Thanks for the replies.
I agree, I don't think that the $245 should be added to our award {I wish, it is a pipe dream}. I was using it as a high mark for analysis only. The $245 is what the LTW calls for at 46%+ tax rate, regardless of actual tax. I know that the we aren't pressing for it, but I used the WMI NOL as the high range in the grand scheme {really fits this BK} in that the Debtor and JPM have this amount to work with also. Settlement using the estate negates federal taxes, which allows money under a shell to go to JPM. JPM can simply adjust its acquisition recording, or possibly net against other money it may have to pony up.
The 85% - 15% matter is a good note. I'll revisit and see where I missed that and should make the appropriate adjustments. That might be why the floor calculation is just above what you've indicated has been discussed before. Thanks.
The dilution issue appears to be something that seems "way out there" that counsel might acually find a benefit in trying to use. There appears to be a legit award, held and bumped on appeal, and there has been no appeal to the SC {however time will toll and tell}. But there is fair question out there also. Could the owner (JPM or the debtor?) have been in a position to have settled already, but for some reason they have decided not to?
This whole BK is landmark.
Nice to know that there are others out there.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
