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

lo siento...no tengo ni p. idea de lo que llevais hablando durante 2230 post... a mí las H sólo me suenan a H..uevos o a H..putas con perdón (y humor)
Saludos y suerte con los jueces

Las H es es diminutivo de WAHUQ
Las P es el de WAMPQ
Las K el de WAMKQ

Ahora mismo por aqui anda el juego en la mediacion si es que se llega a avanzar algo.

Comunes WAMUQ estan relegadas hasta que no se conviertan en un conejo blanco lleno de pruebas incriminatorias que salgan de la chistera del EC.

Quote from: Gator on October 06, 2011, 06:48:41 PM
Yes, but the seniors will be getting more than their "cap" from to money flowing up from PIERS due to the subordination clause. Likewise, PIERS should also get more than their "cap" from money flowing up from equity due to the other subordination clause.

Ideally that is how this should be resolved. PIERS shouldn't be wiped out while preferreds (and possibly commons) own NewCo. Due to equity's subordination to PIERS, equity should share NewCo with PIERS, in the amount needed to make it whole.

If the trustee just puts forth a little effort, I'm sure this will be resolved in a fair and equitable way. I will try to call him this week and find out who will be representing retail in mediation.

absolutely and completely off.. the court doesn't care as long as all the seniors+subs+PIERS gets is their principal + FJR. as far as the court is concerned, PIERS shouldn't get more than their "cap". and she ruled that way.

but that isn't how this will be resolved. it will be resolved by the debtors giving away PIERS recovery to the seniors to fill that gap before PIERS see cent 1, and the court has already indicated she's ambivalent about it.

call tomorrow, week's over after that, and time matters. ask about equitable subordination while you're at it.. when does he plan on bringing that up?

no, PIERS don't have a claim against equity. because the court said they didn't. there is an amount that is reserved to pay PIERS in full, but the debtors will take from that to pay off the gap. how many times do i have to say it? read the debtors recent "statement".. pages 11 and 12

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229111003000000000005.pdf

You can bet at this point SG will not be asking for Assets settled in the GSA. In no specific order...

1) Based on colorable case for IT, all SNH must forfeit claims to the estate, approx $3.1B
2) Consideration will be given for new disclosure that implicates GSA participants as complicit.
3) Big K is out of everything.
4) Summary judgment on IT before considering new GSA/POR

Jajajajajajaja.

how does this affect payment to WAHUQ holders?

First, I have trouble with Rosen's announced plan about equity getting WMMRC. Let me explain. If the estate was going to give equity WMMRC (valued at 160m), how would this have affected the WAHUQ holders? At the time, we know that equity was slightly out of the money, but even further out if contract rate was still part of that plan. So, without that 160m value, the WAHUQ holders may have only received around 25-30% of face (around $8-10), but may have received some debt or equity stake in the reorganized company due to the shortfall. Could Rosen and SNHs shaft all WAHUQ holders by giving something to equity to end the IT allegations?

So here we are again. Now, in mediation, we expect that we are in the same situation, but in a much stronger position with the Judge's opinion regarding these IT allegations.

If SNHs agree to give up claim to WMMRC, this directly affects the claims of innocent WAHUQ holders as this money is being shifted to a lower class. There is a catch to this possibility based on the Judge's opinion. I am pretty sure she stated that any money recovered from SNHs either through disallowance or actual money received from SNHs would flow to the estate first for distribution. The problem with this is that the SNHs actually would be paying themselves unless they had their WAHUQ claims disallowed. For example, if the SNHs decided to pay 500m to the estate to settle the IT allegations, that money would actually go to WAHUQ first before reaching equity - SNHs paying themselves. This cannot work!

Thinking more about this. I anticipate that the Judge (if she had to rule on this IT thing) would, at a minimum, disallow all WAHUQ claims by the SNHs. It is the only way that makes sense so that the money will flow down the waterfall to equity. Of course, this means that WMMRC would go to equity and innocent WAHUQ holders would not be harmed (getting 100% minus how the contractual subordination plays out which could mean 100% all the way down to 0%).

We have no idea just what actual value is at risk from the SNHs, whether it is 1b or several billion based on timing of purchases, profitability of trades, etc. We can be sure that their ownership of WAHUQ carry the most risk. We can be sure that there are many other questionable trades that have been made. We can also be sure that they negotiated for their own benefit and not the estates such as the shady deal to receive 50m for TPS securities they held. EC and Susman team should not settle for anything less than full WAHUQ disallowance AND some additional cash payment. These combined should be no less than 750m in value IMO.
Rating :

Deja de decir idioteces sobre las H´s, los minoritarios no se veran afectados en la distribucion. En cuanto a los votos no sirve de nada comprar para votar ya que los SNH tienen el 70% de las acciones bajo control o sea que cuenta otra historia como que las demás preferentes se eliminaran antes que las H´s, no percibiendo ni un solo dolar en cuanto la juez despeje el camino del IT donde no parece que se pueda demostrar ninguna manipulacion como quiere hacer ver Susman.

Besugo ahora vas a darnos clases de litigios tb? Confio ciegamente en nuestro equipo de abogados antes que en alguien que se deja influenciar por un grupo de fondos buitre acusados de Insider Trading y sus estrategias.
Esto no ha terminado asi q disfruta de tu fin de semana no se te vayan a terminar atragantando tus H :)