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.
Google Waymo offering driver less experience through hertz
how about google waymo offering driver less experience through hertz by acquiring it. An excellent sample for experience and target audience
Imagine Toyota/Ford buying Hertz
Rental car companies cater to 15% market for US auto manufacturers. Imagine how would it serve the needs of Toyota... at this time if they were to buy the company.
Think out loud Toyota buying equity for 200 million and putting another billion to address BK needs. Opportunities are endless if one wants to
REFILE-Volkswagen explores acquisition of car rental group Europcar -sources
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-explores-acquisition-car-rental-222453537.html
Sorry, pl ignore
SHORT INTEREST
50.49M 05/29/20
% OF FLOAT SHORTED
35.68%
AVERAGE VOLUME
64.73M
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/htz
Short Interest Details
Not sure how accurate it is
Market Date Short Volume Total Volume Short Volume Ratio
2020-06-17 39,617,484 127,692,700 31.03
2020-06-16 23,000,501 93,974,200 24.48
2020-06-15 42,632,842 176,826,400 24.11
2020-06-12 85,705,308 285,194,900 30.05
2020-06-11 38,747,026 125,327,200 30.92
2020-06-10 63,090,921 223,180,900 28.27
2020-06-09 88,284,913 299,658,800 29.46
2020-06-08 174,313,175 533,891,700 32.65
2020-06-05 100,244,503 342,187,100
https://fintel.io/ss/us/htz
Why No Short Interest Data Available with Nasdaq
Thx and someone just pointed out that there is no short interest data available on Nasdaq
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/htz/short-interest
I really question the Media and the Experts. Shame on them.
Their content is shallow. Their coverage and content is biased and directed towards doom and gloom. Not one of them allow you to make a choice based on facts. They feed on fear and that's exactly what they resonate. Even a mediocre guy can do a better analysis. I think this whole BK/HF/Lawyers/Creditors/Bondholders cabal are in a league. They say Carl Icahn sold at 73 cents. Well no one asked if he shorted before. I would if I was about to loose money. Who even knows whether he sold to his alliance who worked together. He increases his stake to 40 percent and now he is concerned of its survival when it has been downsized and has been making profits with exception to last quarter. I think same old same old tactics are about to fail.
I think if there is a real buyer, the price will not go up. It will hover around 2 to keep his cost down.
Here is a good coverage for those who care.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/10/why-avis-wont-follow-hertz-into-bankruptcy.aspx
Well we know what SEC did in regards to new offering. I hope they do their job in questioning the float
Check out, no shares available for sale
Love it, hold your turf guys GLTA
Regarding Short Squeeze
Yesterday's 153 million 3.5hr session is the tell imo
Are creditors wanting piece of the pie in exchange through commons
Did offering lead to share purchase at $2 because of dilution
Could share offering be used to buy all the shares at $2 because of projected dilution. Why will Carl Icahn or someone else not use this approach for takeover as against going private. The end result is more or less the same imo
How come everyone wants to have a say before approval.
So, while in BK, they went to court and were required to seek approval. It was the opportunity for all to object then. Not sure if SEC was given notice. But, if Yes then why now have an issue. And, assuming they do bring an end by not allowing share sale, how have they violated SEC required disclosures. Also, if no new shares are to be sold by Jefferies pending SEC approval, why would trading be not allowed to continue. Someone is in real pain and need time to have a new game plan in order
SEC comments is not an order that they need to follow. Will be overruled. SEC Chairman should know better
Ask yourself how does allowing or disallowing affect trading. What happens to the short squeeze either way
Is SEC in trouble and buying time
I love the media coverage and SEC intervention. Seems like someone is in trouble. Is it the float, short squeeze or someone busting the plan of consolidated take down by actually buying at $2. We will find out but seems like SEC first waited to see if it succeeds and then call in for clarification since they saw it go against them and the cabal. Always late to the party. :)
What if they say they were hoping to come out of BK but weren't sure, so, had to insert a warning statement that your shares are worthless. What if they didn't sell any
How and why did the volume reach 74 million within 3 hrs of trading
Is SEC in trouble.
Guess what will happen if it is found that shares exceed more than possibly available. imo, SEC would be in trouble.
I don't expect the price to rise if one is wanting to opt-in for the given scenario because he keeps the purchase price down. Things change when he is done buying :) Not much maneuvering possible with limited shares
Does being risk averse ignores fundamentals including shorting
I am no different then you. I know fully well that BK stock gets wiped out. But, is it fair to asses the value by ignoring the fundamentals and the shorting that's makes them up the game.
Like I said before, I have been involved in Wamu BK for 12 years. The story changes with time and is not a reflection of reality. Media and the cabal are good at it and that is why its hard to win over them
Ask yourself has Hertz been making profit all these years
Is it here to stay. Whats its worth after being alive for 100 years. Is it going to loose base or clients. Is it's business model not working. Has it downsized it to right size. Are bonds due today. Can it get low interest rate. Is FED bailout in works. If bonds are due 2022, do they get affected if Hertz continues to pay on time. Is liquidity over and above liability of 2 billion good to survive the turmoil. If not what happens to other car rental companies like Avis. Were airlines bailed out. Is hertz not essential business. Just because of Covid 19, should Govt increase unemployment by another 40000 workers. If it is a profitable business that has a future, what would it take to recreate the infrastructure. Many things to thing about ahead of doom and gloom imo. The initial offering is for 1/2 billion. Can the use the remaining shares offer the them to bondholders to get a better deal. You decide
Who ever buys all the shares, what will the value of the shares be if the given scenario is in works
Is Hertz worth 1.5 billion while preserving equity: You decide
Someone buys all the shares of Hertz at say two dollars. Total Market Cap including newly issued shares equals 750 million. So Hertz receives 1/2 billion from newly issued shares. As a result, the company while in BK has 2 billion over liabilities and the shareholder who bought all the shares paid 1.5 billion for the company. If he takes over the company he essentially bought the company more or less for 1.5 billion. The question is, is Hertz worth 1.5 billion. You decide.
Profitability including BK total Assets vs Liability
Ask yourself, what additional 1 billion can do to chapter 11
"On its Chapter 11 petition, Hertz listed $25.8 billion in assets. It has over $1 billion in cash and $24.4 billion of debt.
Marinello did make progress. Hertz reported nine consecutive quarters of earnings growth and expanded revenue in 10 straight. But when the pandemic decimated the rental industry, Hertz still had too little cash and a mountain of debt. Marinello resigned May 16, less than a week before the bankruptcy filing.
Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/o-j-accounting-fraud-and-icahn-the-story-of-hertz-going-bust
Copyright © BloombergQuint"
Don't get influenced by Paid Media including Analyst
You should ask someone with a Wamu background to opine on this. Just for your info, WMI bonds traded at pennies on the dollar when BK was filed. Then these same very bonds traded at 100% on the dollar before someone (Nate Thoma) raised the issue of insider trading. And, as against selling them at full value in open market, they opted in to receive 70% on the dollar through Global Settlement Agreement. So, much for the media coverage and great analysis.
When Carl Ichan was increasing his stake to 40 percent he saw a value in Hertz, but, then, he sold at 72 cents, and no one asked him why did he then increase his equity earlier. He is the guy who shorted and leading the cabal to go private. Someone with no background can apply common sense and still be a better decision maker.
Ask yourself, why would the company leverage this option and do the shares really get diluted when they are marked Zero.
Just remember Volkswagen Infinity Squeeze.
Hedge funds lose $30 billion on VW infinity squeeze
DECEMBER 9, 2018 | RP
Volkswagen Infinity Squeeze. The October 2008 short squeeze on shares of Volkswagen AG has since been referred to as the “Mother of all Squeezes”. It was also perhaps the earliest use of the term “Infinity Squeeze”.
https://moxreports.com/vw-infinity-squeeze/
IS FED BAILOUT IN WORKS
Wanted to add some meaningful coverage. So, did Carl Icahn, who owns about 38% of its shares outstanding really walked away by selling. And, no one thinks he might reenter through back door. Not convincing to me. With FED money supply and focus on main street, this just might get a boost like what happened to GM.
"
Carl Icahn’s car-rental company, Hertz, is seeking a bailout from Uncle Sam to fend off a looming cash crunch that threatens to push it over the edge, The Post has learned.
Hertz, along with the rest of the rental-car industry, has been appealing to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve for a series of bailout measures, including loans, tax breaks and government guarantees on tens of billions in asset-backed loans, sources said. The bailout stands to help Hertz most as it’s the most leveraged, sources added.
Without a bailout, Hertz, which did not respond to requests for comment, could also be sold, according to Mazari, who says the healthier Avis would be the most obvious buyer. Any sale would likely be done in bankruptcy, however, Hertz sources predicted.
Talks with lenders are being handled by company executives, as well as Icahn, who owns a 39 percent stake in Hertz. Pleas to the feds are being directed by Sharon Faulkner of the American Car Rental Association through Treasury Deputy Secretary Justin Muzinich, a source said.
In seeking a government bailout, the car-rental industry has argued that its failure could directly impact Detroit, which relies on it for bulk sales."
https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/car-rental-firm-hertz-seeks-coronavirus-bailout/
Hertz, for its part, last month pointed to the fact that it doesn’t face significant debt maturities until mid-2021.
At their peak in 2014, Hertz’s market capitalization was more than $14 billion and Avis’s was $7.2 billion. Those figures are down to $574 million and $835 million, respectively, drawing some comparisons to penny stocks.
Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/coronavirus-no-government-bailout-dooms-rental-car-bonds
Copyright © BloombergQuint
Hertz has been negotiating with lenders for relief as well as with the U.S. Treasury Department about the possibility of a bailout. But with dismal demand, a too-big fleet and plunging prices for used cars, the company is running short on liquidity to last until a market recovery.
That final investment increased the size of Icahn's stake by 26%, giving him 39% of Hertz's shares. And it brought the total investment in the company over the last six years to $2.3 billion.
""I believe that based on a plan of reorganization that includes new capital, Hertz will again become a great company. I intend to closely follow the company's reorganization and I look forward to assessing different opportunities to support Hertz in the future.""
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/investing/carl-icahn-hertz-bankruptcy-loss/index.html
The company has been renting cars since 1918, ... By declaring bankruptcy, Hertz says it intends to stay in business while restructuring its debts and emerging a financially healthier company.
Hertz said the bankruptcy process will give it "a more robust financial structure that best positions the company for the future as it navigates what could be a prolonged travel and overall global economic recovery."
The company had a total of 568,000 vehicles and 12,400 corporate and franchise locations worldwide at the start of this year. About a third of those locations are at airports.
Hertz had $18.8 billion of debt on its books as of March 31, up $1.7 billion from the end of last year. Most of that debt, $14.4 billion, is backed by its vehicles. That includes the debt for which it missed the payment in April the prompted this latest crisis. It had only $1 billion in cash on its balance sheet as of the end of March,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/business/hertz-bankruptcy/index.html
Disclaimer: I bought some today and I am not a pro
Thanks T. Sorry, I am not a paid member so I had to make it a public msg
Is Boardpost.net down.
I am not able to login. The message I get is
www.boardpost.net refused to connect.
Thanks
Dee
How do I know what is being returned, paid/accounted for, is all, that was taken.
Your honor, "Our Accounting records were seized". Even when, we may have access, the burden of proof lies within FDIC bookkeeping/accounting requirements within FASB/GAAP standards under FIRREA
Bottomline, you get to claim the fair market value of WMB... and everything needs to be supported through accounting.
Someone bids 10 dollars for your house you bought for 100. The house was not sold by you willingly. Regardless, of what price the house was sold, you get to claim the fair market value of the house. And it cannot be the price at which it was sold in an illiquid market.
Hi Altini,
Here's the link that I posted earlier
#484302
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133622836
Cheers!
Dee
Here is the ruling and case ref for accounting. You need to visit Sheila Bair's testimony "Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Investment Banks" and refer to documents in the link. Please note this information may no longer be available as it was redacted. The best part is this evidence was admitted in BK court so it is admissible evidence for court purposes.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Financial_Crisis/041610Exhibits.pdf
Here is a case in bits and pieces where the plaintiffs claim for accounting was approved by the court against FDIC's own accounting and reporting practices and procedures
Date: 05/16/2012
CHARLES R. GOLDSTEIN, Chapter 7 Trustee for K Capital Corporation, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Receiver of K Bank, Defendant.
K Capital is a “bank holding company” that wholly owned a Maryland bank, K Bank, as its subsidiary. The Trustee filed suit against the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver, seeking damages...
Factual Background
Under the alleged lending “scheme,” K Bank would typically lend a borrower between 80% and 90% of the value of real estate used as collateral to secure the loan, and would obtain a first-priority lien on the real estate collateral. Id. ¶ 13. Simultaneously, K Capital would extend a further loan to the borrower in an amount between 5% and 15% of the value of the collateral, and would receive a second-priority lien on the collateral. Id. ¶ 14. K Bank then would act as the servicer for both loans. Id. ¶ 16
The Trustee contends that the scheme was made possible because although the two entities were “nominally independent” of each other, they were “consolidated on an accounting and tax basis,” id. ¶ 8, and the “boards of K Capital and K Bank were populated by the same individuals who made decisions for both entities, despite conflicting interests.” Id. ¶ 18.
Based on these allegations, the Trustee, in the exercise of his duty to administer the estate of K Capital for the benefit of its creditors, see id. ¶ 5, asserts five claims against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for K Bank: unjust enrichment (Count I); promissory estoppel (Count II); declaratory judgment (Count III); constructive trust (Count IV); and accounting (Count V).
Discussion
The FDIC also argues that the Trustee’s claim for an accounting (Count V) should meet the same fate, but this is not so clear.
The FDIC argues that another provision of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15), establishes the FDIC’s responsibilities to provide an accounting for a receivership.11 According to the FDIC, “plaintiff has no private right to compel any additional accounting.” Reply at 23.
Quote
11 Section 1821(d)(15) states, in part:
(A) In general The [FDIC] as conservator or receiver shall, consistent with the accounting and reporting practices and procedures established by the [FDIC], maintain a full accounting of each conservatorship and receivership or other disposition of institutions in default.
(B) Annual accounting or report With respect to each conservatorship or receivership to which the [FDIC] was appointed, the [FDIC] shall make an annual accounting or report, as appropriate, available to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the authority which appointed the [FDIC] as conservator or receiver
The FDIC also argues that Maryland law does not recognize a freestanding claim for an accounting, but rather treats accounting only as a remedy. Although assertion of an independent cause of action for accounting is no longer necessary in most cases, it has not been entirely abolished in Maryland.
Quote
(C) Availability of reports Any report prepared pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be made available by the [FDIC] upon request to any shareholder of the depository institution for which the [FDIC] was appointed conservator or receiver or any other member of the public.
In the recent case of Polek v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 424 Md. 333, 36 A.3d 399 (2012), decided after the FDIC’s Motion was briefed, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated: “In Maryland, a claim for an accounting is available when ‘one party is under [an] obligation to pay money to another based on facts and records that are known and kept exclusively by the party to whom the obligation is owed, or where there is a [confidential or] fiduciary relationship between the parties . . . .’”
In my view, the Maryland Court of Appeals’s recent reiteration in Polek of the principles of liability for accounting indicates that, in some circumstances, an accounting may serve as an - 25 - information, discovery is the remedy given to plaintiffs who prove they are entitled to an accounting.” Golub ex rel. Golub v. Cohen, 138 Md. App. 508, 523, 772 A.2d 880, 889 (2001).
Moreover, according to the complaint, the “FDIC, as receiver of K Bank, refuses to allow K Capital to inspect its account books, records, and documents so that it may determine the full extent of the proceeds of payments on the Joint Loans and/or collateral.” Id. ¶ 44.13 In my view, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for accounting.14 Accordingly, I decline to dismiss Count V
Quote
14 Indeed, the Trustee would appear to have a basis for an accounting claim due to K Bank’s role as servicer of K Capital’s loans and the FDIC’s alleged refusal, as receiver, to provide the Trustee with documentation regarding those loans, independent of the Trustee’s claims that K Capital’s loans should be treated as joint loans with K Bank’s loans on a pari passu basis.
Quote
15 In Golub, supra, 138 Md. App. at 519-24, 772 A.2d at 887-90, the intermediate Maryland appellate court recognized that, because “discovery is the remedy given to plaintiffs who prove they are entitled to an accounting,” some bifurcation of discovery may be appropriate in a suit seeking accounting: “‘the first stage concerns whether there is any right to an accounting, and only if it is determined that there is such a right does the proceeding move on to the second stage, which comprises the actual accounting.’” Id. at 520, 772 A.2d at 887 (citation omitted).
Because the defenses are highly fact-specific, I will not resolve them at the pleading stage. Even if unclean hands or in pari delicto may be asserted against a bankruptcy trustee, the record before me is insufficient to determine whether the defenses should bar the Trustee’s claims in this case. The FDIC may reassert its defenses of unclean hands and in pari delicto after a factual record has been developed through discovery
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/CGoldsteinMTD.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE LAW(in bits and pieces)
First Pacific Bancorp, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver for First Pacific Bank, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 98-55634, 98-56942.
Decided: August 8, 2000
Please note: Plaintiff First Pacific Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”), a Delaware corporation, is a one-bank holding company and the sole shareholder of First Pacific Bank (“the Bank”).
BACKGROUND
On August 7, 1990, the California Department of Banking appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for the Bank. Sometime around May 7, 1996, nearly six years after the Bank went into receivership, the FDIC notified Plaintiffs that it was terminating its receivership of the Bank. Along with the notice, the FDIC gave Plaintiffs two pages of unaudited financial information covering the period from August 10, 1990, through December 31, 1995. One report was entitled “Statement of Financial Condition,” and reported the assets, liabilities, and equity of the bank as of August 10, 1990 and as of December 31, 1995. The other statement, “Financial Condition and Liquidation Activity,” reported aggregated amounts of receipts and disbursements of the Bank between August 10, 1990, and December 31, 1995.1 The information contained in these two skeletal reports spanned a period of over five years. No detailed information was given for interim dates or time periods
Unsatisfied with the financial information provided by the FDIC and unable to obtain any further details of the Bank's financial picture through informal means, the Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 4, 1996 (Bancorp I?). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs requested an accounting of the Bank's financial condition beginning with the FDIC's appointment as receiver.
Issue: The issue we confront is whether 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15) gives Bancorp, as shareholder of a bank in receivership,2 a private right of action against the FDIC to compel it to provide a financial accounting in conformity with the FDIC's own accounting and reporting practices and procedures.
ISSUE:
The issue we confront is whether 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15) gives Bancorp, as shareholder of a bank in receivership,2 a private right of action against the FDIC to compel it to provide a financial accounting in conformity with the FDIC's own accounting and reporting practices and procedures.
Our holding is limited to a finding that when inadequate or meaningless information is provided to a shareholder of a bank in receivership with the FDIC, the shareholders may sue for an accounting “consistent with the accounting practices and procedures established by the [FDIC].” -
ANALYSIS
The third inquiry is whether implying the equitable remedy of an accounting is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme. The FDIC argues that the purpose of the Act is to enhance its power to preserve the solvency of its insurance fund. To that end, the Act requires every institution insured by the FDIC to submit an audited annual report to the FDIC. See 12 U.S.C. § 1831m. Thus, before the Bank went into receivership in 1990, it was required to submit annual reports, audited by independent public accountants, to the FDIC. This requirement advances the purpose of preserving solvency of the insurance fund by allowing for early detection of institutions in financial trouble.
A somewhat different purpose is advanced by requiring the FDIC to continue the annual reporting of the financial activities of a failed institution for which it has been appointed receiver. Not only is the FDIC required to maintain a “full accounting of each receivership,” it is also required to make an annual accounting or report of those matters to three specified entities, id. § 1821(d)(15)(A), (B), and to make that accounting or report available on request, id. § 1821(d)(15)(C). This requirement is consistent with at least one of the stated purposes of FIRREA, viz., “to improve the supervision of savings associations by strengthening capital, accounting, and other supervisory standards.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-222, at 393 (1989), reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 432, 432. Strengthened accounting standards elevate sunlight over secrecy. :D :D :D :D
In analyzing this factor, the district court voiced its concern over the number of demands that might be made on the FDIC to provide the annual accounting. The FDIC is already required to prepare an annual accounting that conforms to the requirements it imposes on its member banks and to submit that accounting or report to the entities named in the statute. Upon the request of any shareholder-or any member of the public-the FDIC need only provide a copy of the report that it is already obliged to prepare. Enforcing this statute does not impose an additional duty on the FDIC, but rather ensures that the FDIC fulfills the obligations already imposed by Congress. Our holding therefore imposes no additional burden on the FDIC. :)
CONCLUSION:
We remand Bancorp I to the district court for a determination whether the six pages provided to Plaintiffs by the FDIC comply with the annual accounting and reporting practices and procedures required by the statute. If those six pages are sufficient, then Plaintiffs have received everything to which the statute entitles them. If they are not, the FDIC must perform the accounting required by the statute.
FOOTNOTES
1. The statement broke down the total amount of money received by the FDIC during the five-plus year period into only two categories: ?“Principal Collections and Interest Income on Assets, Net of Participation,” reported at nearly $83 million, and “Receipts from FDIC and Others,” reported at over $20 million. The disbursements received similar treatment, reported in only two aggregate amounts: ?“Liquidation and Other Disbursements” at nearly $84 million, and “Payments to FDIC” totalling over $18 million.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1296303.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators can you sticky this post. Thx
Let me know if you need links to the court rulings.
Criminal/Civil Charges against FDIC & JPM
Look for proof within Senate Hearing Committee and Court Rulings against FDIC on bookkeeping/accounting requirments
Your Honor, "We don't have to look outside as we can prove that it was perpetrated from within. Why look to others when it is clear that it started months before the actual seizure. Joe Jiampietro was the top adviser to FDIC Chairwoman Sheila on Wamu while being a Managing Director at JPM who quit right after Wamu goal was achieved. Records indicate that "FDIC EIC indicated that FDIC DC senior management may have instructed WMB CEO to find a merger partner" way before it was necessary. To meet that goal, Shiela not only not sign confidential agreement but decides to ignore John Reich warning even when told.
Rather than providing assistance under Section 13(c) that we were paying premiums all along for, she furthers her goal by revealing her intention of seizing Wamu two weeks prior.
Your Honor, "Can we know of the reason why Sheila wouldn't sign confidential agreement, a mandatory requirement even when warned by her colleague John Reich and chooses to disclose to JPM her intention to seize Wamu two week prior"
John Reich could sniff what Sheila was upto "We are not in the business of managing mergers particular when it is unnecessary"
If I could sum it up from a limited view from three pages, wonder what will come out when all is revealed. This is as good as it gets :)
This is tied with reconciliation. And, I think we have another case under De Novo law
How do I know what is being returned, paid/accounted for, is all, that was taken.
Your honor, "Our Accounting records were seized". Even when, we may have access, the burden of proof lies within FDIC bookkeeping/accounting requirements within FASB/GAAP standards under FIRREA ;) :)
The Court,"Sunshine is the best Disinfectant"
And, your Honor "all along we were paying premiums to FDIC to avail of assistance under Section 13(c) when needed". OTS statement clearly identifies Wamu suffering from adverse publicity and Sheila didn't sign confidential agreement with JPM even when John Reich warned her of the requirement.
The Court, Go figure!
Your Honor, "We request you to grant us access to the trading records of JPM/GS along with others to confirm that that their was no harm brought about by them through adverse publicity/shorting as it is clear, not signing confidential agreement would have lead to such actions for their own benefit. :)
And, your Honor, "FDIC EIC indicated that FDIC DC senior management may have instructed WMB CEO to find a merger partner" way before it was necessary. Thus stepping into the shoes of arranging Mergers & Acquisitions
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=10990.msg175134#msg175134
LOVE IS IN THE AIR!
WMI Structure and Value within prior to transfer
here is a link with respect to WMI structure where WMBFSB became a subof WMB on Nov 1st 2007. What is interesting is based on
Retention of Claims-&-Causes of Action-&-Transfer To Post-Conf.-LT
Retention of Claims & Causes of Action & Transfer To Post-Confirmation Liquidating Trust
It’s a thought process within the possibilities that brings some clarity and direction that in no way is complete. Corrections, improvisations, … are welcome. I got lost somewhere in between so just sharing the little that I could capture. I have twisted some copied text (minor changes) and presented it how it fits our needs. Thanks for reading and AIMHO :)
WMI as debtor in possession only addressed claims against itself on account of insolvency within the bankruptcy court along with 4 billion SJ. Absent Bankruptcy filing WMI had claims against FDIC C&R that were preserved in GSA and resided outside BK jurisdiction. Through reorganization, creditor’s claim (WMI as “Creditor”) is succeeded by the Liquidating Trustee overseeing Bankruptcy Estate. Equity claim (WMI as “Sole Shareholder”) was abandoned by the Bankruptcy Estate and no value was determined. And, on account of insolvency equity claim was non-existent and any value there in currently unknown (WMI as Sole Shareholder of WMB) was transferred over to WMIH. WMI and WMIIC as debtor are succeeded by WMILT as successor in interest of WMI and WMIIC… Before I touch on the claims, think out loud, how can a debtor be deprived of its own property because of insolvency on account of seizure that the BK court has no control over. WMILT as successor has three claims against the seizure independent of P&A. 1) Property seized owned by WMI e.g Bank branches leased to WMB 2) Equity value in WMB e.g. 6.5 billion “Capital Contribution in Exchange for Equity” 3) FMV of WMB residing outside of BK jurisdiction.
There is another asset within the trust account on account of securitization and safe harbor that due to legal isolation resides outside of BK court and FDIC and is recorded off book. I term these as “retained assets” within a custodial account. (have no proof for confirmation purposes). And, only with respect to these trust accounts, no litigation is needed as they were never a subject of a dispute. (Conjecture)
WWhatthe: For Reveiw
Thanks wwhatthe . This is very very good. I agree with you for the most part. Sharing my observation as a layman for review
Thanks Tanjazielman:JPM's Accounting Number 173.6 billion justifies it
Here is an example: Refile after Voluntary dismissal
Read further for Federal Courts. Regarding Statute of Limitation, our claim is not time barred under FIRREA
"The “savings” provision of North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) can be a lifeline for a plaintiff who, for one reason or another, can’t proceed with its case the first time around. Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss its case without prejudice by giving notice of dismissal any time before it rests its case. Plaintiff may file the action again within one year, and the statute of limitations on its claim is extended for that refiling period. "
http://civil.sog.unc.edu/taking-a-voluntary-dismissal-some-pitfalls/
Hotmeat: Here is the proof for it. I had posted this on ihub earlier
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=117632109
"REFILING AFTER A VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
BE COGNIZANT OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE REFILING DEADLINES
Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his or her claim “without prejudice” prior to service by the defendant of an answer or motion for summary judgment, whichever occurs first. This generally means that the plaintiff can dismiss the claim and retain the ability to refile the same claim within the statute of limitations.
http://files.lawyersmutualnc.com/risk-management-resources/risk-management-handouts/estate-planning-traps/Litigation_Traps.pdf"
Hotmeat: No Brother.
Need to file a motion for clarification
Thanks Cura. Could a new WaMu be quietly growing...
Thansk Cura, this is very interesting read. Quite possible, given, who all are involved.
What cute world are we living in. How can you draw that view from your own experience in Wamu. Sorry, this is not how it works. Whether we get $1 or $200 Billion, nuisance cost itself runs in billions which makes it worth every penny to fight for :)
Thanks Large Green