Wamu WKN 893906 News !

JMW ordered that the current litigation between Debtor and LTW be heard by a mediator in April, and that the mediator be agreed upon and named within a week, or she will find one.

Als so Engagierter in Sachen Wamu, wie du einer bist, frage ich mich, warum du und dein Wamu- Clan ( Bruder, Hausarzt, Rechtsanwalt, Chef, Ex- Freundin + Bedienstete aus der Kurklinik und Haustiere), nachdem WMI euch ja schon fast gehört, nicht mal eine richtig deftige "objection" einreicht. Ich schätze deine kompetente Art und deine Gelassenheit, dein Wissen über die jeweils bevorstehenden Verhandlungen, das dich klugerweise davon abhält, etwas solches zu verfolgen.
Ich setze dich da auf eine Stufe mit Susman!
Ich hoffe, da kommt noch was Großes.
Die verschlüsselte Botschaft: "Zum Lidl Apfelschorle und Milch holen" lässt hoffen.
Ansonsten:
Mir fällt es schwer, zu glauben, dass das EC aus Unvermögen heraus nichts zu sagen hat und dass Solomons Ergebnisse keiner bekannten Aufstellung bisher widersprachen. Ich denke, er hat noch nie widersprochen, oder gibt es da Zahlen? Oder Einigkeit?
Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass vom EC so das Handtuch geworfen wird oder wurde.
Wer weiß, was sie gegenüber den hedgefonds schon alles in der Hand haben.
Wir werden es sehen,
Gute Nacht
Trau schau wem

Symbol                Short Volume Short %        Short Exempt          Volume Total Volume
DIMEQ                        316,580 27.32 %                0                            1,158,738
WAMKQ                          7,560 40.53 %                0                                 18,655
WAMPQ                          8,605 48.63 %                0                                 17,696
WAMUQ                      866,670 21.59 %                0                            4,013,907
www.geishababy.com/WaMu/Default.aspx

Könnte so sein, aber es besteht ja die möglichkeit nicht JPMC sondern eine einzelne Person z,B den CEO auf Schadenersatz wegen "Absprachen" zu verklagen. da ist die beweisführung auch sicher leichter.

P.S Übrigens freu ich mich das Dir die "Pandas" auch so gut gefallen.  Glaube JPMC wird auch noch zum Pandafan. Die werden sicher vor lauter "Begeisterung" bald Irre Preise zahlen um noch einige zu bekommen.

Auf die Sammelleidenschaft (grins)

 

gruss

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=3&frt=2

Zitat steve_ograd...:

Ironic that this article comes from the Weil website:
www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?...

It also implies the FJR is the post-petition interest rate to be paid in a Chapter 7 liquidation analysis. Hopefully the debtors will be forced to finally do that analysis using the FJR.

Do the WaMu debtors meet the definition of a solvent debtor?
-----------
I also think it would be neat to send an objection letter asking for the FJR to be used ion the court's calculations using the article from WGM's website as the primary legal support. :D

ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1

Zitat:

Part ONE

Ninth Circuit Holds that a Solvent Debtor Must Pay Postpetition Interest at the Federal Judgment Rate
Lemmer, Elisa

(June 2002, Bankruptcy Bulletin)




Download Newsletter




By Elisa R. Lemmer

In Onink v. Cardelucci (In re Cardelucci), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the federal judgment rate is the applicable rate of postpetition interest payable on a claim held by an unsecured creditor in the chapter 11 case of a solvent debtor. Cardelucci is the first circuit court case to address and decide this issue.

Statutory and Historical Background
To confirm a plan of reorganization, a debtor (or other plan proponent) must meet the requirements of section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. Among other requirements, a plan must satisfy the “best interest of creditors” or “liquidation” test set forth in section 1129(a)(7). Section 1129(a)(7)(A) provides that each creditor entitled to vote on a plan must either accept the plan or receive no less under the plan than the creditor would receive if the debtor were liquidated under chapter 7.

Section 726(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the priorities of distribution in a liquidation, provides in subsection (5) that, after all prepetition allowed claims have been paid in full, an unsecured creditor is entitled to “payment of interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the petition” before any of the remaining assets are distributable to the debtor. Accordingly, to satisfy the “best interest of creditors” test, a solvent debtor will be required to pay a dissenting unsecured creditor postpetition interest at the “legal rate.” This requirement does not apply to postpetition interest payable to secured creditors, whose right to postpetition interest is governed under a different section of the Bankruptcy Code.

The term “legal rate” is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, has been left for judicial determination. Prior to Cardelucci, some bankruptcy courts held that the phrase “interest at the legal rate” refers to the federal judgment rate provided by section 1961(a) of title 28 of the United States Code. The federal judgment rate is calculated according to the weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published weekly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Other bankruptcy courts, however, have held that the “legal rate” is the contract rate, if one exists, or a state statutory rate, if there is no contract, and have applied the federal judgment rate only in the absence of a contract or state statutory rate.

ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1

ZItat:

PART TWO

Thus, the applicable postpetition interest payable on the claim of an unsecured creditor remains unsettled across jurisdictions. For example, the bankruptcy court in In re Dow Corning Corporation undertook a thorough review of existing case law on the issue and concluded that the phrase “interest at the legal rate” refers to the federal judgment rate. By contrast, the bankruptcy court in In re Schoeneberg refused to apply the federal judgment rate even in the absence of a contract or special state statutory rate, holding that the state judgment rate would apply under such circumstances.

The inconsistent interpretations of the term “legal rate” have not only resulted in disparate awards of postpetition interest in various jurisdictions, but also have resulted in disparate treatment of creditors within the same circuit. The Ninth Circuit specifically encountered this problem in the late 1990s when two decisions, one issued by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the “B.A.P.”) and the other issued by the District of New Mexico, directly contradicted each other. In 1998, in Beguelin v. Volcano Vision, Inc. (In re Beguelin), the B.A.P. held that postpetition interest should be payable at the federal judgment rate to promote ease of administration of a debtor’s bankruptcy case.
One month later, the District of New Mexico in In re Carter rejected the Beguelin holding and criticized the Beguelin court for overlooking what the Carter court apparently considered to be a negative byproduct of awarding postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate — a windfall to the debtor comprised of the remaining assets. The Carter court refused to award postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate and, instead, held that the applicable interest rate would be that provided pursuant to any applicable contract or underlying judgment.

In 1999, the Ninth Circuit came close to resolving the matter in In re Shoen when it stated in dicta that if the debtor in that case were solvent, postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate would be awarded.

The dichotomy within the Ninth Circuit illustrates the bankruptcy courts’ struggle to interpret the phrase “interest at the legal rate.” The inconsistent interpretations appear to reflect conflicting policy concerns: on the one hand, to promote ease of administration as well as equitable treatment of all unsecured creditors and, on the other hand, to prevent a windfall to the debtor. The problem has been compounded further by the paucity of appellate level decisions directly discussing the issue.

Factual Background of the Cardelucci Case
In Cardelucci, the debtor, Samuel Cardelucci, owned and operated various rubbish companies in California. In January of 1993, a California state court found that Cardelucci had engaged in predatory pricing and, as a result, was liable to Marsha and Willem Onink for unfair trade practices. The state court entered a judgment in favor of the Oninks, which included interest at the state statutory rate applicable to judgments.

ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1

ZItat:

Part THREE

Shortly after entry of the state court judgment, Cardelucci filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Oninks’ state court judgment became an unsecured claim in Cardelucci’s bankruptcy case. Cardelucci’s plan of reorganization provided for payment of the Oninks’ claim in full with postpetition interest at a rate to be determined according to the Bankruptcy Code.

It was acknowledged that Cardelucci’s chapter 11 estate was solvent and, therefore, unsecured creditors would be entitled to payment of postpetition interest at the “legal rate.” However, the parties disputed the applicable interest rate. Cardelucci contended that the “legal rate” was the federal judgment rate, which was calculated at 3.5%; the Oninks argued that the appropriate “legal rate” was California’s state statutory rate, which was calculated at 10%. The bankruptcy court agreed with Cardelucci and held that the federal judgment rate, rather than the state law rate, applied. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling. The Oninks appealed to the Ninth Circuit arguing, among other things, that an award of postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate would violate their substantive due process rights.

The Ninth Circuit’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit rejected the Oninks’ arguments, holding that the phrase “interest at the legal rate” refers to the federal judgment rate. Recognizing the disparate previous bankruptcy court decisions and the lack of legislative history on the meaning of the phrase “interest at the legal rate,” the Ninth Circuit relied on a textual interpretation of the phrase, as well as principles of equity, in reaching its conclusion.

The Ninth Circuit found that the principles of statutory interpretation supported the conclusion that Congress intended the phrase “interest at the legal rate” to refer to the federal judgment rate and noted that Congress had replaced the originally proposed language “interest on claims allowed” with “interest at the legal rate.” The Ninth Circuit also focused on the choice of the definite article “the,” as opposed to the indefinitearticle “a” or “an,” to support its conclusion that Congress intended a single, specific rate to be used in calculating postpetition interest.

ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1

ZItat

4th and Final PART:

Uniformity within federal law and ease of administration of claims were also cited as reasons for applying the federal judgment rate to calculate postpetition interest. The Ninth Circuit noted that the award of postpetition interest on a claim in bankruptcy is analogous to an award of postjudgment interest on a federal judgment. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a holder of an allowed claim in bankruptcy should be entitled to an award of interest pursuant to a rate provided in a federal statute.

Applying a single, easily determinable rate to all claims for postpetition interest, said the Ninth Circuit, guarantees fair and equitable treatment of all unsecured creditors. Citing the B.A.P.’s rationale in Beguelin, the Ninth Circuit noted that use of the federal judgment rate in calculating postpetition interest is the most judicially efficient and practical way of distributing the estate’s assets. If varying interest rates were applied, the process of calculating the postpetition award would become cumbersome and overwhelming.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that, in some cases, calculating postpetition interest using varying interest rates (e.g., the rates stated in each creditor’s contract) would not be a cumbersome or difficult task. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit noted that, in those cases, the debtor might receive a windfall if the lower federal judgment rate (as opposed to a contract rate or another rate of interest) were applied. However, the Ninth Circuit refused to carve out an exception to the application of the federal judgment rate in calculating postpetition interest, noting that “interest at the legal rate” is a definite phrase with a specific meaning that could not be adjusted depending on the circumstances of each bankruptcy case.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Oninks’ substantive due process argument, remarking that even if the Oninks had a substantive right to postpetition interest, applying the federal judgment rate to all claims is “rationally related to the legitimate interests in efficiency, fairness, predictability, and uniformity within the bankruptcy system.”

Conclusion
As the first court of appeals case to determine the applicable rate of postpetition interest, the Cardelucci decision is significant because it squarely addresses, and attempts to reconcile, the competing considerations often cited by bankruptcy courts in determining the meaning of “interest at the legal rate” in section 726(a)(5). While recognizing that, in certain circumstances, an award of postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate could result in a windfall for the debtor, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless has held that section 726(a)(5) mandates application of the federal judgment interest rate for the calculation of postpetition interest. Thus, the Cardelucci decision creates a much needed bright line rule for calculating postpetition interest which, accordingly, becomes the rate of interest necessary to satisfy the “best interest of creditors” test.

It remains to be seen whether courts outside the Ninth Circuit will follow Cardelucci and its rationale.
Onink v. Cardelucci (In re Cardelucci), 285 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2002).
In re Shoen, 176 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1075 (2000).
In re Dow Corning Corp., 237 B.R. 380 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999).
In re Carter, 220 B.R. 411 (D. N.M. 1998).
Beguelin v. Volcano Vision, Inc. (In re Beguelin), 220 B.R. 94 (9th Cir. BAP 1998).
In re Schoeneberg, 156 B.R. 963 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1993art TWO

Zitatende

--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=1&frt=2

ZItat bgriffinokc:

The real reason Marcia Goldstein left is: She is the "Smoking Gun"

chapter11.epiqsystems.com/WAM/doc...

Hearing Transcript – 10/3/08

Page 12

16 MS. GOLDSTEIN: Longer term, Your Honor, we put that
17 as a -- perhaps our key short-term issue. Longer term, we
18 would with the assistance of the appropriate team that I
19 referenced earlier, that we would determine a course of action
20 for WMI’s numerous subsidiaries. There are approximately 100
21 subsidiaries of the debtors. A number of them are inactive,
22 some of them may have ongoing operations, and some of them may
23 become additional debtors in these proceedings. Obviously we
24 want to propose a course of action that will maximize their
25 value, and particularly if there is a sale process, and
1 ultimately propose a plan that would provide for distributions
2 to the various classes of creditors here.
3 A little bit more on these nondebtor subs. Obviously
4 because of the limitations on accessing information, we don’t
5 have complete information about them but, aga in, we hope to get
6 that. But most of them are vestiges of prior acquisitions,
7 some of them are real estate development subsidiaries. Some
8 may have real estate, or may have mortgage portfolios. These
9 are not the so-called toxic mortgages that may have been heard
10 about.
11 There are subsidiaries that have some insurance
12 business, and there is a 1031 exchange entity. So, in effect,
13 Your Honor, we need to have the ability, and we expect to have
14 the ability to understand those subsidiaries and propose an
15 appropriate course of action that would maximize their value to
16 the creditors here.

ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;frt=2&off=1

ZItat:

This is great stuff, grif:
"that we would determine a course of action 20 for WMI’s numerous subsidiaries. There are approximately 100 21 subsidiaries of the debtors."

Even the EC should get this.

"A number of them are inactive, 22 some of them may have ongoing operations, and some of them may 23 become additional debtors in these proceedings. Obviously we 24 want to propose a course of action that will maximize their
25 value,"

This could have some tie-in w/ what charlien noticed:

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Busine...

*AND- there's that "non-debtor" again:

"3 A little bit more on these nondebtor subs. Obviously 4 because of the limitations on accessing information, we don’t 5 have complete information about them but, aga in, we hope to get 6 that. But most of them are vestiges of prior acquisitions, 7 some of them are real estate development subsidiaries. Some 8 may have real estate, or may have mortgage portfolios. These 9 are not the so-called toxic mortgages that may have been heard
10 about."

Very, very nice find... incriminating, isn't it?

Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)

Meinung würde mich sehr interessieren :-)) !!!

BITTE!

Tenth Monthly Application of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., as Co-Counsel to the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. et al., for Allowance of Compensation for Services Rendered and Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for the Period of January 1, 2011 Through January 31, 2011
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000003.pdf

Notice of Third Interim Fee Application Request of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. for the Period October 1, 2010 Through January 31, 2011
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000004.pdf

Debtors' Notice of Deposition of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. Pursuant to Rules 7030 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 30(B)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000005.pdf

Notice of Service Regarding Debtors' First Request for the Production of Documents to the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. and Debtors' First Set of Interrogatories to the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc.
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000006.pdf

Official Committee of Equity Security Holders First Deposition Notice to Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P.
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000007.pdf

Official Committee of Equity Security Holders First Deposition Notice to Centerbridge Partners, L.P.
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000008.pdf

Official Committee of Equity Security Holders First Deposition Notice to Aurelius Capital Management, LP
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000009.pdf

hast du noch mal die aktuelle einteilung der klassen für die vorzüge?

die wahuq wurden doch geändert oder habe ich das falsch im kopf?

Hier wurde eine Rechnung von unserer Partei eingereicht, insg. wurden vom 01 bis 31.01.2011
133.30 Arbeitsstunden in Rechnung gestellt.

Stephen D. Susman hat 4 Stunden am Fall gearbeitet (er lebt noch, und Arbeitet für uns)

Der Hauptvermerk lag im:

Ligitation                                   80.70 Arbeitsstunden

Plan and Disclosure Statement 47.10 Arbeitsstunden

Committee Administration           5.50 Arbeitsstunden

Rechnung unter:
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110321000000000003.pdf

brauchte wohl Taschengeld.

www.viewip.net/WMI/Hearing/

Wamu, based in Seattle, filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 26, 2008, the day after its banking unit was taken over by regulators and sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) for $1.9 billion. Washington Mutual Bank was the biggest bank to fail in U.S. history, with more than 2,200 branches and $188 billion in deposits.

Creditors’ Vote

Walrath will consider the vote of creditors on May 2 when she is scheduled to hold a hearing on the plan.

Not all of the creditors who originally voted will be eligible to vote this time, Walrath ruled.

The company’s 5 percent bonds due in 2012 rose 2 percent to 111.25 cents on the dollar according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Walrath has already approved the central feature of the bankruptcy plan, which is an agreement among WaMu’s biggest creditors, banking regulators and JPMorgan to split billions of dollars in tax refunds and cash.

After WaMu filed for bankruptcy in 2008, hedge funds bought debt securities, some for pennies on the dollar, issued by the bank holding company and its former banking unit, Washington Mutual Bank. The hedge funds then battled each other, shareholders, creditors, regulators and JPMorgan, over how to divide the company’s assets.

Cash and Refunds

WaMu ended most of the arguments last year by agreeing to split about $4 billion in cash and tax refunds of as much as $5.8 billion among some of its creditors, including the hedge funds, JPMorgan and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The hearing in May will involve groups of creditors and shareholders who have long opposed the plan. They have filed objections to the revised plan that are similar to the complaints they made in December. Walrath did not rule on some of the issues that creditors and shareholders have fought over.

Noteholders are battling each other over how much interest WaMu’s senior creditors, who will be paid in full, will receive.

A group of investors who own a specialized form of debt called trust preferred securities are in dispute with senior creditors over whether the securities became worthless when WaMu filed bankruptcy.

Interest, Securities

The arguments over interest and the securities, which involves details of bankruptcy law, could be worth more than $1 billion, Seth Ard, an attorney representing WaMu shareholders, said in court.

Walrath ordered WaMu to add an analysis of how the different interest rates would affect creditors and to include an estimate of how much some company assets, including real estate, are worth.

The company must also begin mediation with a group of creditors who hold litigation-tracking warrants related to a lawsuit.

Shareholders oppose WaMu’s plan because it pays them nothing. They argue that WaMu’s bank should never have been seized by regulators and sold to JPMorgan. Shareholders claim in court records that a lawsuit over the seizure and sale would win enough money to pay all of WaMu’s debts and leave something for them.

The case is In re Washington Mutual Inc., 08-12229, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/...y-plan-1-.html?cmpid=yhoo

Gruß

Dude44

nach langer zeit und fern des forums kehre ich mit diesem hearing kurzzeitig zurück und würde mich freuen, wenn ihr meien meinung kommentieren würdet:

- das hearing heute war, so wie ich es gelesen habe, ein schritt in die richtige richtung, was den abschluss dieses verfahrens vor ch 11 betrifft.

- ich bin jedoch der meinung, dass wir hier dennoch seitens jpmc oder der fdic geld sehen müssen, nicht freiwillig, aber mit dem richtigen material wird der druck schon so hoch, dass das berühmte schweigegeld gezahlt wird.

- rosen schwimmen die felle weg und das war aufgrund seiner handhabe dieses falles auch nicht anders zu erwarten, ich bin sehr darauf gespannt, was er wieder präsentieren wird und ich gehe davon aus, ds es wieder katastrophal für das ec endet. vergesst mit eines nicht, hier sind noch so viele baustellen offen, das wird noch eine weile dauern bis alle zur rechenschaftsablage gebeten werden.

- warum ist das ec so still? ich für meinen teil denke die nummer wird, wie schon so oft geschrieben kurz vor knapp zu ende gebracht, denn wenn und davon gehe ich aus, das ec nur ein oder zwei beweise hat, dass hier betrogen wurde, dann kann es sich das szenario in ruhe anschauen, denn es ist NICHT RELEVANT, wenn der bande der betrug nachgewiesen wird. ich denke wir werden im mai noch so einiges erleben. und vergesst mir den april nicht, da wird auch noch was kommen, bin gespannt.

danke an alle für euren unermüdlichen einsatz, DANKE!

auf bald
eure alexfra die 1.

 Showing he means business, Kerry Killinger has added well-known Washington, D.C. lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, Jr., to his defense team in a suit filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. last week, according to AmericanLawyer.com.

Sullivan, a senior partner with D.C. firm Williams & Connolly, has represented high-profile individuals in the past, such as Lt. Col. Oliver North, who was at the center of controversy during the Iran-Contra affair, and the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, in a trial involving federal corruption.

Sullivan was called "Washington's most powerful and expensive lawyer," by Washingtonian Magazine in 2007. Killinger is also represented by Seattle lawyer Barry Kaplan of Wilson Sosini Goodrich & Rosati. As I reported earlier, Killinger's legal bills have so far been paid by insurance from Washington Mutual Inc., the bankrupt holding company of the bank Killinger once headed.

The FDIC is seeking about $900 million from former Washington Mutual executives, including Killinger, former President Steve Rotella, and their wives, for losses in the thrift's mortgage division before its 2008 closure. The suit also names former home loans chief David Schneider, who is now at JPMorgan Chase.

Killinger issued a statement after the suit was filed last week calling it "political theater." Sullivan did not immediately return a call for comment placed Monday evening.

Read more: Killinger taps famed lawyer in FDIC suit | Puget Sound Business Journal 

 

assets.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2011/03/killinger-taps-famed-lawyer-in-fdic-suit.html

War doch ein gutes Hearing gestern, die kritik am EC scheint mir etwas übertrieben zu sein. Man kann davon ausgehen das die Aktionäre im Vorfeld von den Anwälten gebrieft wurden. Jeder der schon mal mit einer ähnlichen Sache zu tun hatte weiss , das man Lämmer nicht schutzlos zur Schlachtbank bringt.

Das Rosen jetzt eine detaillierte Aufstellungs der Vermögenswerte bringen muß die man auch nach vollziehen kann, kann den guten in echte Schwierigkeiten bringen.
Die Tatsache das er von Solomon ein paar Zahlen haben wollte, spricht klar dafür das er keine Ahnung hat was unsere Seite wirklich weiss.

Wenn er also für teuer Geld wieder irgendwelchen mist fabriziert, geht er das Risiko ein bei einer bewußten Täuschung entdeckt zu werden.
Schreib er zuviel kann es passieren das er die kontrolle in dem Fall verliert , mal sehen wie es weiter geht, es bleibt aufjeden Fall spannend.

Lg Ars

messages.finance.yahoo.com/...p;mid=708835&tof=4&frt=2

Here's the judge's transcribed decision for today:

1) With respect to the BlackHorse argument regarding the effect of the court possibly deciding FJR vs contract rate must be applicable, the debtor must do distribution analysis as to what distributions would be under Chapter 11 in the event that the court should decide that. Debtor should also modify its liquidation analysis to show the possibility that they are correct and I would order that in a Chapter 7 liquidation, they are only entitled to FJR.
You can put a footnote regarding that effect on waterfall down or up, as to specific, and the enforceability of the subordination agreement or provisions. But I think you have to state that there is apparently a dispute as to the effect of those to the subordination provisions or their applicability in this case.

2) I also agree with, and I'm not sure who raised it, the objectors who said that there has to be a disclosure as to the ranges of value of the NOLs. I don’t think it's sufficient to limit it to what the debtor is projecting will be the use of the NOLs.

3) And with respect to the objections raised by some of the shareholders, I think the debtors does have some information that it should be including in the DS as to the value of the assets of its non-debtor subsidiaries, as well as the value of WMMRC. The debtor has filed public filings which disclosed some of those values and I think the debtor should include those in the disclosure statement.

4) I disagree with the TPS argument regarding their ability to revote. However, I agree with JPMC that I have already made that decision. And in addition, I find that in the extent they are allowed to revote, JPMC has asserted that the distribution to their class is only available to those who previously voted to give the release. So, I think it would be a big waste to go ahead and revote that class.

5) I already stated that I will direct the debtors to participate in mediation with the LTW holders. And I suggest the parties consult and get to me a recommended mediator within a week and if the parties cannot agree on somebody, I will select somebody for the mediation panel.

6) I think Mr. Rosenfeld’s arguments are largely confirmation issues. I’m not gonna require any change to the DS with respect to those, in specifically, on those of the Blackstone analysis as what is typically done rather than attaching the appraisals. I’m not gonna require the debtor to attach appraisals to the DS and the reference to book values is not helpful either. But I would suggest that since the debtor is going to include values with respect to the non-debtor subs that there be a clear indication of the debtor’s estimate of the value of those rather than simply a reference to book value.

7) The analysis or the information given by the debtors should also include any real estate owned by WMI or any of the non-debtor subs. I think that’s self-evident. And since you’re doing an analysis which includes the range of values of the NOL, I think that would include any tax consequence of the capital contribution with respect to the WMB tax refund issue.

8) In the ANICO plaintiff objection is largely resolved. Or I’ve already decided that.

Hope that helps!

Important points:
Judge wants true value of WMMRC, range of NOLs, non-debtor subsidiaries, real estate owned by WMI and any of its non-debtor subsidiaries, and tax consequences of capital contributions. And finally, distribution analysis in FJR vs contract scenarios.

This WILL PUT equity in the money, no matter how you spin it.

Ich kann leider erst am 1ten nachkaufen.
Bin auf Unions Statement gespannt.
Guten Morgen

.....tolle Aussichten definiere ich allerdings mit Kurssprüngen, die zwar in Deutschland zumindest mit ca. 10% vollzogen wurden, allerdings die Amis sind doch sehr sehr kurz gesprungen, wenn man nicht sogar auf der Stelle hüpfen sagen kann.......

Gruß

das wir nicht zu viel hüpfen und steigen, wird doch immer noch von den bangstern gesorgt... es liegt nicht in deren interesse, dass wir schnell steigen... um so teurer wird es doch für jpm und co... nur mal so am rande... trotzdem auf weiter gute aussichten und ein großer funke gerechtigkeit...

.....im Moment stehen JPM/FDIC und die anderen Gangster neben dem Ring.........

und wir (Wamuq/EC/Susman/Nelson/Equity) im Ring.......

Please remember that these names are not necessarily long term investments, but all have the potential to become trading stocks. Rising stocks are not always purchased at high or lows. As you probably know, there is no exact science when it comes to investing. For instance, it seemed like nobody could pick the bottom when it came to investing in British Petroleum (BP:NYSE). However, those who were patient and prepared, turned above average profits in a short time period. I think it’s safe to say that some that most BP buyers were prepared and had a well thought out list of stocks.

So do you homework with the symbols provided above. All of these names have either made significant moves recently or trade with large amounts of liquidity. Some may end up being the hot penny stock in your portfolio and others may turn into duds. In either instance, taking a quick look at these names won’t hurt. Knowing multiple stories can only help in the never ending search for rising stocks and massive gains. So commit this penny stock list to your short term memory. Remember, hot penny stock trades don’t happen every minute.


www.free-prsite.com/11751/2011-penny-stocks-to-take-note-of/

....tolle Aussichten definiere ich allerdings mit Kurssprüngen, die zwar  in Deutschland zumindest mit ca. 10% vollzogen wurden, allerdings die  Amis sind doch sehr sehr kurz gesprungen, wenn man nicht sogar auf der  Stelle hüpfen sagen kann.......

Sieht mehr nach Hüpfen im Fahrstuhl aus.

Ich würde sagen, wir sind im Erdgeschoß angekommen. Die letzten sind ausgestiegen, jetzt gehts wieder in den obersten Stock!