Acceder
  1. Inicio
  2. Perfil de Inversor71
  3. Contenidos recomendados por Inversor71

Contenidos recomendados por Inversor71

Inversor71 08/07/11 18:54
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
yes bop....WaMuers have been fortunate in the delays that have take place to date (almost 3 years)....as such events have only strenghten equity's position in combating the adversarial teams.... Where if THJMW would have blocked equity long ago we no longer would even be here at this point and probably a FINAL DECREE would have already been adjudged.... The recent events must have debtors/WGM/SNHs/JPM/FDIC more concerned than at any other point in the history of this case.... THJMW could use the STERN/ANICO decisions to justify her reconsidering her previous F&R/GSA and give her some shelter to now go foward in the correct manner allow a higher court to assist...
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 29/06/11 18:06
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Aurelius was the most belligerent in their objections to the ec's motion to compel and termed it nothing but a 'shakedown.' Based on their counsel's complete stonewalling in front of a federal judge, they appear to be in even more trouble than the EC has alleged. Their counsel said it would take 'months and months' to produce the documents that the ec has requested but also argued that they have already produced nearly everything that the ec has requested. Their arguments against the motion appears to boil down to 1) we are innocent, 2) it will take a long time, 3) there's no need...see 1), and 4) we know we have not done anything wrong. There is no way they are going to avoid having to produce this information and the judge is angry enough that she may order federal marshalls to pay and visit and help them with their document production. There is something MAJOR wrong here for Aurelius to take this kind of approach. No idea what yet, but they appear to be fighting out of desperation over something. I hope it's some sort of improper relationship with JPM Chase Bank and/or the debtors
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 23/06/11 17:16
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
MR SIMPSON Te recomiendo que no te desgastes, por las opiniones de foristas que ven el caso de otra perspectiva, o que se pasan lamentándose todo el tiempo por las personas que perdieron por haber comprado en los niveles más altos. Personalmente quiero felicitarte y agradecerte por habernos compartido este caso; ya que de otra forma no hubiésemos tenido la oportunidad de vivir un caso tan interesante de BK como este. He seguido el caso desde hace 2 años y he tenido la oportunidad de vivir las diferentes etapas que ha tenido este caso. Pero aparte de esto, algo muy valioso ha sido el aporte permanente que has tenido en el foro y de muchos foristas americanos que no han dado el brazo a torcer y de esta forma han logrado que los accionistas, todavía mantengamos la expectativa de lograr un resultado beneficioso en este caso. La lucha no ha sido fácil. Hemos encontrado un sinnúmero de dificultades, pero poder compartir y conocer de cerca las opiniones de los foristas, las estrategias adoptadas por los involucrados en el caso, las circunstancias que rodean a WAMU, le vuelven a este caso; único en la historia.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 15/06/11 00:08
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
The Case for a Multilateral, Holistic Solution (1) I’ve said multiple times this case call for a multilateral, holistic solution. I’ve also discussed my reasoning for it on several occasions. In summary, (1) IT charges tainted the “good faith” aspect of GSA. As Nate said in WSJ “it was unfair that hedge funds were able to eventually negotiate on behalf of trust preferred holders, seeing as they were also bondholders and involved in settlement talks. He questioned whether they were acting in all of the preferred holders' best interests.” Clearly, it’s not just unfair, but also an action of lack of good faith on the part of SNHs (Interestingly, Nate’s last comment is closely resonant with EC’s argument “the Debtors failed to consider the interests of all stakeholders”, which was voiced in the closing argument at Dec. hearing). However, the impact of “good faith” argument on GSA as a whole, imo, is limited. This observation, I admit, is different from my previous thinking on the same issue. Previously, I thought IT charges, once proved, will show GSA was not negotiated in good faith, and therefore it should be tossed out. I’m now thinking this argument has its limitations. The Judge’s opinion of “fair and reasonable” was based on the compromise between the debtors, JPM, and FDIC. That is the core of GSA. JPM, FDIC, and the debtors are likely able to insulate GSA from the fallout of “good faith” argument by declaring (proving if necessary) they had nothing to do with SNHs’ insider trading activities, and had been negotiating with one another in good faith. That’s a huge burden of proof on the shoulders of the adversaries to prove it otherwise. For GSA parties, it is ideal to isolate the impact to NewCo. Keep in mind, Nate’s initial charge was directed at Piers (H) shares and the reorganized company. To have broader impact on GSA, good faith argument alone is not enough. You need to have FJR and equitable disallowance at play too. We know EC has done researches on both issues, and can argue about them in the court on behalf of shareholders. However, the decisions on those two issues, especially equitable disallowance, were entirely in the hands of the court. Since no party knows for sure the strength of EC’s investigations and arguments as seen in the eyes of the court, it’s a risky move to go the litigation route for any party when facing such uncertainty. Both Equity and SNHs have their chances to either win big time, or conversely, lose hugely. If the court side with Equity on all IT accounts, it can shake the core of GSA, which will place shareholders and JPM, FDIC in a face to face battle and maneuvering. No one likes uncertainty with so much at stake. It’s therefore necessary and smart move to have all parties come together, sweeten the pot for Equity and other left-out parties (in other words, adjusting GSA) to make the whole mess go away. This is one of the reasons that call for a multilateral, holistic solution. (That being said, contrary to some misleading claims, IT charges have not been taken off the table by EC, neither is the debtors’ POR 6. Both battles will be very unpredictable, especially for shareholders if parties choose to fight rather than talk (e.g. settlement talks fall apart in the unfortunate event). I maintain the view that the changes in control of WMMRC from SNHs to equity holders will bring the pressure on JPM and FDIC. Seeing the chance of shareholders in control of a valid organization from impossibility to near reality, in my view, is enough to get both JPM and FDIC’s attention and concern. As long as we do not give up releases no matter what form of organization and funding shareholders hold (NewCo or Litigation Trust), we are a threat to them. The key is Releases. Remember, in her opinion, the Court is sided with the equity on this issue. I doubt EC and Susman will give up the Releases so easily without first forcing some concessions from JPM and FDIC. Of course, JPM and FDIC always have the option and resources to declare war on Equity by refusing making any concessions. As I said, this is a major puzzle that remains to be seen. However, do we get their attentions? Yes. I believe so. As charlien and others pointed out there were ten JPM legal and company reps who either attended in person or listened in to 06/08 hearing, they sure have concerns (about the emerging new deals). This is another reason, I believe, that call for a multilateral, holistic solution to end this madness. Because of my previous background, I tend to look at the current case development from the perspectives of power struggle and power maneuvering. I could be terribly wrong. But, this is the best possible guesstimation I can come up with based on cold reasoning but without any inside knowledge of what’s happening behind the closed doors. Treat it with a grain of salt.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 13/06/11 21:52
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Estimada Chikis Sería importante que leas este tema en el foro de yahoo, porque existe algunas interpretacionescon respecto a esta información http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=86316&tid=769071&mid=769071&tof=13&frt=2 saludos
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 09/06/11 17:35
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
MR Simpson Comparto con que hoy en día; las probabilidades de una recuperación hacía la equidad son mayores. Por lo siguiente: 1) Por primera vez durante estos casi tres años, se confirma por parte de Rosen que han estado en diálogos con la Equidad. . 2) Cuál es la razón de este cambio tan radical de postura por parte de los debtors. 3) El demorarse en llegar a un acuerdo ; posiblemente se debe a que la EC no está conforme con la propuesta planteada por ROSEN Y CÍA. 4) El no aceptar la Equidad cualquier propuesta por parte de Rosen ; podría significar que SUSMAN tiene importantes elementos y pruebas incriminatorias , como para intentar lograr una mejor acuerdo para los accionistas y no contentarse con cualquier cosa. Saludos
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 04/06/11 03:41
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
HOLA MR SIMPSON Te quería hacer varias consultas: 1) Que paso con la votación; les podría afectar en algo a los accionistas que no votaron. Entiendo que muchas accionistas se abstuvieron de votar por falta de información. 2) En el caso de que se llegué a un acuerdo con algún beneficio para los accionistas. En ese momento las acciones dejan de cotizarse y si es así como se pagará a los accionistas. 3) A si mismo si se llegará a algún acuerdo para los accionistas (como las que se comenta entregar participaciones en una nueva compañia). En ese caso las acciones actuales que tememos los accionistas de WAMPQ,WAMKQ,WAMUQ, se remplazarían AUTOMATICAMENTE por las de la nueva compañia . 4) En el caso de que se reemplacen las acciones de WAMU por las de la nueva compañia; estas acciones que reemplazan a las anteriores se cotizarían normalmente en la bolsa. Te agradezco de antemano por tus aclaraciones.
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 25/04/11 20:58
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Leaving the Board (1) It’s not worthy it for me to continue to post on this board or any other board. I’ve never feared of JPMC, FDIC, the debtors/WMG, and hedgies during this fight. But I have found out I was often fed up with our own panics, endless blame games, and our own stupidity. This is a monumental fight. No one expects it easy. Since the formation of EC in early 2010, six out of seven original EC members have resigned for various reasons. We’ve got one member (the Chair) hanging there throughout all this time, now we blame him for our difficulties or “misrepresentation”. By this logic, this lone member should resigned long ago too so he can avoid the witch hunt but to let shareholders see their cause get crashed many months ago (I think Rosen would be overjoyed if Mr. Willingham resigned several months ago or even earlier). I don’t follow this kind of logic. It’s the court-appointed examiner claimed the debtors’ GSA “fair and reasonable”. It’s also the court’s opinion that GSA is “fair and reasonable”. Unfortunately, we lay blame on those who fought hard for us. I think recent declining prices of Hs and prfs. (especially Hs since many longs hold it as safety insurance) rattled a lot of nerves. People need scapegoats. EC and its counsel are the easy targets. It’s both disturbing and disheartening. I thought the purpose of adding new EC members is to strengthen not to divide EC. I also consider it a good thing to have checks and balances on the inner workings of EC. However, I hear people have already started trying to ignite in-fighting within EC, and talked about removing EC Chair and its counsel. To do this at this stage, it’s not just ungrateful but suicidal. I will not associate myself with such acts, and without certain amount of unity, I don’t think I want to be a contributor to the board any more. Just remember, it’s EC who stopped the POR. It’s also EC who forced the Debtors’ expert witness to recognize there are substantially higher amount of NOLs available to the estate at December hearings, which opened another door to keep us in the fight. EC’s motions for Appeal and Insider trading investigations filed shortly after this January are nothing but stellar. I’ve great respect to Nate Thoma, whom I consider smart, articulate, highly-focused and organized, and professional. Don’t forget EC picked up his fight promptly and its presentation on 2/8 was brilliant too. It’s a common effort to get us this far. I have many people to thank for, including bopfan, sgt, madhawn, lawrence, larry888, to name just a few. After the seizure, I was at complete loss. Without those people’s efforts, I could have given up long ago. It took me more than a year to study and learn the case from the board (I didn’t register on the board until 11/2009). Like I said, I'm a grateful person, and will be forever grateful to each and every EC member, past and present, M. Willingham included, and to Susman team no matter what the final outcome will be. I am also thankful to many people who appreciated my posts and encouraged my effort on this and (very recently) on ghost board. I have strong conviction that we will win in the end with some forms of compensation, but not without a united fighting front. Throughout my adult life, I have seen enough self-destructions ranging from personal matters, professional sports, to international affairs, and domestic disasters. I’m usually able to separate emotions from analysis of events, and good at it (I had proven that long ago during the last years of the Cold War). That’s not to say I’m feeling-less. During the past two and half years, I found myself in tears at least three times. The first time was when I learned that Joyce, with a few helpers, almost single-handedly made the EC a reality. Considering my background of coming from a communist totalitarian regime, I was deeply touched and impacted by the force and fighting spirits of common people for justice and their rights. I shed tears over it. It was around that moment I decided to join the fight (I registered on yahoo board right around the time of that “exigent circumstances” ). The second time was after one of earlier court hearing in which Mr. Susman personally attended. I remember govinsider posted the attendance sheet. I read the sheet, sawing all lawyers except Susman firm representing big and powerful: JPMC, FDIC, the debtors, the hedge funds, even TPS and Black Horses. For Susman’s reputation, he’s not lacking any big money clients. But, his firm chose to represent us common equity holders just like the firm chose to represent small villagers in Alaska to fight against big oils in the past. I admire that. The last time my eyes were misty was when I heard Ilene of Ihub standing up and speaking for us at the last day of December hearings. She is courageous and beautiful. I have defended the Judge in the past, now EC and its counsel. I’m tired of blame games and want no part in it. I’m not the loudest and the most exciting voices on this board so I rest my case here. I shall keep my own eyes on EC, my own patience and thoughts to myself, and finally, continue to pray for EC and shareholders I will continue to hold my shares (all 4 flavors) unless Mr. Willingham resigns (I hope he won’t and I think he shouldn’t). look forward to EC filings of objections to Plan confirmation in mid-May and confirmation fight in early June. (by the way, for those who attacked me personally, do what you want to do. The good thing is, I’m comfortable with myself and fiercely independent in my thinking. More good news is, I was spending the whole day yesterday at New York’s Met. Museum of Art with my son. I will continue to do so to enjoy masters’ works and ignore noises.)
Ir a respuesta
Inversor71 14/04/11 19:32
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Estimado Simpson No te desgastes tanto Tu perteneces al grupo que sigue convencido del perjuicio hacia los accionistas y que existe posibilidades de recuperación para los accionistas mientras que Besugo y Maxi , sinceramente no se de que lado están: si de el grupo de rosen y la fdic , de los accionistas , ya que siempre están criticando y cuestionando todo, a Rosen, A la Fdic, a Susman, a los miembros del Ec, a los accionistas ,Siempre negativos . Por un lado hablan del perjucio hacia Wamu. Pero al mismo tiempo no creen en las gestiones y posibilidades que tienen los accionistas , pero jamás nisiquiera han sugerido ninguna idea sobre como debería manejarse el caso
Ir a respuesta