera, a District banking lawyer who has represented several thrifts in cases against the government.
"A lot of banking lawyers representing these thrift owners will be looking at this ruling very carefully," Butera said. "For an individual plaintiff to prevail against the government in the banking area, it's highly unusual. The power of the regulators is almost plenary."
Sounds logical.
LOL! Funny.