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.
People also ask
How many deaths are there per day in the US?
According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, approximately 7,452 people die every day in the United States. In other words, a person dies in the US approximately every 12 seconds.Mar 5, 2018
How many people die a day in the US? | IndexMundi
Blogwww.indexmundi.com › blog › index.php › 2
World Birth and Death Rates
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
• 250 births each minute • 105 people die each minute
2 more rows
I would argue that the markers were merely abandoned and that the broker was or will be required to turn any proceeds realized therefrom over to the state. There are statutes which require financial institutions, utility companies etc to turn such unclaimed monies to the state which can then be reclaimed by the true owner.
https://twitter.com/AMeshkati?lang=en&lang=en
BTIG increased Coop Target Price to $21.00.
I think whether a premature withdrawal is taxed/penalized depends on whether the withdrawal constitutes earnings.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/waitingperiodroth.asp
Rule 8003 gives the right to appeal the decree. https://www.federalrulesofbankruptcyprocedure.org/part-viii/rule-8003/
What other decree is there in bankruptcy?
Rule 8002 sets the 14 day period.https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_8002
Nothing a bankruptcy judge or federal judge states in its judgment can eliminate one's right to appeal or other procedural rules.
ALL bankruptcy judge orders are not final for 14 days after entered. During that time the judge has jurisdiction to change, or tweak the order. If nothing like that occurs, the order is then final. The notice of appeal has to be filed within that time to vest jurisdiction in the district court.
The important thing to ask is not whether the bankruptcy cases have already been closed, but whether the cases will ever be opened for any reason in the future by Walrath. Imo Walrath showed her hand and has no intention to do so unless Andrews instructs her to do so in his opinion. If Alice appeals Walrath's latest order, she has to file a bond imo in order to avoid equitable mootness.
414,000 @ 12.45 after hour trade at 4:07
The court did not agree on any merits. Walrath dispensed with the matter on the basis it was not timely filed under the doctrine of laches. And please cite the provision in the POR where the LT had the right to amend the POR without court approval.
You fail to realize that POR 7 's definition of Preferred Equity Interest together with Delaware Statute precluded the underwriters' claim from being included in Class 19 whether or not that was the intent before the POR 7 was adopted and approved. The LT had no power to amend POR 7 to settle the underwriters claim. So the LT were left with two lawful choices to settle the underwriters claim in Class 18 or as common equity.
That is just what Rozen argues in an attempt to justify what the LT did. It does not excuse the LT from following the terms of the POR in regard to what claims could be included in the definition of "preferred equity interests". The LT violated the governing instrument which is against the law in the State of Delaware. If that was truly the intent, it should have been mentioned in the disclosure statement at a minimum, and the POR reformed to reflect that intent. Instead the LT chose to hide the matter and do what they were not suppose to do. Yet you defend them.
Paragraph 3 on page 4 of the original Stipulation shows that only the word "equity" was used---not preferred equity. http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229110204000000000003
You cannot change the facts. And your reliance on previous disgarded PORs would mean Piers are entitled to the residual of the estate because the previous POR said so. That is just as absurd as your argument that underwriters were designated as Class 19 anywhere prior to the ultra vires act of the LT.
Judges acting in a review capacity tend to affirm the lower court 90% of the time. Andrews could simply render a decision that states "affirmed".
You keep spinning that underwriters were Class 19. But I have shown you the original stipulation and it merely said the underwriters were Class 18 or "equity". And POR 7 was voted on and approved with a preferred equity definition which does not include them. So all p holders were shortchanged is fact, because had the underwriters truly been settled in accordance with the terms of the plan, the 1.4 million shares unused would have gone to the p's. P's were to get these shares regardless whether Class 18 saw a dime.This finally dawned on Walrath. A federal bankruptcy judge ruled that nothwithstanding the clear terms of the POR the liquidation trust could take from one and give to another. Freaking unbelievable.
So if a creditor or shareholder is shortchanged what they are due and takes an appeal to protect their rights, per Walrath that is not a sufficient contested matter that needs to be addressed before the bankruptcy is closed. So then I ask, what other type contested matter is of greater importance and sufficient? Walrath has just rendered the comments to Rule 350 of no consequence imo.
I thought I heard Rozen say he had provided an updated proposed order to Walrath before the hearing. I wonder if Walrath tweaked his work at all. I would think Rozen would have wanted a statement about escrow elimination in the order. Unless he never intended to do it in the first place, and it was a charade to chill objections by making people think nothing is forthcoming.
Another point about Coop is that they may be required to keep shareholder records on the effective date because Coop has to establish the degree of ownership change for purposes of the NOL in the event of an IRS audit. Nol is good for at least two decades.
I have always been skeptical as my posts indicate. But the FDIC $400 billion Libor actions in New York and London on behalf of wmb and 37 much much smaller banks are real. The proceeds would have to be split up based on loan originations, so the wmb receivership would get the super majority of the proceeds. Now whether or not anything received would totally pay off the wmb noteholders and leave something for equity is questionable. But if indeed the LT got all the WMI assets as Rozen stated again in court, then it is worthwhile to at least keep a record of the P ownership imo.
How is the LT bound by what they said in court yesterday if Walrath does not mention it in her order?
yep. The multiples used for conversion of P's to new shares is listed above in the information section.
On the initial emergence the escrows equaled a multiple of your common or preferred. Wmih had to have a record. One was produced for commons. One can be produced for preferred.
The reorganized shares were distributed based on what the escrow markers indicate. Wouldn't the reorganized debtor hold a list of the shareholders on the effective date? Corporations have to keep corporate shareholder records. Maybe those interested in this issue should be contacting Coop. Reorganized shares were never an asset of the debtors, were never an asset of the bankruptcy, and were never an asset of the LT. The shares that were distributed by the trust were done pursuant to an escrow agreement between the LT and WMIH. What right does an escrow agent have on its own to destroy WMIH/Coop records? Shouldn't that be Coop's call?
We all are former owners because we agreed in the por to exchange the preferred and common WMI shares for interests in the trust and in the litigation proceeds. Preferred and common shares cannot be presently owned by anyone because the shares were CANCELLED.
a good start
contingent asset recognition criteria
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/what-is-a-contingent-asset.html
A contingent asset is a possible asset that may arise because of a gain that is contingent on future events that are not under an entity's control. According to the accounting standards, a business does not recognize a contingent asset even if the associated contingent gain is probable.
A contingent asset becomes a realized (and therefore recordable) asset when the realization of income associated with it is virtually certain. In this case, recognize the asset in the period when the change occurs. This treatment of a contingent asset is not consistent with the treatment of a contingent liability, which should be recorded when it is probable (thereby preserving the conservative nature of the financial statements).
The best example of both sides of a contingent asset and contingent liability is a lawsuit. Even if it is probable that the plaintiff will win the case and receive a monetary award, it cannot recognize the contingent asset until such time as the lawsuit has been settled. Conversely, the other party that is probably going to lose the lawsuit must record a provision for the contingent liability as soon as the loss becomes probable, and should not wait until the lawsuit has been settled to do so. Thus, recognition of the contingent liability comes before recognition of the contingent asset.
You may disclose the existence of a contingent asset in the notes accompanying the financial statements when the inflow of economic benefits is probable. Doing so at least reveals the presence of a possible asset to the readers of the financial statements.
Auditors are particularly watchful for contingent assets that have been recorded in a company's accounting records, and will insist that they be eliminated from the records before issuing an opinion on a company's financial statements.
Assuming the acquisition of NSM was accounted for using "purshase accounting", the 1 year period to "true up" the assets has to be done by 12/31/19 and any isolated assets earmarked for Coop can no longer go unreported thereafter. So the bankruptcy closing will be used as the triggering event and probably prevents anyone else from claiming the isolated assets or the assets from coming under bankruptcy jurisdiction.
The fact that legacy shareholders have been substantially diluted beforehand probably makes the argument more probable not less probable imo.
WMIH/Coop adopted Fresh Start accounting. Why? IMO because of the one year limitation period required under purchase accounting. By the terms of the POR it was almost certain that all of WMI liabilities were going to be paid. Class 18 is suppose to get 85% of their claim. So liabilities were not a concern in adopting Fresh Start Accounting. And there never was an issue over contingent liabilities. That leads me to believe Fresh Start was used because of expected contingent assets to be forthcoming to Coop. What could be considered more impaired than assets wrongfully snatched/legally isolated by the FDIC?
"Fresh Start is analogous to "purchase accounting." However, Fresh Start differs in certain important respects. With Fresh Start, there is no one-year adjustment period in which to "true-up" estimates related to the transaction. Uncertainties that were not resolved during the chapter 11 proceedings may continue to exist after the company emerges from bankruptcy. Such uncertainties are referred to as "pre-confirmation contingencies." A pre-confirmation contingency could be a contingent asset, a contingent liability or a contingent impairment of an asset. "
https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/fresh-start-reporting-what-is-it-and-what-are-the-benefits-and-risks
So I think this has something to do with the "rush" to close the bankruptcies before year end .Coop is going to recognize something on their financials for year 2019. Otherwise why couldn't closure happen after Class 18 was paid the first quarter of 2020?
Are you saying Class 19 may be getting the remaining $38 million designated in Class 18? Did the trustee of some of the p's file a class action tort claim which was put in Class 18 which was for the benefit of certain members of Class 19?
AZ actually you might have helped with Alice's objection to close. If you had not posted MW declaration, I wouldn't have noticed or posted that litigation proceeds are not trust assets. And if Alice hadn't read my post, perhaps she would not have included that bombshell in her objection to close. Since we do not know whether she did that on her own or not, you are most welcome to take credit for helping her endeavor.
On second thought, the statute of limitations is three years for breach of fiduciary in Delaware. But punitive damages would probably be granted on another theory that the trustee wrongfully converted trust monies by paying Class 18 money that rightfully belonged to Class 19. Remember Class 19 were to get shares before Class 18 saw a dime. So at a minimum 1.4 million dollars should come from the current class 18 kitty.
Question. Class 18 was suppose to get 85% on their respective claims. They have not even gotten their distribution yet. So when does their time to object expire if they get shortchanged?
I have seen no authority cited by the LT that indicates that a contested matter on appeal is nevertheless closed for purposes of determining whether a Final Decree can be granted. I have seen no authority cited by the LT which indicates that if the Final Decree is granted that the bankruptcy is considered closed if a timely appeal is filed. I have seen no authority stating that a Final Decree can be entered if a creditor/or shareholder establishes that they were shortchanged. Even if there is nothing left in the trust, if Alice prevails on her appeal, the 1% of shares that P's were shortchanged will have to be paid from either insurance or the personal funds of the trustee and tab
members together with punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty.
The LT can argue that, but that doesn't make it true. The issues presently before the court are new/different/and apart from the issues currently on appeal. So due process requires Alice be heard. Sad that you do not understand that.
Due Process requires that Walrath conduct a hearing on any objection to the closing which is still pending before signing off on the Final Decree. Alice has the constitutional right to be heard first.
I have always wondered why the federal savings bank was not directly owned by the holding company. That would have been the prudent and logical setup. But really what have we ever been shown to establish that it was indeed owned by wmb? Just the word of debtors' lawyers who happened to be conflicted, and hope that the equity committee verified.
What distributions do you expect when the motion to close clearly declares that no distributions will be made to equity? What distributions do you expect when the LT blatantly seeks to destroy trust records to cover their tracks? Have you ever thought once of the possibility that the nonsense (that once the bankruptcy closes, assets will magically appear for equity) was created by the LT to lull you into a sense that everything will be okay for equity so you do not even try to put up a fight until it is too late? Do you really think that Walrath is going to come to your rescue and reopen the bankruptcy cases once the bankruptcy is closed? What reason does the LT now have to keep equity's recovery secret/hidden? Marta was the longstanding excuse, but Marta didn't object to the motion to close. So Marta is no longer a threat or an excuse. Yet equity still remains a mushroom. The only course of action is to always know what you are going to get while your opportunity to complain/sue remains open. Here the LT is telling you upfront in flashing words there will be "no distributions to equity". And all you choose to do is criticize Alice. Yet Alice is the only one in the ring fighting to keep equity's chances alive. Wake up!