Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[wall_street61]

I never said it did. If you wish to quote, I suggest not taking something out of context. It's only if 510(b) is applicable to the situation.

it also applies to every other security that may try to inch up the priority ladder for the reasons set forth (ambiguously) in the language contained in the statute.

Even if a debt security that is higher in priority than general unsecureds wins a derivative claim based on their security, that claim will be subordinated to general unsecureds if the situation fits 510(b).

Apparently unlike you, I read the entire Tranquility claim opinion.

If you wish to hang your hat on the fact that the LTW's were issued by a bank that was bought out by WMI, and that would mean 510(b) is not applicable because technically they weren't issued by WMI, while totally disregarding the amended warrant agreement and WMI's status as successor in interest, then you go right ahead. I don't think that dog will hunt, and even if it did, limitations would have already run.

But nevertheless, I've seen a judge and an appellate court get something wrong, so I would not be surprised by any outcome, whether it be 12, 18, or 21.

I can make an argument for 12 and I can make an argument for 18, but I can't even remotely make an argument for a subordinated claim in 21, although I can make a weak argument the LTW's are equity.

There is one way to get in 12, one in 18, and two in 21.

And if this gets put in 18 or 21, be forewarned that the appellate process out of BK court is vastly different than regular state or federal district courts. Equitable mootness is a real hazard, and I think about as much of it as I do the 'business judgment rule'. It's a crock, but nevertheless even if this ruling is wrong, and that ruling is 21 for example, only wager what you are willing to lose as an appeal my not get you a real second bite because the court may not even take the appeal.