Zurück
BP: From eljuez ....about the "withdrawal of montion to authorize runoff-sell stuff":
Jeez, despite all the good intentions and diligent digging, y'all seem to have missed it. Since the LT disclosure was admittedly ambiguous, look further into it. (And by the way, when we all meet in Vegas to celebrate, I'm not sure if I'll shake Gov's hand for all the tireless and honest work he has done, or punch him in the mouth for his snarkiness and veiled insults toward me and the LT. I may be 66, but I bet I could kick his ass in a minute. "I work out", as the song says.)
So, what if maybe there is not another back room conspiracy or ulterior motive or hedge fund plot? What if the LT sincerely believes that it is in the best interests of the vast majority of PIERS holders and the LT itself and all of its down-stream constituencies to re-market the RONs at the highest possible and advantageous price so as to cut costs and simplify matters for everybody, except those very few who prefer to hold unmarketable and awkward securities because they earn a nominal 13%? And what if Blackstone did a great job in setting up this win-win situation for most interested parties? But, what if a transfer restriction was attached to the 2nd Lien Runoff Notes upon issuance? And such transfer restriction requires consent by the board of directors of WMIH if one or more persons intend to acquire the notes and, after giving effect to such acquisition, such person or persons would own more than 4.75% of the outstanding principal amount of the notes? And perhaps these transfer restrictions were attached to the notes in order to address the risk that the IRS could re-characterize the notes from debt to equity and, as a result, potentially adversely affect the NOLs with which WMIH emerged from the chapter 11 proceedings? And, therefore, in light of recent developments, perhaps WMIH is unfortunately not now prepared to "consent" to re-marketing the RONs?
Maybe it's as simple as that? Was all that honest effort in vain?
Just sayin', "I know nothing . . . " ( as Sgt. Schultz used to say), but "lex parsimoniae": if there are multiple possible explanations for an event or result, the simplest is almost always correct. (Yeah, once again, Occams's razor.)
VG und auf einen
erfolgreichen WMIH - DAY ! :-)
Jeez, despite all the good intentions and diligent digging, y'all seem to have missed it. Since the LT disclosure was admittedly ambiguous, look further into it. (And by the way, when we all meet in Vegas to celebrate, I'm not sure if I'll shake Gov's hand for all the tireless and honest work he has done, or punch him in the mouth for his snarkiness and veiled insults toward me and the LT. I may be 66, but I bet I could kick his ass in a minute. "I work out", as the song says.)
So, what if maybe there is not another back room conspiracy or ulterior motive or hedge fund plot? What if the LT sincerely believes that it is in the best interests of the vast majority of PIERS holders and the LT itself and all of its down-stream constituencies to re-market the RONs at the highest possible and advantageous price so as to cut costs and simplify matters for everybody, except those very few who prefer to hold unmarketable and awkward securities because they earn a nominal 13%? And what if Blackstone did a great job in setting up this win-win situation for most interested parties? But, what if a transfer restriction was attached to the 2nd Lien Runoff Notes upon issuance? And such transfer restriction requires consent by the board of directors of WMIH if one or more persons intend to acquire the notes and, after giving effect to such acquisition, such person or persons would own more than 4.75% of the outstanding principal amount of the notes? And perhaps these transfer restrictions were attached to the notes in order to address the risk that the IRS could re-characterize the notes from debt to equity and, as a result, potentially adversely affect the NOLs with which WMIH emerged from the chapter 11 proceedings? And, therefore, in light of recent developments, perhaps WMIH is unfortunately not now prepared to "consent" to re-marketing the RONs?
Maybe it's as simple as that? Was all that honest effort in vain?
Just sayin', "I know nothing . . . " ( as Sgt. Schultz used to say), but "lex parsimoniae": if there are multiple possible explanations for an event or result, the simplest is almost always correct. (Yeah, once again, Occams's razor.)
VG und auf einen
erfolgreichen WMIH - DAY ! :-)
