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.
BTW, Susman Godfrey is one of the principal law firms handling the LIBOR litigation.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180730005001/en/Susman-Godfrey-L.L.P.-Hausfeld-LLP-Announce-Lawsuits
https://settlements.mcaginc.com/settlements/libor
The 75/25 is provided for in the plan.
I think your "there is no money" post is simply wrong. The LT has now acknowledged that it filed proofs of claim in the LIBOR litigations and stated that it might realize some recovery from that source. I have never bought into the safe harbor speculation, but this is quite different from that.
"20. What value can the Trust expect to receive from the Washington Mutual Bank Receivership? When will such Receivership be completed?
None. Based upon the Settlement Agreement and the Plan, no actions in the Receivership are expected to yield any recovery to WMILT or the holders of beneficial interests in WMILT. In that regard, WMILT does not have any information regarding any of the assets, claims or causes of action relevant to the Receivership and individuals having questions about the Receivership, ongoing litigation involving the Receivership, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and other relevant parties, should contact those parties for any such information.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Trust has filed proofs of claim in the so-called LIBOR litigations and may realize a recovery from those proceedings upon resolution thereof;however, there can be no assurances that the Trust will, in fact, realize any such recovery (or recoveries) on account of such litigation and, if so, the amount thereof. On the basis of the foregoing, at this time, the Trust has not recorded on its financial statements any asset or value attributable to any such recovery. Additional information will be disclosed as and when it is available."
In light of the foregoing, no one - not even you - can say with certainty that there is no additional money coming into the LT.
https://settlements.mcaginc.com/settlements/libor
The LT cannot even prepare to make distributions until the appeals period expires, which is Feb 22 I believe. So I would not look for any cash until April. And if the employees do file an appeal, then we would have to wait until that is disposed of, and that may take more than a year.
"In accordance with the Plan, the Trust will issue LTIs to WMI’s former shareholders if, and only if, the Trust is able to monetize Liquidating Trust Assets in amounts sufficient to payin-in-full claims held by beneficiaries of the Trust who are senior to members of Classes 19 and 22, and then, only if a shareholder had satisfied timely all conditions applicable to receiving any such Liquidating Trust Interests. There can be no assurances that the Trust will be able to monetize assets in a manner sufficient to give effect to the foregoing."
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/8817600/8817600190206000000000001.pdf
So, if the disallowance of the employee claims stands, then the related money in the Disputed Claim Reserve would be freed up for distribution in accordance with the Plan. That should mean that something finds its way to former equity, and prior to that distribution former equity will receive LTIs.
In addition, there is still a possibility - just acknowledged by the LT - that there may be some additional money coming as a result of the LIBOR litigations.
One cannot possibly determine that "there is no 75/25 to the end" from the quoted language.
The 75/25 to the end is provided for in the plan. And the quoted language simply says that distributions will be made in accordance with the plan.
And if there is to be any distribution made by the LT to current escrow holders, the LT will first issue LTIs to escrow holders in advance of that distribution. This has been clearly stated by the LT on a number of occassions.
I know that many here value your analysis. I do not. I have always found it to be the worst type of conjecture based on an irrational and highly selective reading of documents, resulting in nonsense conclusions, such as the assertion that the NOLs disappeared at the time of the merger, which is 100% demonstrably untrue.
You've been warning us? You have been the leading billions cheerleader.
Who gets closest without going over? OK, $25 million.
Wait for the 8k
It's not a settlement for compensatory damages (like a personal injury case), so yes you are subject to tax. Consult a tax pro.
Seems that might be so.
Not even remotely possible. The NOL's go "poof" if COOP goes private.
Well, if the financial wizards can do that, they can also find a way to ensure that escrow holders get nothing or next to nothing. You cannot believe that the financial wizards will find a way to get anything they want and still believe in a significant escrow payout.
No company can acquire COOP. If one does, the NOLS disappear.
Why do you think WMIH had to be the surviving company in the merger? The old nationstar was merged into WMIH (not vice versa) for a reason. WMIH then just did a name and symbol change after the merger Even though it trades under COOP, it is still the company that emerged from the WMI bankruptcy 7 years ago.
Never mind.
LG: You have obviously misread my post. I suggest you read it again, and ask yourself: who on this board maintains a following despite having been proved wrong over and over?
When reading this article I could not help but notice how relevant it was to certain discussions on this board about potential future payouts to escrows and/or COOP from WMI assets.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20181123&silverid-ref=NTEwMDgwOTcwNDA0S0
"The theory of cognitive dissonance—the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts that are in conflict—was developed by the social psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s. In a famous study, Festinger and his colleagues embedded themselves with a doomsday prophet named Dorothy Martin and her cult of followers who believed that spacemen called the Guardians were coming to collect them in flying saucers, to save them from a coming flood. Needless to say, no spacemen (and no flood) ever came, but Martin just kept revising her predictions. Sure, the spacemen didn’t show up today, but they were sure to come tomorrow, and so on. The researchers watched with fascination as the believers kept on believing, despite all the evidence that they were wrong.
'A man with a conviction is a hard man to change,' Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schacter wrote in When Prophecy Fails, their 1957 book about this study. 'Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.'
This doubling down in the face of conflicting evidence is a way of reducing the discomfort of dissonance, and is part of a set of behaviors known in the psychology literature as “motivated reasoning.” Motivated reasoning is how people convince themselves or remain convinced of what they want to believe—they seek out agreeable information and learn it more easily; and they avoid, ignore, devalue, forget, or argue against information that contradicts their beliefs."
The issuance of LTIs by the LT is the tell....
Actually fraud has a statute of limitations. It begins to run on the day the fraud actually was - or through reasonable diligence should have been - discovered.
dragoon,
Please look up the definition of ad hominem, and then read my post again. Then read your own post. Referring to my 10K Ps is a great example of an ad hominem. Saying that someone makes no sense is not.
MaPi:
"over time I've been able to understand your research better and better"
No. You haven't. You only think you have. No one understands what he writes. Not even he.
Why would anyone expect a distribution on November 1? The court hearing is that day. Does anyone really think that the signing of the order will automatically flip the "money flow" switch so that it all happens on the same day?
Good grief.
RE: Who was received 6.5 billion?
The secured creditors of WMI. Some unsecureds may also have been paid, cannot recall.
Pretty standard stuff in bankruptcy.
TPS is not capped, so any further discussion about what should happen if they were is moot.
Many former commons holders still don't get that if APR had been applied, and prefs had therefore been capped, they would not have seen a penny until prefs had been made absolutely whole.
APR is like a default program. It applies unless another approach to distribution is accepted by all classes that would be negatively impacted by that alternative approach.
In our case, the prefs agreed to a different approach, even though they did not have to. The Equity Committee was conflicted. It had common holders and pref holders. The approach ultimately adopted was a compromise to get the plan approved.
Part of the compromise allowed commons to participate in all distributions to equity instead of sitting around until the prefs have been made whole (the 75/25). Another part of the compromise was that prefs were no longer capped (75/25 to the end). It is in the POR.
That was the deal.
That is the deal.
If 10 billion comes back (no chance), each P would get about $1000; each K about $25.
I have been through this calculation way too many times over the past 6.5 years, as have many others. I know its right.
Have you taken into consideration what the TPS get?
No one here understands the difference between WMI's successor in interest (WMILT) and the reorganized debtor (WMIH). They are way too fixated on the labels, not the legal attributes.
Try again.
All I know, and we agreed on this over 6 1/2 years ago when everyone was doing the calculations (with the TPS share included), is this:
For every $1 million distributed to escrows: one P escrow would receive about 10 cents. One K escrow would get about $.0025
If $100 million is distributed, a P escrow gets about $10. A K gets about 25 cents.
If $1 billion is distributed, a P escrow would receive about $100. A K gets about $2.50
If $10 billion, then one P escrow gets about $1000. A K gets about $25.
(A K escrow gets 1/40th of what a P gets).
The above takes into account what would be distributed to TPS.
Right now, it looks like the LTI will have sufficient funds to distribute something like $40 million to escrows. That would give each P about $4, and each K would get about 10 cents.
I find nothing, absolutely nothing, in your posts that makes any sense whatsoever. I have come to the conclusion that we must occupy very different realities.
100% sure. The NOLs are alive and well and the principal incentive for NSM agreeing to the merger. Just wait for the next COOP 10-Q (which should be out on or before November 9); the NOLs will be referenced in that.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will explain that away as some sort of head fake. Just one more example - among the thousands that history provides - of people refusing to abandon a theory even when confronted with overwhelming and compelling evidence that the theory is wrong.
Mord is right, you are completely wrong. The NOLs are the principal - if not the exclusive - reason that incentiveized the merger.
By George, I think you've got it!
Absolutely correct, jerry. No assets of WMI - regardless of current location or disposition (FDIC, trusts, LT) - will go to COOP. Not a penny.
No one who has actually read all the relevant documents with understanding can possibly argue otherwise.
People chooose to follow the half-witted ramblings of cranks and kooks because they enjoy being told fairy tales.
"Tell me about the rabbits, George."
Now, I thought the S4V theory had a stake driven through its heart when the number of authorized shares was reduced during the RS. And that is only one of the many reasons why the theory makes no sense. And any one of those reasons - by itself - is fatal to the theory. Yet, the theory lives on. This board needs a whole team of therapists.
Goodietime: The LT will issue LTI's to current escrow holders when there is something to be distributed to those holders. The LT has made this very clear in its public documents. Whether the LT will issue a public statement of some sort when they issue LTIs, I don't know for a fact. But I expect that the LT will issue some public statement about the matter.
Yes, Ron. I have read the docs. And, as has become obvious, with a more discerning eye than most on this board. Recall that I have been around since well before the bankruptcy case resulted in the confirmation of the plan of reorganization. There were a lot of far more sophisticated posters back then. They have mostly gone now.
But the board is now dominated by a number of folks who apparently have substantial issues with reading comprehension. They, too, assert that they have read the docs. But what good is reading a document if you have no understanding of the subject matter, or of what is written, or if you only choose those bits that support your preconceived erroneous notions (confirmation bias)?
Yes, Ron. I have read the docs. And they simply do not support AZ's conjecturing. At all. In fact, time and again his theories have been proved wrong. And when things do not go as he predicted, what has he consistently done? Admitted he was wrong? No. He has simply reinvented himself every time. Every time. Time after time.
I have no respect for someone who enjoys the stature he has achieved among the illiterate for baffling them with BS.
Ron, my opinion is that there is nothing whatsoever in your post that is contrary to what I have previsouly posted. Ooops, your bad.
Johnny, I never asserted that the LTIs were only to be issued for the DCR. LTIs will be issued to current escrow holders if there is money to be distributed to current escrow holders. And I believe, once the DCR money is available, there will be enough money left (approximately $40 million) for current escrow holders.
AZ, I just wonder how much time has to pass - when things do not work out the way you have predicted - that you will stand up and say "Oops. My bad." ?
The true situation is not confusing at all. It is the various nonsense theories that have been propounded (they change weekly) that are the source of the confusion.