Nochmals zu dem vorhin empfohlenen Thread hier ein Auszug:
""Re: About "Holding The Line" settlement figure. Time to move it.
26 minutes ago bopfan
If WMI is offered a settlement that included (1) giving the current holders of commons $30 - $40 (based on where WMI was trading prior to JPM's machinations and the value of the seized assets) , (2) assuming the preferreds with additional shares to compensate for unpaid interest, (3) paying off all WMI and WMB debt, and (4) settling with pre-seizure holders who sold between the time the JPM smear campaign began and the date of settlement, WMI should take that deal.
Category (4) represents people who would be inclined to file a class action against JPM akin to that of the Texas action. This is NOT a resurrection of the pre/post debate: it is a fair and realistic position that addresses the injury to people whose shares were devalued in the market environment allegedly contrived by JPM during the Summer of '08. Unlike holders of other financial stocks who were hurt by (presumably) non-manipulated market conditions, these shareholders were injured by JPM's alleged machinations. These people should get the value of their WMI equity (a) as it was priced immediately before the JPM campaign or (b) upon settlement, whichever is higher.
If you're wondering why I included Category (4) given that these people's loss is not WMI's burden, the reality is that they were aggrieved and there's no such thing as a global settlement until their cause is redressed. In any event neither JPM nor the FDIC will settle with WMI until it has put the claims of these people to bed.""
sowie auch:
""Re: About "Holding The Line" settlement figure. Time to move it.
2 minutes ago bopfan
The problem for JPM is that the Texas action opened up a can of worms. Because of that lawsuit some people who sold now suspect JPM was the reason their shares declined during the Summer of '08. Accordingly, if they see WMI common get a settlement north of whatever they sold for they'll want to sue JPM and the FDIC for the deficiency and punitive damages. (By the way, the FDIC did not indemnify JPM against such claims, so the liability for them is exclusively JPM's.)
These people are now in the know and will demand some compensation. However, the real issue is the specter of criminal liability associated with these pre-seizure machinations. I confess to being utterly baffled as to why Dimon has let this matter go on for so long with that threat looming. ""
Frank
"You have no claims to WMI. That is a fact!"
Zurück
Weiter
