PhillipMax,
You make very cogent points that echo much of what the many board members have discussed over the last year - year and a half. I think that most of us have posited that JPM would be the next logical successor (by the definition of Successor Entity as outlined and defined in Article IV of the Warrant covenants). However, the FDIC is also a culpable party and, in fact, were most likely the entity that actually violated the warrant agreement by seizing the assets and (arbitrarily) negating the associated claims against those assets before handing them over to JPM.
Thus, I agree with your analysis and similar conjectures/hypothetical situations/analyses have been broached before. Hence, you're definitely "singing to the proverbial choir here"! : )
As per you P.P.S. The original DIMEZ warrants were registered and traded on the NASAQ stock exchange. I believe that this implicitly answers whether or not they were registered with the SEC... but perhaps not.
Regardless, it is unfortunate that they are called "Litigation Tracking Warrants." Perhaps, they should have called them "Trust securities" or some other name to better represent the claim against the Anchor Savings litigation. It is rather absurd what semantics can do!
Best,
Jared
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
