5. investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53547537
Zitat:
Posted by: chaarles Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:27:48 AM
In reply to: mmafr who wrote msg# 231442 Post # of 231492
Equity has just one representative voice in the case, and that's the EC. You better realize that or do you think they will be asking your opinion for a settlement or payout?
................................................................................................................................................
5.1 investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53547537
Zitat:
Posted by: chaarles Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:35:49 AM
In reply to: WithCatz who wrote msg# 231447 Post # of 231492
My sentence was not clear. I did not mean "can not object", but I believe that she will accept what the EC decides. All equity is represented here by the EC, its decisions aré the equity decisions.
We are represented by them and that means we take what they decide. IF they do decide a fair payout for all classes, making a haircut to the pref. Who is going to object? They are the pref. holders representatives.
--------------------------------------------------
6. investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53548214
Zitat:
Posted by: XOM Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:45:27 AM
In reply to: WithCatz who wrote msg# 231447 Post # of 231492
Paid in full of nothing is still nothing.
Everyone in this game should assume the absolute priority rule will be followed. If the numbers are what we believe they are, everyone will recover. IMO it would be unfair to the Ps if they were cut so commons were left to rot - longs have hedged into prefs for various reasons but not so that the AP rule is turned upside down.
That said, I am entirely invested into WAMUQ. The confidence of research and appetite for risk fueled this decision. But as of now every shareholder is in the same boat - and I'd prefer not resorting to eating at each other before we are rescued (by a fair valuation).
GLTA equity classes!
--------------------------------------------------
7. investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53549365
Zitat:
Posted by: WithCatz Date: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:01:25 PM
In reply to: chaarles who wrote msg# 231473 Post # of 231492
chaarles, I still believe that you are mistaken. The EC will negotiate, and certainly (we assume) make an agreement, but the final voting on a DS/POR will include some form of voting, along with a recommendation by the EC.
The EC is a singluar voice, representing all of Equity (P/K's and Q's). (And for the record, H's are represented by their trustee, Wells Fargo)
And based on what we were told on 1/28, that a majority of EC members held both commons and preferreds. And later, we learned that Willingham holds just preferreds.
That said, as an example, the EC wrote a sample letter to be included in the DS/POR in case that goes forward.
{Ok, before people freak out, what is attached was a proposed letter -- based on the current DS/POR which stated that preferreds get 0-1% and commons get nothing -- please read the first page of this link, it was WMI who asked for these letters to be drafted, and the Equity Committee complied -- among others.}
I'm making a point with chaarles and others.
See:
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100708000000000005.pdf
PDF Page 16.
THE Equity Committee IS WRITING ONLY TO THE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS
"Dear Preferred Shareholders" it begins. "...The EC is currently comprised of .. members [who] hold both preferred and common equity securities in Washington Mutual"
..."Under the Plan, the Preferred Equity... may.... receive a recovery of up to 1%...."
"On the other hand, under the plan, the holders of Common Equity Interest will receive no distribution ... and are deemed to reject the Plan"
... "recommends that Preferred Equity Security Holders vote to Reject the plan."
Quote:
My sentence was not clear. I did not mean "can not object", but I believe that she will accept what the EC decides. All equity is represented here by the EC, its decisions aré the equity decisions.
We are represented by them and that means we take what they decide. IF they do decide a fair payout for all classes, making a haircut to the pref. Who is going to object? They are the pref. holders representatives.
So, my point here is... while the EC holds both preferreds and commons. The voting will come down to those that are impared. If you take a haircut, you are impairing the preferreds and they will get to vote. If the commons don't receive anything, they don't get to 'vote' -- becuase, for obvious reasons, they are "deemed to object".
And my other point here by including the reference to the EC's "proposed" letter (at the time), is that the EC was writing to only the Preferred holders (back then). So it is completely possible that a future settlement may include only preferreds, even if the Equity Committee represents both.
BEFORE PEOPLE SHOOT ME. This is not what I want to happen.
What I am saying is that some of the misinformation needs to be corrected, so that everybody is intelligently dealing with this whole case.
...Catz
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)
Zitat:
"Ein jeder gibt den Wert sich selbst"
"Der Schein regiert die Welt, und die Gerechtigkeit ist nur auf der Bühne".(Parasit)
Und es herrscht der Erde Gott, das Geld.(An die Freude)
Zurück
