Serafino1, greetings. I hope you are doing well. You wrote the following post and I would like to point out some very important facts that change the outcome of the WaMu bankruptcy cases.
____________________________________________
Greetings folks, I had a peek in the room, to see if there is anything new about 04.04, but I see nothing about it.
Our opinion on the 75/25% is as follows, WMIH was not part of the WMB insolvency, .
As I have read and re-read the arguments and information from RON and AZC several times. , it also seems to me logical to think, that the 75/25 has no termination regarding the values of the WMIH which SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEQUESTRY.
I think both RON and AZC are right, also because in any seizure or insolvency, the assets if any, belong by law always to the owners, ALWAYS.
This skein with so many knots, the knots are coming to the boil.
Only then can we be sure of knowing how they plotted
scheming to save the JPMC institution, stealing a large bank on Thursday all under the clear sky, this happens in imperial nations, but never in a free and democratic nation hiding it under the cloak of national security.
JPMC was already insolvent
Seraphim1 sends greetings with me.
____________________________________________
1) The common shareholder ALWAYS owns a publicly traded company UNLESS that company files a bankruptcy case which happened. There were two cases filed which means the Creditors ARE IN CHARGE. This also means there is usually a negotiated settlement. There were two months of closed-door Mediation ordered by Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath
2) The Creditors were found (COLORED) which is the same as guilty when Judge Walrath held in her court a trial for Insider Trading and this would have been upheld by ANY court in the USA per Walrath
3) On March 19, 2012, which was the (ED) Effective Date of the case, there was an (OC) Ownership Change which changed the ownership of not only the bk cases but the ownership of whatever assets there were whether inside the bk cases or Safe Harbor protected again going back to the ED which completely changed the ownership of assets to those who signed timely releases by the first part of March of year 2012
4) The ED date of 3/19/2012 also cancels ALL Preferred and Common Prospectuses ALONG with ALL associated documents otherwise, there would be dual ownership of assets which could never happen in a Delaware bk case
5) The (UW) Underwriters who performed the very work that WaMu required knew where all of the assets were, their value when they would be ripe and they were also given an ENTIRE year LONGER to RELEASE than all of the rest of the investors for REASON
6) The UWs challenged Alice for almost three years fighting her to STAY OUT of CLSS 22 for a reason as the UW's lawyer advised Alice they did not want class 22 because they do NOT SEE the case the way she does....this should tell one all they need to know about value BECAUSE the UWs could have selected class 22 as late as the year of 2020
7) Also from the ED of March 19, 2012, there were ten million sheld-ready and authorized PREFERRED shares approved to be issued on a minute's notice when ready, and these shares were NEVER diluted or (RS) Reverse Split even in October of the year 2018 when the 12-1 RS happened. The Players will issue these shares at some point soon as they would have never been authorized on the ED, would NOT have avoided the RS in 10/2018, and CERTAINLY would not be on the books CURRENTLY if they were of no use when they could have been deleted numerous times by now
8) Serafino1, so obviously, I and others do NOT agree with who owns the assets if those in opposition claim the assets are owned by class 22 due to the previous facts. So to me and others, the ONLY fact that makes sense is the fact that 75/25 applies not ONLY in the bk cases but also to the ownership rights that would carry on through to any potential Safe Harbor assets or not otherwise, there would be dual ownership rights of assets that could NEVER happen in Delaware bk cases
Thank you and take care
...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
