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.
Mord, I interepret the "we believe" language to be a standard lawyer hedge as no one can say definitively whether the CIC occurred or not other than the IRS.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
And true.
You assume that their inclusion in Class 18 would have been easy. It wasn't. The LT was challenging their entire claim. Therefore, the UW's must have believed that if they were to go after Class 18, they would have had a good chance of losing everything. That is why they did not fight to stay in 18.
Instead they settled for a Class 19 claim for $72m (3X the original value of their claim). The LT and the UWs agreed to triple the amount of the claim because the chances of getting anything in Class 19 are small. Even with a $72m claim in class 19, they will be lucky - very lucky - if they get even $1 million back.
Why did the LT agree to such a settlement? Because it avoided the expense of litigation and gave the UWs a claim that has a realistic prospect of only a minimal pay-out.
Thos numbers are just plain nuts.
I think both hotmeat and I are ready - really ready - for someone to come up with a credible and plausible theory that supports the idea that escrows will receive a significant payout.
What we dispute are posts that put forward theories that are so clearly erroneous as to be laughable. But some obviously like such theories despite their nonsensical and disjointed reasoning; at bedtime it is easy to imagine them reading these theories over and over while drinking a cup of warm milk.
We are looking for the beef, not reading comic books.
That's just plain nuts.
Pure coincidence. Nothing more.
The Tell of what, exactly?
The Tell that COOP is building a profitable business? Already obvious to everyone.
The Tell of something else that has to do hidden, safe-harbored, or bankruptcy remote assets? Assuming that happens (a major assumption), COOP will not be involved.
So there is no Tell to hint at.
RD: we will have to disagree on that. I see her actions as prolonging the BK (and increasing the expenditure of LT resources).
Mord: I am not saying that there is not a case. I am saying that the stakes are too puny to justify pursuing it.
Beacuse evidence of the negotiations leading to a settlement are not admissible.
Mord: Well then there is no reason to object to the UWs being in class 19. The smaller class 18 is the greater the chances that class 19 gets something.
This is why I think Alice's objection makes no sense. It might - might - make sense to some if it is assumed that there will in fact be a huge payout to class 19. And that is highly highly speculative. And in any case, if there is a huge payout to class 19, do we really care about the UWs getting more than the amount of their original claim? It still will only amount to 1% of the huge huge payout. Is it really worth fighting about that if the fight causes the bankruptcy to close 9 months later than it would have? I say no, it is not worth it.
So from where I sit, Alice's objection makes no sense and seems to be just an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
BBANBOB: Why does everyone keep repeating that line of argument? It shows an absolute lack of understanding of the history of the claim filed by the UWs.
The UWs originally filed a claim that - if accepted by the LT - would have put the UWs in class 18. But the LT challenged the UWs' claim. The dispute was heading to litigation. The UWs and the LT then settled that litigation with a compromise: The LT would drop its challenge to the UWs claim if the UWs accepted class 19 instead of 18. The UWs thought it was better to accept class 19 rather than to continue to try to get into class 18 because they believed that their chances of succeeding were not very good. So the UWs said OK, we will agree to class 19 if the LT increases the amount of our claim. And the LT said OK.
Why would the UWs want to increase the amount of their claim in class 19 and why would the LT agree to that increase? Because they both believed that the chances of class 19 getting much of anything were very small and whatever did go to class 19 would have to be divided up rather thinly among the large number of claimants in class 19.
How about that answer? It's accurate and it makes this nonsense about the UWs wanting 19 instead of 18 look absolutely silly.
Mord: Because there is still a possibility of money coming into the LT from the LIBOR litigation. I very much doubt it will be much, but even $100 million (quite possible) would mean some type of payout to escrows.
BTW, if somehow the underwriters are kicked out of class 19 and they get put into class 18 with all or part of their original claim, they will get paid first.
Alice's objection only makes sense if class 19 ends up with a major payout. However, if no additional money or only a modest amount of additional money comes to the LT, then lodging an objection that puts the UWs into class 18 actually hurts class 19. Why? Because the UWs would get to eat their fill before escrows see a dime.
It works the same as always.
I am aware of the purpose of your post.
I am also aware of your support for posters who, IMO, simply have demonstrated no ability whatsoever to properly or objectively read or interpret the documents that have been filed in court or issued by the LT or COOP.
No, the BK has not closed.
I am currently in a time zone that is five hours ahead of EST. So not early for me.
AZ, you wrote: "we simply now need for the original reorganized oldco' ... "Washington Mutual Inc., ... to begin to show up' ..."
Thought you might want to know that WMIH (now Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.) is the reorganized WMI.
You are kidding, right? There is no there there, Ron.
The release does not apply to objections to the actions of the LT. Please point me to the section that provides that it does.
You do not understand what you are reading.
The objection was denied. And there is a 90% likelihood (IMO) that the appeal will not succeed.
Ron, it did not matter. The golden parachute payments were prohibitted whether or not a change in control had occurred.
The concerned employment agreements (which were entered into before WAMU was seized) provided that the employees would get golden parachute payments if a change in control were to occur.
Then WAMU was seized and sold to JPM. And the employees said: "Alright then, a change in control has occured so give me my golden parachute."
But it was determined that deciding whether a change in control had occurred as a result of the seizure and sale did not matter at all. Why? Because even if a change in control had ocurred, the golden parachute payments would be disallowed.
So the court is not going to go back and decide an issue that has no relevance. The employee claims are disallowed and there is no reason for the court to consider that question any further.
Wrong, Ron. The releases did not prohibit objections to actions by the LT.
You have raised the same argument before. And it has been shown to be without any basis whatsoever.
The document you linked is from October 2012. It is about the employee claims, which have since been disallowed because they have been ruled to constitute claims for golden parachute payments.
Nothing in that document provides any support for your assertion.
We have been over this a number of times before.
See the post I just made on the same question.
Perhaps the assumption that the performance of that contract will trigger a distribution needs to be looked at more closely. Maybe that assumption is not correct.
What other monies in the contract are you referring to? If someone wants to make an argument or counterargument, it is on them to provide the supporting references.
Wait a minute. Absolute Nonsense = Self Awareness? Since when?
The management of many companies do investor presentations to stimulate investor interest; this is particularly true of comapnies that believe the market is not following them sufficiently or not understanding the value proposition they present.
I am impressed that the company 8k'd its investor presentation. Highly professsional approach to disclosure in my opinion.
Actually, that is not what it means at all. It means the agreement dies, has no more applicability. If the terms of the agreement have already been fulfilled, then it has been fully performed and the word "terminate" - and provisons related to termination - would have no relevance.
In the specific case of the contract you are looking at, the termination clause was in there to specify the date on which the agreement would terminate (expire, die) if it has not been performed by then. Since the contract has been performed in full, the termination provision has no further relevance.
If, as you acknoweldge, the judge approved the settlement, what contining relevance does the "termination date" have? According to the sections of the agreement you quoted, the "termination date" only comes into play if court approval is not obtained. But you acknowledge that the judge approved the settlement. So I do not see any basis for all these posts about July 1.
My understanding is that Marta is now out. They were allowed to refile once the employee claims had been disposed of with finality, but Marta has not refiled. Quite a substantial amount of time (90+ days?) has passed since the employee claims were disposed of; so I don't think they are going to refile and may now be time-barred if they do.
Also, one would think that - if Marta were still interested in refiling - they would have opposed Alice's objection because it might result in an expansion of the number of Class 18 claimants to include the Underwriters.
Assuming Marta is out, and assuming further that the underwriters stay in class 19, who is left in class 18?
You were the first to make a reference to a broker. You. The conversation was about a request for a W8 that was received by an escrow holder from the LT. No one else referred to brokers. I was just pointing out that your reference to brokers was not relevant to the discussion.
The request was from the LT, not a broker.
A couple of weeks back, someone posted about rumors at the FDIC. Also, I don't see why a W8 would be necessary for the distribution of the remaining WMIH shares.
I am wondering if the LIBOR litigation has finally borne fruit.
HM: I don't think so. As far as I recall, there was no lawsuit ever brought by WMI shareholders against JPM for breach of the 2008 standstill agreement. Without such a lawsuit, the indemnity clause would never have been triggered.
Swing away. I just did. Bought more at 7.25.
WMIIC was dissolved at the beginning of 2018.