"There is nothing clear about that agreement given the current situation."
There's nothing better for the DRAFTERS (i.e., Dime Bank, WMI) of an AGREEMENT (e.g., the Original 2000 Warrant Agreement and the WMI 2003 Warrant Agreement), than to have cooked some AMBIGUITY and OMISSIONS into those contracts. That puts the Defendants (e.g., WMI, A&M, the old Dime BOD, the old WMI BOD, the current WMI/A&M "board of directors", even if that "board" only consists of 1 or 2 "board members" that don't really know who sits on the board, and can't ever recall having sat in on the same "board meeting"), on some pretty SOLID Legal Ground.
There is a general principle in the law that a court will resolve ALL AMBIGUITIES and OMISSIONS in FAVOR of the guys that wrote the contracts, because courts are loathe to further embarrass them, by pointing out that they drafted some pretty sloppy contracts/agreements.
It's just not good form for a judge to smack a lawyer when he's down.
You throw in a "will" and a "may," crack open a Black's Law Dictionary, and the Defendants walk away with the Pot o' Gold. Slam dunk. No questions asked.
This is something that "goes virtually misunderstood by" those outside the legal community, yet is something should be readily discernible given considerable thought by above average intelligence.
And to think that I misunderestimated you. My apologies.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
