Acceder
  1. Inicio
  2. Perfil de Inversor71
  3. Participaciones

Participaciones del usuario Inversor71

Inversor71 23/08/11 20:29
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
No se porque Besugo y Maxi tratan que convencernos que solo ellos pueden tener la razón y todos los que piensan en forma contraria están equivocados. Sigo insistiendo a mi modo de ver lo fundamental de este caso es: 1) Establecer si se cometió un perjucio en todo este proceso de WAMU en lo que se refiere a los meses previos al cierre; durante y posterior al cierre cierre del Banco. 2) Si la respuesta es negativa; es clarísmo que los accionistas no tienen ninguna posibilidad de conseguir algo. 3) Si la respuesta es positiva; también está claro que los accionistas tienen posibilidades ; ya sea pequeñas, medianas o grandes de conseguir réditos de está situación.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 27/07/11 21:22
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Submission for inclusion in the record of supplemental list of nominal weekly average 1-year constant maturity yield: the federal judgment rate (6/24/2011 – 7/22/2011) and waterfall impact applying contract and federal judgment rate: august 31, 2011 emergence http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110727000000000001.pdf
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 25/07/11 19:00
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Maxi Yo eschucho las versiones tuyas ( esepticas del caso) y la de muchos foristas americanos ( nadie en especial ) ( algunas conservadoras, algunas negativas y otras positivas ). Y luego de eschuchar todas las versiones posibles , a lo largo de muchos meses . yo tengo mi propia interpretación y apreciación del mismo . Además los posts que copio del foro americano son los que coinciden con mi línea de apreciación del caso. Mi objetivo no es inducir a nadie que piense igual a mí o demostrar que tal o cuál persona esta equivocada o tiene la razón. Solo el tiempo dirá si tome una buena o malo decisión y punto. Personalmente pienso que tú y Simpson tienen puntos de vista y reflexiones distintas del caso. Pero eso a mi modo de ver no significa que uno de ustedes tiene la " verdad absoluta y el otro está totalmente equivocado. Este caso a mi modo de ver ha tenido muchas vueltas y personalmente todavía sigo pensando que va ver un resultado positivo para los accionistas.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 23/07/11 00:58
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Coffey was strong. It takes balls to stand up and not get ruffled under pressure, like he did. His comebacks were quick. Rosen has been in her bed. His conversations and assertions are incestuously familial, if anything, by the way he leads her by the hand in court, like the dance of a lover. Kosturos sounds like a John Malkovich on the stand. Kinda creepy... I'm glad she did the right thing by admitting the report
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 23/07/11 00:57
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
There may not have been any one huge hit out of the park but there were some very good ones that got a lot of evidence admitted. I think almost all of the testimony should be listened to again to pick up on the discrepancies and the points our EC lawyers and the TPS lawyers got before the Judge. Especially since they don't go "woo-hoo" after they catch someone in a discrepancy or they manage to get their point across or evidence admitted!! Except Sargent ... I've got to listen again to his cross yesterday. Not sure if it was of Mulwani or Kosturos when he got some evidence admitted and he said "It can? Okay". You could tell in his voice he was happy to get it in as evidence. My non-legal opinion is this mountain of documents that EC and TPS got admitted this past week can be brought into their appeals if this is not all resolved in the BK court. It is a ton more than in the first confirmation hearing.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 23/07/11 00:55
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Rosen about had a cow when Coffey asked Kosturos if there was enough claims to get the $97MM shortfall covered. In other words, if there is enough money in the D&O from those two years of funds that Kosturos mentioned and WMI can collect that and pay the creditors/SNHs the $97MM, they are OUT of the game!!! The control then belongs to Equity. " Gee ...charlien.....thats true....again, there has been so much in this case to digest....I just was not able to connect the dots here ...as you point out..!! This is a Major event..... no wonder rosie was whining like a baby....I did think Coffey was up to something when he keep pressing Kosturos for a value for those D&O claims and mentioning datapoints....but now you have enabled my eyes to OPEN!! what was behind this line of questioning...and Kosturos played right into his(Coffey's) hand when repeating he did not know of any value...nor debtors ...nor any analysis to valuate these claims....AND NOW WE ALL KNOW WHY!!! thanks for starting the thread on this and I am going back to re-listen.....with a big smile on my face!!! good luck WaMuers..
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 23/07/11 00:53
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Everyone should try to spend at least 10 minutes or so and listen to that again. It was amazing how he worked to get the WMI claims datapoints from the Senate hearing admitted to the Judge so she would have an approximate value to consider for those claims since Kosturos and Goulding both testified they didn't know how much they are worth. Coffey -- totally relentless. Rosen about had a cow when Coffey asked Kosturos if there was enough claims to get the $97MM shortfall covered. In other words, if there is enough money in the D&O from those two years of funds that Kosturos mentioned and WMI can collect that and pay the creditors/SNHs the $97MM, they are OUT of the game!!! The control then belongs to Equity. Is that what others understood? Coffey's cross begins at @ 4:50 and gets really heated at @ 5:00 when Coffey tells Rosen he took that Marta claim out at that certain Omnibus hearing and his still claiming it is "cute"!! Just too funny!! Total Rosen slap down!! One other thing ... listen to who Kosturos lists as potential lawsuits using the litigation trust funds? No one with much money compared to JPM or FDIC!! But then he doesn't value litigation claims!! http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Hearing/
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 22/07/11 19:53
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Viv's post is one of the best I've seen in ages. He's spot on about what's confronting the court. It is my belief that the court knows she was misled before the last confirmation, but she's keeping that to herse lf. I don't believe for an instant that either WMI/Wei lor the SNs are sanguine about the outcome of these hearings. The EC has methodically discredited them on go od faith with respect to every issue, and Walrath has been left with the reality that the world's premier bankruptcy group (and its premier restructuring firm, Alvarez_&_Marsal) (1) tried to make a fool of her, and (2) very nearly destroyed equity simply to make JPM happy. Viv doesn't surmise the court's future decision, but I will. There is the possibility that she will appoint a trustee to sift the case to the bottom, which would include reigniting litigation in the D.C. District Court. Her other, milde alternative, is dispossession th e SNs of the portion of their claims obtained through I T as well as imposing the FJR on the other debtholders who were complicit with them, there by neutering all wrongdoing stakeholders. The latter remedy would still leave the issues of_JPM and (a) its preseizure activities, and (b) its wanton manipulation of the plan process (i.e., between the EC's examination of the SNs and the SNs willingness to rat out JPM as the puppetmaster, this has been established). In the case of (a) the business torts wouldb e litigated before Judge Collyer. In th e case of (b) JPM's objective to get the case settled under the highly advantageous terms of the GSA will have been thwarted. However, as the_corruption is so pervasive and deep-r ooted I'm not sure the court can take the second alternative by itself because the EC has so thoroughly expose d the machinations of WGM and A&M. There is another possibility, which is a mixture of t he two alternatives. It entails the court disallowing the portion of the SNs' claims obtained through IT, imp osing the FJR, and compelling JPM to turn over the $4B to WMI. She would also nullify her ruling on the GSA in light of the IT and misdeeds, ANICO, and Stern. In l ight of Weil's and A&M's actions, she would appoint a trustee to move the case forward including determiningt he feasibility of litigation in the D.C. courts on the business torts and/or FIRREA, and proposal of a plan consistent with the new landscape. This is actually the easiest course for her (i.e., clean up the dirt in case currently, and hand over the 'clean' case to a trustee), and I think there's a good chance she'll take it
Ir a respuesta