Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there an underlying assumption in your post, that there will not be enough settlement dollars to reach the commons short of some plan to reach into the pockets of the preferreds, wmi bondholders, and wmb bondholders? I believe it to be wishful thinking on your part to think the ec can get these people to be that charitable in either a liquidation or reorganization scenario. The membership of the ec is irrelevant in the sense that preferred shareholders have not given them their power of attorney or proxy for the ec to do with them as they wish. The large preferred shareholders will make their position known to the ec attorneys and any plan proposed by the ec will certainly have to be acceptable and have the backing of the preferreds. Otherwise it is just an exercise in futility. Liquidation/priority rights in a liquidation scenario are not my opinion...they are fact.
Now as to all of this talk as to the ec proposing a plan whereby the common and maybe the preferred take on the new ownership of a reorganized company --- I think if the present plan calls for some injection of new capital to move forward in a reorganization and make it work for the debtholders ---well where is the financing going to come from for the current shareholders to make it work going forward? Who is going to run it? The people that holders hope to oust? I believe all avenues for such financing will be cut off and not available in such a scenario.
Now as to the amount of settlement dollars available for distribution. Don't beg the question. Address it. Just recently the new ec attorney said $20 billion in claims in the lawsuits. You think wmi gets 100% if the case is settled? The fdic has only been sued for the fair liquidated value of the bank at the time of seizure. Don't you think a tenative offer of $12 billion that the former ceo testified to last week in the making at a time of a banking liquidity crisis is something a judge is going to give great evidentiary weight too? I do. The holding company never sued for wrongful seizure or damages therefor! Even the former member of the ec (Joyce) has stated the ots/fdic can seize the bank in an economic crisis whether or not the bank is solvent. Now compound the fact that Walrath bent over backwards for the wmb bondholders ... do you think she is going to want to see them get part of that fair liquidated value above and beyond the 2 billion supposedly paid by JPM to the fdic? I have already posted that sure in settlement wmi should get 100% for the holding company assets that were taken apart from the seized bank. And there is no doubt in my mind that JPM breached its confidentiality agreement. But were the holding company's damages a result of that breach or caused by the fdic? It is one thing to allege collusion ( I don't think the holding company ever did ) it is another thing to prove it. So what settlement dollars are available to common in your opinion?
Now as to the nonsense posted by others that my motives are to get cheaper shares of wamuq... well how does my posting influence the price? lol. It seems to have been holding at .17. Accumulation or Distribution? Boy I must be stupid then not to be posting on the wamuq board! Oh, but I am pumping the P's . lol. Again, how does my posting influence the price. Must be certain posters don't want certain issues openly discussed for their own agenda. The same people complain about Sen Levin, but how are they any different? The audacity of people who think I do not have the right to react after an adverse development ocurred is beyond me. I believe I would be more of a low life than my critics if I remained silent when there are people on here who need and want to here both the good and bad.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
