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

No se si será un espejismo pero hoy hemos avanzado un poquito más.
Ojalá todos los días la hucha sumara un 5% !!!
Seguimos esperando noticias pero más vale esperarlas así que al reves :)

Enviar email a esta dirección: [email protected]
Con vuestros datos y este texto.

company: Washington Mutual, INC.

Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)

address:

United States Bankruptcy Court
District of Delaware
824 Market Street, 5th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Names need to be reported!!!

a. William Kosturos
b. Brian Rosen
c. Charles Smith
d. Jonathan Gouling
e. David Tepper

subscription:

a. missing subsidiaries
1. Nols
2. Visa shares
3. Windfarms

b. bribery

1. Gifting billions of dollars to third parties.
c. Treachery
1. Transferring money without the court

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101228000000000014.pdf

Pienso que vamos a continuar esta tendencia con
poco volumen hasta que la Juez hable, eso podria ocurrir sobre el 21 enero si es que no ocurre unos dias antes q termine el mes para que permita incluir un nuevo POR que ojala beneficie al EC.

Espero que los reyes os traigan muchos regalitos. De momento aqui seguimos vivitos y subiendo poco a poco que no es mucho pero es mucho mas que nada !!

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110104000000000002.pdf

Aquí tienes el primer regalito de Rosen, si la juez firma esta orden sobre los claims de CCB expuestos por Tricadia (los famosos 17bill futuros), ya podemos decirles adiós a estos billones, me imagino que como Rosen ya tiene comprados a Tricadia, trata de cerrar cualquier atisvo de que los hechos expuestos por Tricadia puedan ser usados.

Veremos cuanto tarda la juez en firmarlo, si lo firma sin más, como el abandono de la equidad, son dos hechos que van a dirimir de su opinión sobre el POR, es decir que tiene claro que lo va a intentar aprobar y darle todo el tiempo del mundo y facilidades a Rosen para ello.

Saludos

Plasta inside

Spot1Roth dice:

I believe the trust securities (WAHUQ) made a deal for about $33.00 and if I am not mistaken they should be worth $50.00 a piece (face value) along with the unpaid interest for 2/12 years. Now to me, the way this is playing out or should play out theses securities should get the correct face value, assuming this POR gets cancelled.

We have to realize the majority of the world (99.9%) does not have a clue about the WaMu tragedy. My point being is the people that DO KNOW about this investment of a lifetime only have so much money they can allocate to this, whether it be Hedge Funds or Joe Six Pack. When we look at the four securities, WAHUQ, WAMPQ, WAMKQ and WAMUQ, one would think if I am going to buy into a company that is trading in chapter 11, what would be the safest investment vehicle. That would be an easy question for those of us that know and that would be WAHUQ.

With WAHUQ trading at only $23.00 with the potential to go much higher, especially if the POR is turned down, why would these shares NOT be trading much, much higher? I believe there can only be one explanation as to why these savvy people would leave a 35 to 60 percent guaranteed (almost) return on the table. To me these actions by the large money players makes me feel very good about all of these securities including the common shares (WAMUQ) of WMI. Investment savvy people would NEVER leave a 35-60 percent guaranteed return on the table unless on this same table there was a far SUPERIOR return and that would be ANY of the remaining securities of WMI. With WAHUQ closing today at only $23.00, this SHOULD make ALL players here feel really good the investment savvy players are leaving this kind of return on the table.

WithCatz (Maximunae gran amigo dice):

Spot, WAHUQ's are weird.

They aren't like a regular bond - say issued at $1000 and a fixed interest for certain number of years. You'd buy that bond at day of issue for $1000 and some probable premium on top of that $1000 for the recurring interest.

WAHUQ's were sold at an "discount" and their maturity value (2041 I think) is the full $50. They were NEVER sold at $50 from day #1.

They creep upwards over time towards that $50 at maturity later. (Again, unlike 'regular' bonds)

This is why the trustee for the WAHUQ's updated the claim for the "current" worth of that creep -- which is $34.

The POR provides for a 74% payout of that $34.

The $50 is for maturity in 2041 (or whatever) -- and is unlikely to be seen since WAHUQ's aren't likely to be sticking around that long.

Now, of course, several folks- including myadad and F.c argued with the trustee that language in the WAHUQ prospectus said it ought to be $50.

But that battle has been lost, the claim has been re-done, and $34 + bankruptcy interest is the likely top.

and at the moment, it's 74% of 34$ = or about $25.16

Now, of course, the WAHUQ's are impaired by this math, so they are the ones getting the residual company, but only if one holds $2m face of WAHUQ's -- which is one of the issues, treating the same class (all WAHUQ holder) differently -- those with $2m face and those without.

¿Por qué el EC / TPS no se ha opuesto?

¿No era importante o es que dependen de Tricadia para hacer el trabajo que en última instancia, parecen haber sido comprados?

Sé que Hoffman se opuso a ella por una carta, pero ¿vamos a estar representados en el Hearing?

En última instancia tenemos que confiar en el EC sobre este respecto. Estoy seguro de que han hecho algunas investigaciones sobre este tema, y hablaran mañana en la vista.

La moción de Tricadia puede significar esto:
Tricadia motion-to-shorten up.

*IF* she entered a confirmation order, CCB holders, Tricadia wants to start trading again.

THJMW -- asked to CONFIRM that it's *IF* she enters a Confirmation Order only. (Inferring that CCB is restricted until a Confirmation Order is entered)

Withcatz dice:

CCB's got restricted per Tricadia's original motion.

The motion to un-restrict them is completely contingent on the POR approval, so I wouldn't worry if it gets approved. In fact, I do expect it to be approved.

What I mean is, the POR in it's current version doesn't use the "CCB" version of NOLs -- so it's logical to me that the CCB motion would be approved, because of the restriction that it's only valid if the POR is approved.