You asked for listener's takes... Here we go!
dennyduper asked whose side I was on. That is easy to answer... I am on MY side.
I am convinced there were BK remote assets. I don't know how large they were.
I am convinced that (under the rule of law) those assets belong to former shareholders of WMI. If they have been folded into WMIH (and thus COOP), they should be apparrent. They are not. (If someone can show me in a WMIH or COOP filing where they are, I will examine that with an open mind.)
I am hopeful that because of regulatory and accounting loopholes those assets still exist and we (the shareholders) will benefit properly from them. I am also hopeful that this will happen soon. As I have stated before, I am willing to forego 1% in order to get them distributed in a timely fashion. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that changes in tax code make giving up 1% (or even 2.5% as AG mentioned for one class) would be beneficial IF it guarantees distribution before the tax code changes.
It is painfully clear that there is a land mine somewhere on the 'terrain' of this 'battle'. Both sides are stepping carefully to avoid opening a door to 'something'. (I am paraphrasing rather than quoting) The judge asked 'where did these come from?' The answer was gobbledegook that boils down to 'I don't know'. Again, it should be painfully obvious that the answer to the question is 'Bankruptcy Remote Assets'. WHY NOT SAY THAT? The judge allowed them to be mentioned as existing in the past. The judge just would not allow a valuation of them. In fact, when the gentleman at the end was recognized THJMW got excited and said 'NO DETAILS'.
I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with the rules about what can and can not be mentioned in BK court. I also don't understand whether there is a time or place for such valuation to be announced within the BK court. The problem still remains that there has been no public accounting of remote values. (more about this at the end)
AGs argument boiled down (unfortunately) to 'I heard this rumor from someone I trust, can everyone prove to me whether it is true. That is a terrible argument!
If AG was serious, she has had time to do the following (in order to present a compelling argument):
1) ask her source for more details (still providing the source with anonymity)
2) use that information to find the details needed to support those claims (without naming the original source)
3) use those details in her argument.
For what ever reason, she did not accomplish this task.
What she has accomplished is to convince the judge to state (from the bench) that no one who signed the releases may litigate COOP over anything related to the bankruptcy.
This is a possible disaster (to some - maybe a panacea to others). That statement gives cover to anyone trying to divert or delay such distributions.
I don't know about you, but when I signed my releases, I did not intend (nor can it be reasonably inferred that I did) to absolve future misbehavior of anyone on the release list. Since the repatriation of BK remote assets could not happen until after we signed our releases, I do not believe that the releases apply to litigation over the repatriation of said assets. (I am not willing to argue about it here so I will not respond to differing opinions. I am not trying to stop anyone from refuting me... I just won't hash that at this time.)
I would like an accounting of the BK remote assets... what they were, where they have been, and where they are now. For whatever reason, no one will address that in this court.
Now the (more about this at the end) discussion.
This may be long, but I will try to lay out a careful, logical argument.
As much as I would like the BK court to air valuation information about remote assets, I suspect they simply cannot. I have thought about this long and hard and finally understand a possible reason for this. If, as an individual, you were to file bankruptcy, you would not want the value of the remote assets to be aired in public. This is no different.
You might argue that WMI, WMIH, and COOP are all public companies and you would be correct. However, the burden of accurate valuation is on them... not the court.
If AG's Source's statements are to be believed, COOP is trying to arrange things to bring this information to light and (at the same time) compensate the parties that deserve compensation rather than everyone who currently owns COOP stock. In my opinion, pinpointing the compensation is a good thing. It is considerably more fair than just having the values pop up out of thin air and all current owners (notably former NSM holders and KKR) to dilute former WMI holders' recoveries.
Thee are several strange things happening
1) no mention of the term 'BK remote' even when it would be an appropriate answer to a direct question.
2) the vast difference in tone and content between AG's SDNY filings.
Think about the second filing... Suddenly there is 1/60th of the money waiting to be distributed and Suddenly there is no mention of class 22 having to bear the burden of compensating the UWs and Suddenly there is delay for all distributions instead of just class 22. The two filings were so different that when I first read the second one, I had to go back to the header to be sure that it was an amended filing and not an additional suit.
What on earth is going on? I really don't know, but I have seen situations where two people were fighting over how to divide something but trying to keep a third person from finding out how much was at stake and demand their share. These shenanigans remind me of such a struggle.
I am beginning to think the following...
The current court shenanigans are, in fact, last ditch effort in fighting over how the distributions are allocated. When I say it this way, it sounds obvious. So let me try to describe what I think is not necessarily obvious. The infighting is happening mostly behind the scenes to determine whether these assets will be distributed by APR or 75/25. I think the infighting is being orchestrated carefully to prevent exciting and alerting beneficiaries of a third possibility of distribution method. (I haven't seen it mentioned and won't describe it here.) I think AG showed her willingness to use the 'nuclear option' by stating the large number in her first SDNY filing. This was quickly replaced by the second filing which (as stated before) was of a completely different nature.
Today, we saw here slapped down and prevented by the judge from airing that information in court.
Yes, she can continue here appeal to the supreme court but I don't think they will bother to hear it, especially if it has rumors that are not part of a deposition.
AG lost today. I suspect she won't give up but if she continues, she could teach Don Quixote a few things.
Other responses so I don't run out of posts....
wcheng - if there is to be a distribution, this had to happen to allow COOP to move forward with it.
boarddork - you said "predictable 'misunderstandings'" - I will go one step forward and say that I believe they are 'predictable purposeful misunderstandings'. I think that is what you meant by your quotes, but there it is - I said it.
Proud member of TEAM AZ!
Go WAMU - time to resurrect!
AI
