6 % rojo que triste, quedan 2 semanas que es una eternidad en la bolsa para la buena noticia de los 4 B, tenia que bajar tuvo varios dias en alza, mañana esperemos que no baje mas
Eso no es nada...dos semanas pasan volando...
Hola a todos los wamusitos, soy nuevo en este foro (no así en inversiones especulativas, wamu desde hace más de 1año y otras tambien de más alto riesgo) lo sigo desde hace unas semanas y me parece muy interesante todo lo que aportais, la verdad es que os lo currais mucho. bueno bueno a ver si pasan pronto estas dos semanas y llevamos una alegria.
Subiendo otra vaz...qué miedo has pasado...
Cuéntanos algo...¿qué opinas de esto? ¿Qué crees que pasará?
Good evening everyone!
My thinking as of late has deviated from the 'commonalities' being shared on the boards regarding several items in discussion. Specifically Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
WEIL & Co.
1. Weil, Rosen and gang remain a 'top-notch' law firm with an exceptional track record of success and they have positioned WMI’s litigation against the perpetrators with exceptional clarity (despite the speed). They clearly served as the catalyst in setting the foundation for where we are now. They have made no errors in the court room and anything else from us regarding their behavior is really just pure speculation. Simple fact is that we expect/wish to receive restitution from JPMC and/or FDIC and Weil will play an instrumental part in accomplishing that goal. If Equity’s interest was not on their list of priorities previously, it will be now with the EC appointed and Assets soon to exceed Liabilities. So even if Weil requires the EC’s presence to do the “Right Thing” for Equity then be it. Point is Weil is one of the nation’s best legal firms and they are on our side of the legal fence.
2. It is possible that Weil was going to agree to shaft WMI equity, but has not been proven. Yes, Weil had opposed the appointment of the equity committee which COULD be very telling that he had 'other' plans that may have not included equity seeing a recovery. Yes, Rosen, specifically has pointed out in several statements that he does not see equity in the money. What we are not following is “WHY” he is saying this. Some here believe that maintaining Insolvency may be required for the WMI estate to recovery some of the ‘loses’ otherwise impossible to acquire if Solvent. Others believe that the Insolvency issue is to shaft the Equity Committee in some ‘underhanded’ fashion. The one step I’ve made recently since prior ‘beliefs’ is that the EC is appointed and the EC will fight tooth and nail to ensure Equity receives a ‘fair’ recovery. To hate Weil because we do not understand their MO or make statements about their ‘secret plans’ is unsuccessful in moving our cause forward.
3. Since the 'request to disband' from Weil many have put on their tinfoil hats and assumed that a settlement was in the works that would not have included Equity. Yet some of the most intelligent posters on this board and the yahoo board make statements that any settlement would be GLOBAL to satisfy all parties and put this matter/illegal seizure/transference/take-down to rest. Bopfan, as an example, has referenced the possibility/belief that even pre-seizure holders may be considered in a settlement to avoid further class-action litigation regarding the actions leading up to/at the time of/and after the seizure of WMB. I’m perplexed by the variations from post to post; specifically from Global Settlement beliefs to Settlement that shafted Equity. If we are to believe that there are smoking guns and that JPMC/FDIC/OTS (and whoever else) want this to go away because of possible criminal charges then why would we see a settlement that knocked out equity?
4. Weil’s recent filing IMO was nothing more than ‘normal procedure’. They had a request they submitted to the courts denied. They then had the right to file a response and did so. The response simple indicates that they disapproved the Judges ruling. The document (in my review) did not indicate that this matter is ever discussed again or that any responses should be expected. In my simple opinion this was an “I agree to disagree” type filing. The filing may also ensure that Weil has access to review their billings in a timely fashion should the EC ever decide to start pursuing/investigating the debtor’s counsel.
My overall points with this thread may not be warmly welcomed and I am fine with that. The goal in posting this is to present my interpretation of what we know. And what we do know is:
A. There are no facts that demonstrate Weil was going to agree to a settlement that would render Equity worthless
B. Weil’s recent filing asserts no new major claims nor does it require a response from the Judge or the EC
C. If Weil/Rosen is in bed with FDIC/JPMC he will have to reassess his position. The EC will be looking for cooperation and if
there are any signs of ‘resistance’, ‘collusion’, or ‘lack of Fiduciary Responsibility’ by Weil for the entire estate then
Venable will become an attack dog and Weil’s reputation will be in jeopardy.
Time may tell if Weil had neglected to speak for Equity in previous settlement negotiations. The Equity Committee holds a secure seat in this case and will be involved in the process. With the EC now involved (a possible NON-FRIENDLY) all parties must now ‘act accordingly’ (in regards to their responsibilities.) Inclusive in that group is the EC that has the responsibility of looking to ensure Equity’s interests are accounted for during negotiations and/or through litigation. At some time Weil and the EC will need to work together in order for things to progress.
Only time will tell how smoothly that process goes….
GLTA
LOVE YOU GUYS & GALS!
Hoy este post me ha hecho reflexionar ya que esas cosas que se nos escapan puede que sean la clave del motivo por el que Weil se ha comportado como lo ha hecho. No sabemos de la misa la mitad y de la estrategia legal de este caso mucho menos.
Weil por algo es la firma más alabada del mundillo, son los numero 1 de la clase.
Para poder argumentar la demanda de Frandulent Conveyance WMI tiene forzosamente que ser insolvente desde que se inicio esto hasta el día de hoy pero eso no significa que siempre lo tengamos que ser. Si fueramos solventes nuestro caso se iria a tomar viento y esas peticiones MultibillonaRIAS también... así que ¿y si nos estamos equivocando por nuestro desconocimiento de la realidades técnicas para argumentar nuestra posición?
Weil must argue to show the harm the FC did to WMI by the FDIC/JPM. I also feel it is very worthwhile to show that we are not “hopelessly insolvent” and that future moneys are coming are way to make us whole to justify the EC.
Currently insolvent, but not hopelessly insolvent
Voy a dar el beneficio de la duda tras la entrada de nuestros abogados de VENABLE el 22 Feb para ver que ocurre desde ese momento... preguntaros esto.
¿si a WEIL le importaba un carajo el EC porque estuvo presente (Rosen) el día de las votaciones para su elección con el UST? ¿ayudaron al UST a elegir los miembros en las entrevistas o fueron un mero espectador?
Creo que aun no sabemos todo lo que ocurre entre bambalinas pero cada vez ya queda menos para salir de dudas... mientras tanto no suelto ni una acción hasta que esto llegue a su destino dorado.
Mr. Simpson, ¿quién ha escrito la reflexión que has posteado?
La verdad es que tiene razón; yo alguna vez me he parado a pensar si WEIL en realidad no estuviera CONTRA EL EC (sus mociones para que denegaran el EC eran muy flojas, para ser los números 1).
El otro día estuve leyendo todos los casos que lleva WEIL y es para asustarse. Creo que también están (por ejemplo) llevando el caso de la quiebra del primer banco de Islandia...
Pero de todos modos, sus actuaciones poco transparentes invitan a pensar en teorías de la conspiración, ¿no?
VENABLE por ejemplo parece que son más de 'acoso y derribo'. Ahora acaban de ganar un caso de un banco contra la FDIC, ¿no? Estos deben de ser los 'perros de presa' para la sala de juicios.
Bueno, otro aburrido día que nos queda por delante... (buenos días a todos, por cierto)
