von marymbobh aus yahoo finance
messages.finance.yahoo.com/...65804&tof=1&frt=2#665804
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the court meant when it said that the GSA was reasonable. The court did NOT mean that: a) the GSA was the best deal possible, b) the court liked the GSA, c) the GSA was a good deal for equity, or d) the GSA was right, honest, proper, or good. The court looked at the issues, particularly the litigation, and asked, 'is a compromise settlement of this issue between the parties involved reasonable?' As an example, imagine that you are seriously injured in an automobile accident caused by a negligent driver. The insurance company representive visits you in your hospital bed and offers you $50,000 to release their insured from any claims you might make for damages. You think, 'wow' $50,000 is a lot of money...okay, where do I sign?' The settlement is 'reasonable' in that you are getting a large sum of money and the insurance company gets release from further claims. However, then your attorney shows up and says 'whoa cowboy...we can and will get $500,000...pay up!' More money...but both settlements are reasonable...because you and the insurance company are willing to settle. That's where we are with the GSA. The WMI debtors, the FDIC, and JPM all think the GSA is 'reasonable' and it is their decision to make about what the 'right' amount is, not the courts'. The court would find the GSA to be 'unreasonable' if, for example, the debtors were to receive nothing or if JPM or the FDIC did not seem to have any sort of claim to anything whatsoever...but the court is not otherwise passing judgment on the merits of the GSA. As shareholders, we are relying on the debtors to carry out their fiduciary duty to first, the creditors, and second, shareholders, in seeking what they are supposed to think is the best deal possible. Shareholders think the GSA is NOT reasonable, of course, because they don't get anything. So...here we are looking for a new POR...but now there's no release for the BOD who are supposed to be acting on our behalf in seeking a deal. Presumably this will make the BOD look a little harder at any new GSA they enter into with JPM and the FDIC if they are going to have to answer for it later...much later...to contingency-driven legal sharks working for disgruntled shareholders. For common to recover, there has to be either 1) successful litigation against JPM and the FDIC or 2) some very major concessions from JPM and the FDIC. For preferred to recover, there has to be a willingness by JPM to give up some of their ill-gotten booty. Neither of these things will happen as a 'gift' to equity but through leverage. Does equity have any leverage? Do JPM and the FDIC need anything from equity holders or can they ignore us? That is the question right now. If yes, it is likely that negotiations are ongoing at this minute and something may be forthcoming soon if they are fruitful. If no, we'll see another POR from the debtors that we don't like...but perhaps also an alternative POR that we DO like leaving the court to weigh 'reasonable' and 'even more reasonable.' $50K or $500K...things are getting interesting for sure.
Zurück
