Wamu WKN 893906 News !

JMW: in denying TPS motion, I believed SNH statements that all items were produced. How does this guy even talk w a straight face?

JMW: will reserve judgement until I hear testimony

BR: we'd like to proceed on confirmation. Witnesses: 1129 case first; valuation/taxes; allegations of misconduct last

ES (Sargent): we filed a motion against aurelius and centerbridge and would ask the court to rule after this hearing, using testimony here

BR: we're not responding to EC motion, but we reserve the right to do so

Eckstein(Aurelius):talking re EC motion. JMW "not inclined to erase my memory re what I will hear over the next few days" chuckle in court

Sarget/Rosen/Eckstein discussing whether witnesses should be barred from courtroom. JMW asking them to object at approp time

Starke: jurisdiction question? JMW: should I not hear evidence and send findings to DC court?

Sacks and Clarke arguing whether there are really two TPS groups and whether they should both be able to cross

There are two TPS groups here, both will have the opportunity to present and cross

DiBlasi: Klamser first witness from KCC. Declaration on docket #8113

DiBlasi: witness available for cross. Here comes Art!!

Steinberg: questions on solicitation of class 21. Discussion on which classes he was responsible for

Steinberg: asking re his declaration and section on releases

Steinberg: was notice of bar date also sent to claims holders in class 21? Answer: no

Steinberg: did many cl 21 holders elected stock or release?

Steinberg: debtor expects to disallow all late filed claims, yet you didn't send notice of bar date? A: yes

Q: wasn't it difficult to tabulate elections if cl 12 was still allowed to trade? A: no, not sure...ask the other guy

I love Art!

DiBlasi: trying to save this guy, but she's no Art!!

Does the frequency of trading really negate the double standard here?? (My thought...not said in court)

Art: blowing the poor guy up here...did you read the tracking warrant aggreement?

Art: do the procedures strike you as fair? A: its the procedure... bleh

BR and Steinberg duking it out :)

DiBlasi: next witness D. Sharp also KCC (the other guy Klamser rferred to)

Ed: elections of certain creditors to take stock vs cash...cl 2 questions
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende


MfG.L:)

Shareholders accuse WaMu of allowing insider trading

* Funds accused of gaining millions in illegal profits

* Court may hear insider-trading allegations on Thursday

By Tom Hals

WILMINGTON, Del., July 13 (Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.PK) allowed four hedge funds to hijack its bankruptcy and tacitly approved of their trading on inside information, according to the bank's shareholders.

The accusation of insider trading hung over Washington Mutual on Wednesday as it began its attempts in court to end its bankruptcy and distribute $7 billion to creditors.

The official committee of shareholders asked the Delaware Bankruptcy Court for permission to pursue litigation against the hedge funds -- Owl Creek Asset Management LP, Appaloosa Management LP, Centerbridge Partners LP and Aurelius Capital Management LP -- with the goal of knocking them out of the line for repayment.

In the most inflammatory of scores of objections, shareholders accused WaMu of assisting in the hedge funds' "gross abuse" of the bankruptcy to profit from trading the company's securities.

"The debtors fostered these hedge funds' ability to generate tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains through illegal trading," the shareholders said in a filing on Tuesday.

A Washington Mutual spokesman declined to comment.

The hedge funds have said in court documents that they are owed about $2 billion for their holdings in company securities. They denied the insider-trading allegations in court-filed responses to the allegations.

WaMu has said common shareholders will get nothing from the bankruptcy. The shareholders could change that by getting the judge to strike down the hedge funds' claims.

The judge, Mary Walrath, put off ruling on what evidence the shareholders could present on the insider-trading question until she hears the allegations in court. That will probably not happen until Thursday or Friday.

Washington Mutual has been in bankruptcy since September 2008, when regulators seized its savings and loan and sold it to JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) for $1.88 billion in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.

The bankruptcy plan is based on a "global settlement agreement" struck last year between warring parties. The deal divided $10 billion in disputed assets, providing $7 billion to the company, while other recipients agreed to support its bankruptcy plan.

Shareholders accused the funds of directing the settlement talks while trading the securities that stood to benefit from the deal.

Much of Wednesday's hearing before an overflow crowd consisted of expert views on the value of the tax breaks that the reorganized company will own.

 ashington Mutual plans to emerge from bankruptcy as a small mortgage reinsurance business that it says is worth around $160 million. Shareholders have argued the business may be worth billions more because of the potentially valuable tax breaks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/...e=companyNews&rpc=43

Gruß
Dude44

schint es einen Zusammenhang zu gebenm zwischen dem kaptial das man raised (einsammelt) und wenn es höher ist als diese ominösen 127,7 Mio sind dann könnte es sein dass section 296 was dagegen hat bzw. Risiken für die Taxvorteile druch die Nols enstehen könnten. Haben wir hier einen Experten der was dazu sagen kann?

The attorney crossing Reinhold now is still our attorney

Reuters - die haben ihren Artikel wohl schon gedruckt BEVOR das Hearing zu ende ist ;-)

auch, dass das nicht sein muss ;-) irgendiwe hatte er wohl deswegen diese Möglichkeit der 3 party akquise nicht in Betracht gezogen, da ja davor erst einmal Kapital gesammelt werdne muss um die Akquise selbst zu tätigen
ODER IRGENDWIE SO, Sorry aber das geht hier echt zu tief und es scheint sich alles nur w3inzige Feiunheiten zu drehen

Sargent is trying to establish if reinhold believes the irs would flag the nols if capital is raised above the non tax assets of the emerged company...he says irs will not rule with advance guidance.

Asking if an alternative means to accomplishing purpose...R says there is no other way.

1 minute ago     Sargent is trying to establish if reinhold believes the irs would flag the nols if capital is raised above the non tax assets of the emerged company...he says irs will not rule with advance guidance.

Asking if an alternative means to accomplishing purpose...R says there is no other way.

Says NOL's owned by WMRRC would constitute an asset and would affect the value of WMMRC.

gibt aber immer mehr zu, dass er wenig Ahnung hat. Geht hier auch um die Art des Business der reog. WMI, scheint also auch eine wichtige Rolle für 296 zu spielen

Your not offering an expert opinion on Wimrick becoming a viable business. No he does not have a view on that subject. Questions over.

Denkst Du, die lesen hier nicht mit?

Aber jetzt ist anscheindend seine Position überhaupt in Gefahr, und, nachdem er sich das Vertrauen von genügend Leuten erschlichen hat, wagt er es wohl, Übersetzungen zu manipulieren.
Das Einfachste ist das Weglassen.

Gruss, St. JCF

Sarg..your not offering an opinion on what wmi would have to do could they engage in beyond runoff...R.no he doesn't have a view on that subject...no further questions..
Dimeq continues interrogation

Says again the acquisition of WMRRC for using tax breaks would eliminate the NOL's.

Es gibt 3 mMn ansätze:
a) da wäre zum ersten der überschuldungsansatz. Dürfte hier aber nicht zum trafen kommen, da man ja für das eingesammelte kapital einen gegenwert erwirbt.
b)dürfte ebenfalls auszuschliessen sein, da man hierbei das aufgenommene Kapital ins verhältnis zum ursprungskapital setzen müsste. und das ist wesentlich höher als der kaufpreiseines geplanten erwerbs.
c) ist der kanckpunkt. man könnte b) kippen, wenn unterstellt wird, das durch eine neue eigentümerstruktur dasursprungskapital nicht mehr relevant wäre

Das Steuereecht verbietet es eine Firma zu akquirieren alleine aus Tax Vorteil Gründen, zumindest werden die Nols dann nicht voll genutzt werden könmnen, hier kommen dann die Limitations ins Spiel, statt 4mrd nnur die 2mrd z.B. Kann es sein, dass man darauf hinaus will. Creditors sind mit 2mrd zufrieden udn EC kann 4Mrd rausholen mit Andersons Vorschlag. 2 Mrd sind doch schon was, da kann kein Plan reasonble und fair sein

"Then why are you here then?"

Steinberg to Reinhold


Go get him Art!

DEime explaining 1129 which is similar 269 which it says he is not familiar with...dine says yu can't confirm a plan that's principal purpose is to avoid taxes....R says he doesn't know about that

Art...cracking us up again :). To Reinhold: isn't this really a valuation question? Reinhold: that's not why I'm here Art: so, why r u here?

Das fragen sich wohl viele ;)

S said if IRS was listening they may think that the entire reason would be to advoid taxes. No punches barred.

MNary overruled jeden Einspruch ;-) reinhold schwitzt ich kann ihn riechen

oh boy...this is getting stupid...he says weighting tax benefits toward the =creditors side is a balanced view? he (rein)says no.

Reinhold: wenn ich länger drüber nachdenke, könnte ich zu einer anderen Meinugn kommen
Ich lach mich tot

Der kippt aber schnell und alles ohne Haue;-)))

dem Gerichtssaal...