Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

Al parecer si no hubiera habido un error "muy calculado" por parte de Rosen y sus especialistas, esta vez los activos ya habrian superado a los pasivos por lo que las Preferentes WAMPQ deberian valer entre $200 - $300.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
the basis of 200-300 for WAMPQ as discussed in yahoo board is that someone found weird things in POR V6.
according to POR, 70percent of the second tax refund goes to WMI and 30percent goes to FDIC.

"The Debtors currently estimate that the Second Portion of the Tax Refunds will be approximately $2.8 billion, approximately $1.95 billion of which would be allocated to the Debtors’ estates, including any distribution that may be payable to those holders of WMB Senior Notes that elect to grant the releases provided in the Plan."

but as we have seen from IRS settlement agreement, the second tax refund is 4.6B, and 70% of it is around 3.2B, which exceeds the 1.95B by more than 1B. and I think that additional 1B definitely makes A>L.

¿Pero de verdad crees que ha sido un error muy calculado o más bien piensas que ha sido un fallo?

Yo creo que ha sido un despiste aunque tiene fácil solución.Simplemente tienen que aumentar el porcentaje de impuestos a regalar y ya está.Oía cosas es que el examiner a estas alturas de la película no esté viendo ya que todo es una tomadura de pelo para que la equidad nunca vea la luz del dinero, pero pienso que eso se va a acabar.Como he dicho muchas veces el problema de este caso es que hay demasiado dinero... Tiempo al tiempo

Ptolomeo: Estaba escribiendo irónicamente :)
Esto es infumable pero ya lo han pillado... para que se apruebe el día 18 oct el DS tendrian que tratarse las 600 objeciones que se han registrado así que ahora toca esperar que va a hacer la Juez Walrath.

I just hope our examiner has real numbers / assest valuation A>L, or else we are in a hole.

Gibson and co have put out lots of numbers which make sense but their validity is questionable. see below, half of which will go to WMI, and we already know that number, 4B plus the tax refund.

Remaining if validated by examiner may come to WAMU,( what is that number), that is what we want examiner to show us. Hope it is in excess of 10B for common to get few dollars..

Deposits: 4B
Tax refunds: 5.7B
NOL carryforwards--8.5B (2.8B in avoided taxes later)
Capital Contributions: 6.5B
Taxes paid for WMB by WMI: 3.1B
WMI Investments *1.4B
Visa shares plus divvies *.25B
WMMRC: *.6B
Capital Losses: 9.1B in avoided taxes, questionable
Deposit interest: .15B
Other transfers: by WMI to WMB: 3.4B
Intercompany Accounts: owed by WMB to WMI: .7B
Taxes: paid by WMI on behalf of WMB: 3B
Intellectual property: 6B
D&O Insurance: *2B
Tower Insurance: ???
VISA strategic agreement: ???
Partnership in Wind farms: Unknown percentage of *.85B
Real estate: 550 OWNED Properties *value unknown
Trust Securities: 4B
Intercompany loans: .18B
Fraudulent transfers from WMI to WMB: 3.4B
Intercompany Accounts owed by WMB to WMI: .7B

"Los deudores actualmente estiman que la segunda parte de los reembolsos de impuestos será aproximadamente 2,8 mil millones de dólares, 1,95 mil millones de dólares de los cuales se asignarían a de fincas los deudores, incluida cualquier distribución que sea pagadera a los titulares de WMB Senior Notes que eligen para conceder las versiones previstas en el plan." pero como hemos visto desde el acuerdo de solución del IRS, la segunda devolución de impuestos es 4.6B, y el 70% es de alrededor de 3.2B, que supera los 1.95B por más de 1 mil millones. y creo que ese 1B adicionales definitivamente hace A > l. "

Al margen de todas las partidas a reclamar que no se sabe si alguna o ninguna incluirá el examiner, no me cuadra actualmente que el mercado no prevea que solo con los Nols presentes y futuros tal como exponen ya se cubren lo pasivos de sobra.
Hasta ver el informe no hay que fiarse del resultado.Esperemos que no haya gato encerrado como en el célebre marzo.

vene, es tan claro que es obvio que hay que escapar antes del derrumbe
no creo que un par de foristas con sueños de justicia sean mas inteligentes que todo el mercado, incluyendo el JPM, uno de los bancos mas grandes del mundo
y aclaro, no se trata de la verdad (todos sabemos que WAMU fue robo), sino de poder comprobarla con pruebas y con una justicia independiente (dos cosas que creo no contamos)

No creo que sea tan así. Sabemos que fue robo, existe justicia en USA (con alguna debilidad) y creo que nuestro mejor futuro debe ser salir de nuestras acciones con alguna ganancia. Ahora todo eso, debe tener un comienzo de respuesta el 18 de octubre, donde no entiendo las razones por las que se fijó audiencia para resolver el DS.
Saludos

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_W/threadview?bn=86316&tid=563597&mid=564326

Bopfan Wrote: {copied with their standard permission for bi-directional copying}

When you've got no helpful cards, you bluff, then go down in flames. In most cases that just entails losing the case or the controversy. In this case it will entail disgorging money and professional discipline against one or more attorneys at a nationally recognized law firm. The humiliation in the New York Law Journal will be piled on as gravy.

When you have a winning hand in the law (i.e., you represent a defendant and the plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations), you get what we call 'judgment on the pleadings'. When you don't have a slam dunk but the court might be persuaded to side with you, you fight like crazy. When you have no chance of winning, well, again, you bluff.

WMI and Weil know that everyone in this case knows that the plans/DS' they've submitted have no chance of being approved. None.

If WMI were truly insolvent (i.e., hopelessly insolvent), there would be no EC and no examiner. Weil lost much of its power in January when the EC was formed. It lost ALL of its power when the court reversed herself and appointed the examiner. It is trying to save its face, nothing more, as it knows that the examiner's report will be a scathing indictment of the firm depicting in vivid detail myriad ethical breaches against WMI's equity constituent (i.e., Weil's TRUE client) on a scale that has probably not been seen at the American commercial bar due to the enormity of the losses WMI equity would have suffered.

In the public eye the firm is proceeding as though it and WMI are still in control. Behind the scenes Marcia Goldstein and other senior Weil management are bracing themselves for the worst and trying to figure out how to (1) keep as much of the billings as possible and (2) frame arguments with the NY bar disciplinary committee to minimize damage (i.e., limit sanctions to Rosen, only). If I were in Weil's position these two issues would be my utmost concern.

While a state bar might usually be satisfied with one goat, in the instant case, given the thousands of letters that will be filed in support of discipline against the three Weil partners and Tal, the NY bar will probably cast its net wider as I've discussed at length.