Replies to post #30618 on Washington Mutual Preferred fka WAMPQ

[mattchew]

Yeh, I guess we will have to wait and see what the final outcome is.

[STRIKEEAGLE]

GO... I agree that much of our destiny is in the hands of the EC/Nelson... and that it appears as though THJMW could have and should have ruled in our favor much more and in many more ways than she did...

HOWEVER... we are still alive and IMO, Nelson will bring heavy firepower to the table before this is all over. And when this is all over, ALL equity will be paid... something!


AIMHO


GO NELSON AND KEEP JUDGING ACCORDINGLY THJMW!!!!

[marayatano]

You said:

Nah, still mostly crap, in my opinion. The NOLs certainly are potentially nice, but the judge didn't make it clear that they would benefit equity. She clearly should have, but she didn't. On top of that, at another point in her opinion, she very specifically mentioned that it wasn't likely that any money would reach into equity, even if they were to litigate.

I'm all for remaining positive, but the judge very clearly went out of her way to keep equity out of the money, so I'm not really going to defend her anymore. She could have easily done the opposite by ruling on the FJR or stating that the NOLs should be considered an asset. Both of these opinions would have been enormously helpful to equity, and would have been more likely to get WMI, JPM, and the FDIC at the bargaining table than the current opinion. She clearly left the ball in the plan supporters' court, which in my opinion, is foolish. They've shown time and again that they are ball hogs. Why not throw the ball to the EC for once and see what they can do?

See below, it will make you feel a tad bit better:

The Equity Committee also complains that there is no
provision in the Plan for its continued existence after
confirmation. Because any distribution to preferred shareholders
depends on what the Liquidating Trustee can recover, the Equity
Committee contends that it should have a supervisory role or at
least the ability to seek relief in this Court if the Liquidating
Trustee is not performing. The Court agrees with the Equity
Committee that it should continue to have a role, albeit limited,
to protect the interests of the shareholders.

shareholders = us, since we are first in line (after H, unless they fall to equity as in rank).

The Plan Objectors also complain that the Debtors have
designated their CRO as the Liquidating Trustee. (Ex. D-5 at
102.) There does not appear to be any mechanism for replacement
of the Liquidating Trustee unless he resigns or dies. (Id.) The
Court agrees with the Plan Objectors that there should be some
mechanism for replacement of the Liquidating Trustee by the
beneficiaries of the Trust.

beneficiaries = us

FJR vs. contract rate. Judge left that up in the air, which is good for us (could have been better if she said FJR applies, but that would have been prejudice towards creditors.) Judge is giving the parties to settle amongst themselves. If that cannot happen, and the parties continue to dilly dally, she may just invoke the FJR as a punishment for creditors/debtors playing games.


IMO

[jackfburns]

I concur. It's left to the EC to sell their releases. Let's hope they fetch a good price, as there's no guarantee that Rosen and Co. won't just structure a new POR/GSA that eliminates the third-party releases.