No te equivoques Belleza-Simpson, no tengo interes que el valor se desplome, solo voy a aprovecha si ocurre, lo mismo que si fuese al alza, deja ya de ponerme a mi y a Maximunae de opositores y tu de victima, que tanto el como yo podemos estar largo en las acciones que podamos ver oportunidad de ganar. La victima no eres tu son los que dejaste pillados el 12 de marzo con tus bombeos. Cada vez que me des la vara te lo voy a recordar.
Busca en este hilo. Ya puse los archivos de donde se extrae la información.
Lo que se diga en un foro no sirve, lo que cuentan son noticias o objeciones donde se refleja lo que se afirma.
Si es POR 6.x
for one or all of the following:
1) Rosen is already talking POR 7, not tweaks to 6.
2) The SNs have seen a draft order to compel IT depos if POR 7 does not go forward.
3) POR 6 is vulnerable due to SN IT/bad faith negotiations.
4) POR 6 does not have all assets listed nor are listed assets properly valued when compared to PJS numbers.
5) FJR or worse awaits POR 6.
6) The EC has an appeal pending on THJMW's F&R GSA ruling.
If so, look what needs to happen in POR 7 to minimally correct the above:
1) POR 7 needs a disclosure statement, objections, hearing, POR, objections, hearings, opinion. We are basically back to square one and looking at another 4-6 months.
2) The EC needs to provide a report to the court that no IT took place. Not sure how they can do that if no depos were taken, but the EC needs convince the court there is nothing to see there and release the SNs.
3) Same as #2 in that the EC has to not go down the bad faith GSA negotiation path.
4) Rosen either needs to update/alter his estate valuation per PJS numbers OR find a way to prevent the EC from bringing up valuations so no valuation battle ensues.
5) Same as #2 in that no IT found by the EC means no FJR.
6) The EC needs to withdraw their appeal of F&R GSA and all BK recourse is extinguished.
Sure looks like the EC is Rosen's new center of the universe now. So, why would the EC cooperate and do all of the above for a POR 7 that on it's face seems to have little value and completely lets the adversaries off the hook and lets JPM/FDIC AND the SN/HSs just walk off with what they have? Just ain't no way folks.
First time in a filing
Page 16/86
Point 59
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110609000000000003.pdf
Por supuesto también susceptible de mejora
The GSA gets JPM what it wants: to pay nothing AND to have its liability to the FDIC under the P&A limited. However, if JBerg is right, it does NOT give the FDIC what it wants because after confirmation WMI (under the control of Mike Willingham and Susman) will sue FDIC-C in Judge Collyer's court for tens of billions $, and the FDIC will have no recourse against JPM.
From the FDIC's perspective, the GSA has to be revised to keep JPM on the hook (which essentially means the current GSA isn't worth the paper it's printed on) or the FDIC must secure a release for FDIC-C. If so, it means that the FDIC must pay equity consideration for that release.
The fact that no extension of the GSA has been announced is of great interest. If the FDIC has the concern I've described then the GSA must be amended. JPM will never agree to alter the GSA to keep the P&A alive post-confirmation to allow the price of the WMB assets to be increased, which is the recourse against JPM the FDIC would need if FDIC-C gets hit with a $50B verdict in Judge Collyer's court. Since JPM will never agree to virtually unlimited liability and the FDIC doesn't want that exposure, either, some payoff for the FDIC-C release must be on the table. Again, all this assumes JBerg is correct and the EC has followed up.
If JBerg is on to something it'll be extended -- with modifications.
Gracias Simpson. Lo cortés no quita lo valiente.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "bad faith" rots further within the GSA tree. If the hedgies wanted only NewCo they might have just given away the entire farm in order to retain NewCo+NOL's and a supposed quick confirmation.
Why would the hedgies push Rosen to fight the FDIC? All loose ends cleaned up; Hedgies get NewCo; "Rosen please stop".
Why would the hedgies push Rosen to have no ruling on the $4B deposit? All loose ends cleaned up; Hedgies get NewCo; "Rosen please stop".
etc.
Seems like a lot of bad faith was possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=86316&tid=770063&mid=770467&tof=5&rt=1&frt=2&off=1
check out goldman and UBS, representin'
no, i'm right there with you.. there's over 30 funds that have been represented by White & Case, and at one point they stated they held $3.1B in WMI debt. if the SNH's held $1.2B worth of subordinate and jr subordinate notes, it's not hard to figure out what these guys held.
oh, look at that.. i have a list handy..
Advent Capital Management
Aurelius Capital Management, LP
Banc of America Securities LLC
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Concordia Advisors LLC
Davidson Kempner Capital
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Durham Asset Management L.L.C.
Elliott Associates L.P.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Goldentree Asset Management LP
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
Gruss Asset Management
Halcyon Asset Management LLC
Ivory Capital
King Street Capital Management
Kingstown Capital Management LLC
KS Capital Partners, L.P.
Latigo Partners, L.P.
Longacre Fund Management, LLC
Luxor Capital Group, L.P.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
Marathon Special Opportunity Master Fund, Ltd.
Och-Ziff Capital Management Group
Onex Credit Partners, LLC
One East Partners
Ore Hill Hub Fund Ltd.
Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P.
P. Schoenfield Asset Management TJX)
Satellite Asset Management, L.P.
Serengeti Asset Management LP
Silver Point Cupital LLC
Stone Lion Portfolio L.P.
Taconic Capital Advisors LP
Talos Capital Limited
The Children's Investment Master Fund
Third Point LLC
UBS Securities LLC
Valinor Capital Management, LLC
Venor Capital Management LP
VSO Capital
