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

Os dejo este nuevo accesorio de vehiculo para el que desee instalar uno en el suyo. Estoy intentando coger la representación para España.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avOiTUcD4Y

Nlu55 Take on the court hearing,

The rest of the clan there was much more in touch with their intelligent side, but I think I’m a good judge of personalities. Rosen is an awesome lawyer that can hold court, he outshined every lawyer there. The EC lawyer and the UST rep just had too much evidence for Rosen to win. Once the court was over, Rosen and our EC lawyer were laughing and shaking hands, like Bop said they are now buddies. The black mule team got shut out and they had NO chance. The Judge knows what’s going on and knows we are in the money, like most have said commons will see cash. Thanks Catz for putting together a well organized trip and I had a great time meeting everyone. One more note, if any out there thank Myadad is an old man with gray hair that does laps around the lake to stay in shape are wrong. He’s a well maintained man with plenty of piss and Vinegar.

Weil is engaged in a massive disinformation campaign to give the appearance that it will be a great sacrifice to find anymoney for the commons. This strategy is designed to psychologically test all of the equity owners who have been following this wearisome court case since Sept 2008 in hopes that they capitualte and settle for a low-ball offer.

Weil knew there was no chance the EC would be disbanded so all of his bluster is designed to further intimidate and wear down retail equity owners so that they capitulate to a few crumbs off of the table.

I think he will be suprised at the resolve of the retail equity owners and their leadership on the EC. I don't think Joyce and the others will be intimidated at all.

Pues nada acabo de llegra a casa veo la catizacion y lo que mas me sorprende es que mucha gente siga erre que erre con la manipulacion...ami que me lo expliquen, porque manipular una accion durante tanto tiempo, en dias de noticias es simplmenete imposinble sin arruinarse, aun con tacticas sucias, simplemente no se puede. Ya exprese mi opnion a comenzar el dia que no me hubiera sorprendido acabar en rojo...pero es que es logico, ayer todos sabiamos que se iba a aprobar el EC, nosotros que no somos juristas y los que lo eran tb lo daban por hecho, por tanto descontado, lo que no sabiamos era lo del subpoena, que tp es una noticia demasiado relevante pero weno algo tira para abajo. P

ero sabiendo que es ams facil subir la accion con poco volumen, es decir premarket, esos huecos provocados por pequegnos inversores poniedo compras en el ask acaban corrigiendose. Wamuq no tiene NADA que ver con propietary trading, NADA. Lo de los mil trades por segundo salio a cuenta de una noticia de GS que no tiene nada que evr con wamuq, seria mas que estupido cualquier clase de estrategia similar en una accion quye funciona en BK, con volumen, y con analistas siguiendola.

Y cuanod decimos que en dias sin volumen la tiran para abajo...es el trabajo de las MM, quiero decir, es que, a ver uan cosa que creo no se entiende es que las MM, hacen dinero con el volumen, no con la direccionalidad...por tanto lo que quieren es generar volumen, y sabiendo que acciones en BK son principalmente loterias para retailers, como se genera volumen?pues haciendola ams atractiva a compradores...quiero decir, eso es normal. Retenerla cuando hay noticias que devieran hacerla subir...eso es imposible, en serio, que expliquen como puede hacerse sin perder dinero... No se puede bajar el precio para despues comprarla mas barata, sin perder mas de lo que se gana (manteniedo constante el volumen)...

Lo que sigo queriendo deci es que nadie se enggane todas las acciones de wamuq (preferentes y comunes) estan cotizando a primium de lo que se les ha concedido hasta ahora, lo cual es normal porque la mayoria de los inversores son optimistas respecto a la resolucion.

Yo sigo dentro poqrue sigo siendolo, pero... tened cuidado en abrir botellas de champan, que se os va acabar el gas antes de empezar, esto no funciona asi, iran ganando y perdiendo argumentos, pero estando en BK es el dienro que nos concendan lo que nos movera(y no el que nos merezcamos). de cualquier forma soy optimista y espero que esto acabe en settlement pronto.

Luis ya me consta que tu te mueves en compras y ventas a corto en los mercados y puede que tengas toda la razón en cuanto a que no los MM, si no gente de trading como tu, organizada en grupos o no, aprovecha las noticias que aparecen para tradear y esto mueve la acción en ocasiones con movimientos porcentuales fuertes arriba o abajo a pesar del bajo volumen.
En cualquier caso esto es un elemento secundario para los que estan largo y no quieren arriesgarse a perder el tren de la acción ¿Quien podia decir esta mañana con +50% en Alemania que por la tarde acabaría en + 11%.
Si lo supiesemos con anticipación ganariamos mas dinero tradeando que con nuestros respectivos trabajos.
Pero y si tienes razón y parece que si porque las rentabilidades lo constatan desde que se inicio el proceso.
¿Que hacemos comprados largos en acciones comunes si las que primero recibiran algun dinero seran las preferentes?.
Una gran parte de los que estamos aqui ya nos hemos hecho esa pregunta varias veces ¿Es rentable pasarse en estos momentos de comunes a preferentes, tal como esta el panorama?
Porque evidentemente, el que estaba en preferentes, ha acertado desde marzo y mucho, pero por otra parte si entra alguna noticia negativa para la Compañia en cuanto a recibir menos dinero del previsto las que primero van a recibir una corrección seran precisamente las preferentes.
Habra no obstante que estar alerta de si se confirma o no la posibilidad de recibir alguna cantidad por daños, porque si esta opción desaparece la vida de las comunes tendría sus dias contados.
En cualquier caso la denegación del Discovery debería haber dañado hoy seriamente a las comunes y con todo y eso el peso de la confirmación del EC ha tenido más fuerza en producir una subida aun pequeña que no una bajada.

I'm going to preface these comments by saying that if they sound mean-spirited towards some parties in the bankruptcy it isn't for the sake of meanness but the sake of consolidating responsibility for making parties whole. I am bothered that Rosen (for Weil) and the WMB bondholders have each mouthed comments that they are taking for reasonable assumptions but are actually totally wrong. Black Horse as well has been led by some interests in the bankruptcy to have a mistaken belief about the order and importance of who gets made whole in the bankruptcy. I question that such misinformation cannot be a misunderstanding but must arise from an effort to place wrong interests infront of right interests in concepts about a waterfall to solve injury in the bankruptcy.

Yes, if there is a global settlement then it should solve the interests of all stakeholders. But NO, that should not come in a disorderly manner by ripping off the value of equity because it conveniently rewards insiders at the cost of outsiders (ie. the Black Horse, Fried Franks, WMB bond hedges at the expense of equity).

Some errors:
1. A Black Horse error is that all preferreds (Ps + Ks + Caymans) should all be fully paid out their money before commons. The falsity here is that unless the underlying assets that go to make the Caymans whole is forked over for that purpose, other equity should not be ponying up to make them in the money. Specifically, JPM/FDIC can't pay a block sum and Caymans carve a chunk out if there wasn't a chunk put in to cover them.

2. WMB bondholder error that all bonds (WMI + WMB) should be fully covered before the waterfall moves on to other parties. The error here is that WMB bondholders should be getting money ONLY IF the FDIC corporate fully kicks in the amount needed for them. It is not acceptable for the FDIC to say we will kick in the pittance in the FDIC-Receivership ($1.9 billion) and the rest of the billions for the WMB bonds comes from the WMI estate. Very specifically if there is not FDIC-Corporate money earmarked to make those WMB bonds whole as a distinct value, then those WMB bonds should be partially filled before the waterfall moves on.

3. Rosen gives the overall impression that he has a pot of money that only goes so far. That's not hard to believe that these is a pot of money that only goes so far. The error though is that he appears to have negotiated that various parties will be entitled to dip their bellies full before the next one approaches the pot of money. I think Rosen has been misleading settlement parties about the order and fullness that they should be entitled to. The legal team for EC should be vigilant to turn aside from the money pot parties that think they are entitled but really are not.

4. Rosen and the WMB bondholders have both referenced limitations on funds with regard to the FDIC-Receiver as though it was a problem for equity. It is not a problem for equity it is a problem for WMB bondholders who imagine someone else will make up for their needs while Rosen is slack is asking for FDIC-Corporate to pay their fair share. Weil should not be shielding the FDIC from paying all that they owe. If Weil wants to shield FDIC from paying their fair share, that shielding should not come at equity's expense. It should come at WMB bondholder expense.... and the litigation continues... but since the objective is global settlement there can be no further litigation. It is not for equity to solve a shortfall in cash, it is for Weil to get a better settlement or just break pieces off and see them litigated separately.

5. Generally I think the fallacy of a number of global settlement parties is that they are content to get less than is really needed but want equity to bear all the weight of their failure to obtain a proper settlement. The weight of their failure must fall on the parties associated with those shortfalls (Caymans and WMB bonds) and not equity.

6. It appears there is a disconnect in the waterfall schema that Weil has. The disconnect is it assumes every pool should be full before money flows to the next pool (the very concept of waterfall) and at the same time Weil glosses over the worthiness of each pool as though it is unimportant. Their waterfall schema needs to be changed by Equity that points out that for some pools nothing is reasonable (Caymans) and dampness is reasonable (less than 25% for WMB bonds) is there is no rain falling on that watershed. Weil has it upside down if he thinks Equity's pot of money should make it rain on other people's dry ground.

Sure... JPM took the bank and decided not to take the bank bonds. So the FDIC kept them and they, not WMI handed out (or promised to hand out) the little IOUs.

Let the FDIC go to JPM and ask for more money if they want to fix this problem. If they do, then they open the door for others to do the same, setting the precedent to revisit the fair value or lack thereof of the initial deal.

Had JPM just bought WMB from WMI, these issues wouldn't exist. Did they entered into negotiations "in good faith" while brokering a secret deal with the FDIC? No... Did any of the other bidders get such treatment in arranging their bids? No... The FDIC failed to meet its obligations via the FDI Act. Had other banks known they were bidding on the "Whole Bank" minus many liabilities then they wouldn't have managed to put together a deal for under 2 billion.

This post is right on the money. There's no way WMI should enter into a global settlement that reaches claims beyond WMI interests, including equity unless equity is taken care of. If equity isn't included, they should litigate to the end.

WMI can tell THJMW that a global settlement is fair because it makes x,y, and z whole, but now there's an EC in place to say... X and Y have absolutely NO bearing on your duty to oversee the debtors and their estate.. period.

Just because it feels good, doesn't mean it is good or even close to right. It might make for a nice headline, but it's beyond the scope of the BK court to allow such a thing to happen, especially if equity is represented and can argue against the insanity of it.

These guys are all snakes and I don't put anything past them. But I did notice Rosen made it a point to mention how he hopes to see something for equity, both preferred and common. I think they know that in saying anything other than that... from here on out, they're going to be called out on it. That's proof positive that they ARE working against us. And if they don't want to play nice with us, we don't have to play nice with them either.

I'd imagine the EC will be briefed on potential numbers as of right now and I think (and hope) parties will now be forced to get creative as to how to pay equity.

I have no doubt that once the bulk of the claims are gone this is going to come to a head very quickly. Thankfully Joyce and the others are there to get our backs as best they can.

No me estoy enterando bien.

Por lo que entiendo -a raíz de la confirmación del EC- ahora están empezando a decir que los bonistas no tienen porqué ser pagados 100% antes de que el resto (equidad) empiece a ver el dinero, ¿lo he entendido bien?

Ptolomeo si se llega a un punto en que A>L entonces entoces los dueños de la empresa volveran a ser los accionistas, en este caso incluso cobrarian mas peso los accionistas de comunes que los de preferentes, ya que tendrian derecho a voto a diferencia de la mayor parte de comunes.
En este caso los bonistas no tendrian ningun control sobre la empresa y solo tendrian derecho a esperar a que se cumplan el plazo de vencimiento de sus bonos (creo que al menos algunos vencen entre 2012 y 2015) para cobrar su dinero. O bien si JPM se decidiria a hacer una oferta de compra total de la empresa, estos bonos podrian ser renegociados y alargado su pago en el tiempo y pagados por supuesto por JPM que pasaria a ser el propietario subsidario de los mismos.