España
A mí me ha gustado que ha denegado el POR sin más, sin medio-aprobarlo, ni dar pie a que se apruebe con modificaciones.
DENEGADO.
Acabo de aterrizar y no lo he podido leer, pero creo que (seguimos) por el buen camino.
A ver qué dice el mercado el Lunes.
por cierto, página 20:
"The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the
settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement as a whole is reasonable. "
JPM and the FDIC got the releases.
P. 67
Therefore, the Court concludes that the releases given by the
Debtors to JPMC, the FDIC, and WMB are reasonable.
Pd. Leetelo con detenimiento y luego me cuentas.
Saludos
Very good summary sunshinevibrations. It's not good for equity.
While she rejected the current plan, she is basically saying that with modifications, she would approve this plan.
...Catz
Sorry, folks, but this ruling is not that good for us.
Here's what I just posted at the Ghost board:
The $4B deposits: the plan gives them to the debtors and that's all they'd get anyway.
The NOLs: debtors wouldn't likely do better than the plan.
TPS: debtors wouldn't likely do better than the plan.
Intellectual property: no significant value.
Pension plans: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
Rabbi trusts: debtors WOULD likely get more value than in the plan.
Deferred compensation plans: debtors WOULD likely get more value than in the plan.
Employee medical plans: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
BOLI/COLI: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
VISA shares: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
Vendor claims and contracts: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
Goodwill litigation: confusing to judge, debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
Fraudulent transfer: no hope for debtors.
Business tort claims: little hope for debtors.
Miscellaneous other claims: debtors wouldn't likely to better than the plan.
Difficulties in collection: realities support approval of the plan.
Complexity, expense and delay: realities support approval of the plan.
Paramount interests of creditors: plan is reasonable.
Releases of JPMC, FDIC and WMB: "Although equity interest holders are not likely to get a recovery, the Court is not convinced that continued litigation against JPMC and/or the FDIC would change that result. Therefore, the Court concludes that the releases given by the Debtors to JPMC, the FDIC, and WMB are reasonable."
Releases of Settlement Noteholders, Creditors' Committee, Indenture Trustees and Liquidating Trust and Trustee: Not reasonable.
Releases of officers: not necessary.
Releases of affiliates: not necessary.
Exculpation claims: exclude LTW claims from settlement for continued litigation.
Releases by ANICO: not reasonable.
Third-party releases of affiliates: not necessary.
Opt-in/Opt-out: voters must vote specifically for releases.
Opt-in/Opt-out: clarify who is affected.
Discrimination in releases: none.
Released claims: should be restricted to those of the Debtors of creditors relating to claims they have asserted against the Debtors.
Injunctions: releases expanded unreasonably in plan via injunctions.
Judgement rate: no ruling necessary, because plan is denied.
Effect of releases: "the Court concludes that the recovery under chapter 7 even without the releases would be less than the recovery under the Debtors’ Plan. Therefore, the best interest of creditors test has been met here."
Discriminatory treatment of creditors (PIERS): all PIERS claimants must have the opportunity to participate in the rights offering. "the Court is unable to determine whether the PIERS are properly classified as creditors ahead of the equity security holders."
Discriminatory treatment of creditors (LTW): "The Plan must be modified to afford the same option to all claims in the same class that other claims have, if they are allowed."
Discriminatory treatment of creditors (REIT): No discrimination.
Discriminatory treatment of creditors (WMB noteholders): "their claim against the Debtors is a general unsecured claim. Under section 510(b) their claim must be subordinated to all unsecured claims. The Court found that the placement of the WMB Noteholders in Class 17 was appropriate."
Designation of votes: not necessary to rule because Plan is denied.
Lack of good faith: none.
Lack of notice: none.
Post-confirmation process: "The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors that there should be some mechanism for replacement of the Liquidating Trustee by the beneficiaries of the Trust."
Payment of fees of settling parties: fees must be approved by court.
Time to move on imho. The plan was not confirmed, but almost every damn issue which brings money to equity has been ruled in favor of debtors, jpm, and the fdic. She did indeed follow the examiner's conclusions of law. Some money might be thrown equity's way for releases in an amended global settlement agreement, but jpm and the fdic are in the drivers seat...unless ec has a plan in hand ready to go which will bring additional monies to the table via the nol's. I feel like buddy we won but lost.
Si se sienten asi con el Por denegado imaginate como estariamos si lo hubieran aprobado.
Dejemos pasar el finde y a ver q ocurre el lunes.
La cosa facil no esta, el hueso parece q ira para preferentes pero ha dicho el EC la ultima palabra?
No me creo que Willigham deje que sus comunes se volatilizen...
asi es maxi,lo que a bote pronto podia parecer una excelente noticia,la denegacion de l POR,leyendo la sentencia parace urdido para jodernos quedandeo bien,el stautus quo sigue siendo la aprobacion,quizas nos podemos salir el lunes palmando lo minimo