InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Black0

01/04/10 10:24 AM

#132732 RE: rainbow1111 #132731

every wampq,wamkq on the roof whtz up with wamuq, still under.20
icon url

Dragynn

01/04/10 10:32 AM

#132736 RE: rainbow1111 #132731

I disagree. The NOL laws are part of the stimulus package, and need to be filed within 45 days of the legislation being passed, and also provide for a refund within 30 days. The idea is to stimulate the economy NOW, not three years from now, no way WMI lets that slide. There is a very real potential for us to see 5.6 billion in cash come February.
icon url

DudeBug

01/04/10 11:07 AM

#132753 RE: rainbow1111 #132731

Yesterday I posted my opinion (based on information from Bopfan post @ Yahoo) of why the lawyers will continue to let A<L is due to the fraudulent conveyance claim that caused WMI insolvency (as of 9/26/08).

Per Bopfan, as long as the lawyers/accountants can keep A<L, the longer they can pressure JPM & FDIC with the fraudulent conveyance discovery through the courts, which they are in the process of doing now.

With the disputed $3.7B already accounted for on the books, the NOL tax refunds may not be added until they work out a settlement. It's hard to be patient but we all know the money & claims are there; the accountants will add when it's time to make A>L.



http://www.caddenfuller.com/CM/Articles/Articles38.asp

There are two types of fraudulent transfers in bankruptcy law. The first, actual fraud, involves the intent to defraud creditors, the other, sometimes called constructive fraud, involves a transfer, which is made in exchange for grossly inadequate consideration.

Constructive fraud also requires two conditions: 1) in exchange for the transfer, the debtor received less than “reasonably equivalent value”, and; 2) the debtor is unable to pay debts either at the time the transfer was made or as a result of the transfer itself. In this case, intent need not be proven rather the focus of the inquiry rests on whether the debtor received reasonably equivalent value.