Zurück
messages.finance.yahoo.com/...f=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
die fragen:
1) What is the best/worst case scenarios for wmi in terms of
DIME/Anchor/LTWs trial next week ?
2) Is it possible to get a ruling from Judge Walrath that JPM must return any and all Anchor/Dime goodwill amounts they received if wmi has to pay corresponding claim either as a debt or equity claim ?
3) Can Judge Walrath rule that JPM must be liable for any DIme/Anchor claims since JPM received the good will amounts?
I am not very clear on this. So, expert opinions requested.
Thank You.
gedanken eines yahoo users dazu:
Think,
I was giving this question some thought last night and concluded that this week's hearing is perhaps more significant than I had originally anticipated.
Here is why:
The issue at the core of this dispute is breach of fiduciary of responsibility. Essentially, that Rosen and the debtor gifted the litigation proceeds to JPMorgan and failed in their duty to adequately represent the interests of a group they were entrusted to protect, the LTW holders (sound familiar?).
This week Art will be hammering home this fact which benefits us because we have been the victims of a similar breach of fiduciary duty. The EC's written and oral arguments against plan confirmation not only involved the issue of IT, but equally important, allowed us to make a case for fiduciary breach on behalf of the debtors as well. The IT issue is what allowed us the intimate look 'behind the scenes' of the negotiations and allowed the EC to gather evidence not only of IT but of fiduciary breach too. If Judge Walrath sides with the LTW's then this would provide a legal determination that, indeed, such breach occurred, which strengthens our position that we were the victims of a similar breach (perhaps this is part of the reason Judge Walrath wants to hear these arguments before publishing her plan confirmation opinion). If fiduciary breach is determined here then it strengthens the case it occurred elsewhere.
It's really a no-lose situation for us at this point. If Judge Walrath sides with the debtors then I would assume that the 382 million set aside to pay the LTW's claims would be returned to the waterfall (assumption on my part... can someone else confirm this?). This would have the affect of paying the H's in full with cash (160 million shortfall), eliminating the 90 million dollar deficit that results in equity being deemed out of the money, which in my opinion would open the door to Equity receiving 100% of the re-organized company as an absolute worst case scenario (worst case being of course current plan confirmed, which I don't think will happen).
In addition, as you stated, Art and Co would join forces with the EC (as Dime warrants would be convertable to commons) which would benefit us all as a new POR/GSA is worked out or the case is moved to DC to litigate the claims that arose pre-BK (the impact of Stern v. Marshall).
die fragen:
1) What is the best/worst case scenarios for wmi in terms of
DIME/Anchor/LTWs trial next week ?
2) Is it possible to get a ruling from Judge Walrath that JPM must return any and all Anchor/Dime goodwill amounts they received if wmi has to pay corresponding claim either as a debt or equity claim ?
3) Can Judge Walrath rule that JPM must be liable for any DIme/Anchor claims since JPM received the good will amounts?
I am not very clear on this. So, expert opinions requested.
Thank You.
gedanken eines yahoo users dazu:
Think,
I was giving this question some thought last night and concluded that this week's hearing is perhaps more significant than I had originally anticipated.
Here is why:
The issue at the core of this dispute is breach of fiduciary of responsibility. Essentially, that Rosen and the debtor gifted the litigation proceeds to JPMorgan and failed in their duty to adequately represent the interests of a group they were entrusted to protect, the LTW holders (sound familiar?).
This week Art will be hammering home this fact which benefits us because we have been the victims of a similar breach of fiduciary duty. The EC's written and oral arguments against plan confirmation not only involved the issue of IT, but equally important, allowed us to make a case for fiduciary breach on behalf of the debtors as well. The IT issue is what allowed us the intimate look 'behind the scenes' of the negotiations and allowed the EC to gather evidence not only of IT but of fiduciary breach too. If Judge Walrath sides with the LTW's then this would provide a legal determination that, indeed, such breach occurred, which strengthens our position that we were the victims of a similar breach (perhaps this is part of the reason Judge Walrath wants to hear these arguments before publishing her plan confirmation opinion). If fiduciary breach is determined here then it strengthens the case it occurred elsewhere.
It's really a no-lose situation for us at this point. If Judge Walrath sides with the debtors then I would assume that the 382 million set aside to pay the LTW's claims would be returned to the waterfall (assumption on my part... can someone else confirm this?). This would have the affect of paying the H's in full with cash (160 million shortfall), eliminating the 90 million dollar deficit that results in equity being deemed out of the money, which in my opinion would open the door to Equity receiving 100% of the re-organized company as an absolute worst case scenario (worst case being of course current plan confirmed, which I don't think will happen).
In addition, as you stated, Art and Co would join forces with the EC (as Dime warrants would be convertable to commons) which would benefit us all as a new POR/GSA is worked out or the case is moved to DC to litigate the claims that arose pre-BK (the impact of Stern v. Marshall).
