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.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson, for reposting this.
The FDIC is suing on behalf of WAMU (and some other banks under FDIC receivership), not WMI. Proceeds will go to the WAMU waterfall at the FDIC, not the WMI waterfall; at least not until all WAMU creditors are paid, then anything that is left - might be nothing - would presumably go to the WMI estate, being administered by the LT.
No idea how much - if anything - will be left after the WAMU creditors are paid.
The complaint you linked was filed on March 14, 2014. So this litigation has been ongoing for five years already. The case number is
1:14-cv-01757-GHW in the SDNY.
Trying to cover at even lower prices Fred?
A cause of action (a basis to sue) or a potential cause of action is an asset.
Looking forward to the earnings call this week. On April 26, BTIG set its COOP 12-month price target at $21. http://researchwiseny.btig.com/ResearchLibraryAnalec/DownloadResearch.aspx?E=bhcjik-b
"LIBOR is our best hope for recovery."
Yes. Yes, it is.
"again"?
It is really too bad that there will never be anywhere near enough money distributed to escrows to prove that "75/25 to the end" is in fact what the POR provides (or to prove how wrong all the other errant nonsense on this board is).
If escrows receive any cash at all, it will be as a result of the LIBOR litigation.
What's with the recent jump in the PPS? Does anyone know?
I also have 20 plus years to retirement,....now.
Hexson: CUSIP 62482R107 refers to COOP shares. Those must be the remaining COOP shares that were in the DCR and that have been freed up for distribution to escrow holders.
AZ you wrote:
"There never was any 75/25 to the end', ... the relevant text confirming this "Fact", has been in each and every WMI-LT QSR' ... with the WMI-LT's reference to the separate account kept, that was not accounted for as an asset of the WMI-LT, ... better said', per the WMI-LT itself' ... there never "Could" be any 75/25 to the end, ... and ... there never "Could" be any additional LTI's issued ..."
The truth is that 75/25 to the end is built into the POR. And there is absolutely nothing in any WMI-LT QSR to the contrary. And there will in fact be additional LTIs issued, at least to Class 18, and possibly to 19 and 22.
Really?
Don't know if anyone has posted this motley fool bit on COOP's drop yet: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/03/20/why-shares-of-mr-cooper-group-dropped-10-on-wednes.aspx
Not at all. $100 mil would = about $10 per P.
The lower end of the range in E, due principally to proceeds from LIBOR litigation.
Piers are paid off. Finito. They will get nothing more, even if billions show up from litigation or anywhere else.
Any litigation or other proceeds the LT receives will go into the waterfall. If anything remains to be paid to class 18, that class will get cashed out. Then anything remaining goes to the equity classes (75/25).
This is not mysterious or difficult.
COOP Premarket last is $13.46 with 7500 shares traded, so unchanged from yesterday's close.
Picked up another 1,000 of COOP. Price seems pretty attractive this morning.
t1215s:
First, WMI did not liquidate (voluntarily or involuntarily). It did not dissolve. It did not wind up. It was reorganized in Chapter 11.
Second, the preferred certificate that you are quoting was cancelled and decelared void and of no further effect in the POR.
Jerry, he was quoting my post.
contrarian: I think I may detect a note of irony in your note. :)
Jerry, I agree completely. The idea that there are assets out there that will find a way to do an end-run around the LT is absolutely without any basis whatsoever.
It is very simple: we - as escrow holders - were not the owners of any assets of WMI (including contingent, residual, and safe harbor assets). We were never the owners of those assets. WMI was. And we owned shares in WMI, but that is simply not the same as owning WMI's assets. Title was held by WMI, not us.
If any such assets are now discovered or show up, they are going to go looking for their owner, WMI (not us). What they will find is that the LT (not COOP) is the lawful successor to WMI and is administering WMI's estate. So they will go to the LT, not us.
The reason people are so confused is because they do not understand the meaning or purpose of the terms bankruptcy remote or safe harbor. They believe that such assets are outside the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and therefore not subject to the terms of the POR. But they had better think about that position long and hard. Because if those assets are not subject to the POR, there is no reason on God's Green Earth for those assets to find their way to escrow holders. None.
Even the revered CBA09 stated that assets returning home from safe harbor would go first to the LT.
Despite all of this, the myth persists. I cannot figure out why. Cognitive dissonnace is the only plausible explanation.
According to the POR, commons get 25% of all LTIs distributed to equity and prefs get 75%. Period. Full stop. Once the LTI's are distributed to equity in that ratio, any and all monetary distributions to equity will follow that same ratio ad infinitum.
There is nothing anywhere that states or even suggests that the LTIs received by prefs are in any way different (i.e. subject to some caveat or qualification) from those received by commons.
The idea that commons will continue to be paid after prefs are "paid in full" is just Message Board Mythology (actually calling it mythology does a disservice to the word myth, which is often based on some reality).
Split T: I do not know who attended the probate hearing in California, and really have no idea what the judge was referring to when he mention the mom and pops. So I cannot give you any help at all.
You might consider getting the name of the court and the case number, and then seeing if you can get the court transcript from that hearing.
Split T: did you post this question on BP?
Again, Carreon was referring to the change in control that subsequently happened when the reorganized WMI emerged from bankruptcy as WMIH. That is when the change in control Carreon was referring to happened.
Yes. I know.
I think that you, LG, me, Catz are all saying exactly that. Please read LG's post again, all the way.
Ah. If evidence of fraud is found, and if it can be proved that active concealment prevented its earlier discovery, then there would be a basis for arguing that the statute of limitations was tolled (its running was suspended) during the active concealment.
However, my issue with that argument is this: if actionable evidence of fraud has not come to light yet, it becomes increasingly unlikely that such evidence exists or - if it exists - that it will be found.
Your and my subjective judgments on what would constitute "fair and reasonable," together with a couple of dollars, would buy a cup of coffee at 7Eleven.
What you find to be "fair and reasonable" and what the court considered as "fair and reasonable" are two entirely different things.
One could quite strongly argue that, under a typical Chapter 11 proceedings, equity is cancelled and receives nothing. Therefore, if equity receives anything of value, that would be more than enough to be fair and reasonable.
Besides, it is the POR that the court must find to be fair and reasonable, and many PORs that give equity nothing are found to be fair and reasonable.
If you know one, why don't you ask a bankruptcy attorney?
Hi LG, I read CBA09's posts very carefully - all of them. He did explain the process well. And I believe he knows what he is talking about. He also said that the process would require any such assets to be returned to the LT. However, I do not recall CBA09 ever pointing to any specific trusts out there that were going to be returning assets to our LT.
And I also wonder why no such assets have been returned yet. Not one dollar. And I refuse to accept any conspiracy theory that is not backed with direct or highly persuasive circumstantial evidence.
As for the hedge funds staying in: they also cannot trade their escrows, so there is no way they cannot stay in. As for their continued ownership of COOP: there are two reasons: 1) they like COOP's potential, 2) there are restrictions in WMIH's (now COOP's) Articles of Incorporation on major holders.
The existence of the NOLs will be confirmed in the next 10K, which is to be filed soon. One might ask on the cc if there are any reasonably foreseeable circumstances that would cause the loss of the NOLs.
wowalters, there is nothing "owed" to prefs/commons beyond the WMIH shares that have been distributed (and the small number of WMIH shares still to be distributed) and the money that the LT will have available after it pays class 18. Right now it looks as if nearly all of the funds that are still with the LT will go to class 18.
So we have to hope that there are additional funds that the LT will receive from the LIBOR litigation, possibly some tax refunds, and anything that might come from safe harbor (but I doubt the existence of the last category).
I see that as a completely irrelevant to what I posted. Of course I understand there were problems with the seizure of WMB and its sale to JPM. But I do not see how that has any impact on the potential recovery of former WMI equity. The issues related to the takedown have all been litigated with finality. Statutes of limitation have run.
This is very simple. Even if there are such assets, if and when returned, they would belong to the estate of WMI which is administered by the LT. And the LT is bound by the POR to distribute 75/25.
Many have absolutely misconstrued what "bankruptcy remote" means.
Current escrow holders held shares in WMI. They did not hold shares in WMB. They did not hold an interest in bankruptcy remote assets. So there is no basis for them to receive anything except through the LT, which is administering the estate of WMI.
Of course, Catz is correct. We went over this many times back when we were deciding whether to sign the releases and to vote in favor of the plan.
At that time, everyone knew that a vote in favor of the plan was a vote in favor of commons getting 25% and prefs 75% of all - all - distributions to equity, with no cap on prefs recovery.
Now, years later, a theory has been concocted based on a few cherry-picked sentences from the documents that prefs' recovery is capped. Of course, this is nonsense. I am just surprised that this is even a subject of debate. There is nothing to debate. There is no basis for a theory that concludes that pref recovery is capped.
Unfortunately, more than $10 billion would have to be distributed to equity to prove the point that prefs are not capped, and there is just no where near that amount coming to equity.
I have no idea. Probably nothing. Maybe as much as $500 million. But, again, probbaly nothing.
The LT's most recent FAQ sheet contains the following:
20. What value can the Trust expect to receive from the Washington Mutual Bank Receivership? When will such Receivership be completed?
Ultimately, I think the LIBOR litigation will be a far greater source of funds for escrows than anything else (including any assets that may be in safe harbor, if there are such assets).