WMIH + Cooper Info

Eugene I. Davis - Chairman of the Board?

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7521.msg105843#msg105843

Zitat jaysenese:
I am truly perplexed that there has been no SEC reporting of the change in Chairman Of The Board that was discovered one week ago on the WMIH website.  

I have gone over the SEC filing requirements, and it sure seems to me that a formal filing is required within 4 business days of a change such as this.

??

Here is the link to check for SEC filings for WMIH:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/...amp;owner=exclude&action=getcompany
--------------------
Zitat Uncle_Bo:
Perhaps minutes from a meeting of the BOD where the decision was made. The other option would be if we somehow missed that in the ton of fillings with the SBP. For example, the increase in the number of authorized shares came along with the reincorporation and it was disclosed in advance already. I would agree that the web site would not meet the standard - scrivener's error ?!
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
Remember the recent changes to the WMIH website:

1.  Shows Eugene Davis is the Chairman Of The Board, Michael Willingham is a Board Member.  (This is not what the most recently quarterly report said).
2.  There was a strange new page added that laid out what appeared to be NASDAQ's rules dictating what it means to be an Independent Director.

The (8-BALL) in me says that the recent changes were in anticipation of WMIH announcing the buy of a NASDAQ listed company, which one or more of our Board Of Directors has an existing or prior relationship with.  

Perhaps those plans were changed or pushed back?   The timing of the original changes (on a Friday afternoon), lead me to believe that something was going to happen as soon as the following Tuesday trading day (May 26), but when nothing happened our stock price spent most of this week slipping .
--------------------
Zitat Mr_Simpson:
How about monday June 1st? Its the begining of a month & the week.

My other option is July 1st beginning of a new quarter but I hope its next monday
--------------------
Zitat sometimes_wrong:
Perhaps it is the fact that even though WMIH has been follow proper SEC filing protocol, it technically is still a Pink-Sheet stock with no SEC filing responsibility for material events. The company has chosen to file SEC reports in preparation of becoming uplisted to NASDAQ. But until they are officially a NASDAQ traded symbol, they can remain "dark" on news if they choose. (imo)
--------------------
Zitat myh1668:
Everyone gets 38462, two officer gets 1,7Mil shares that is such a big different they must be the one who brought us the target.....and will be setting up/over seeing the whole exchange.
---------------------
Zitat myh1668:
Can it be that formal title was not exchanged yet, just an update of the web page? Maybe they are waiting to put out the 8Ks together. Or maybe we filed the 8k but there were delays on the SEC side?
-------------------
Zitat myh1668:
Something happened.....that makes sense and the MM used the opportunity to shake some shares off the market then covered low, now we are all waiting for the news Monday.......I hope so coz the way they had traded, can't believe there is nothing going on.
--------------------
Zitat T1215s:
GOOD MORNING PEOPLE

IMHO. going to their site NASDAQ. is the correct way to seach for the regs. if one is truly interested (sorta from the horses mouth
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
I didn't realize that both Eugene Davis and Thomas Fairfield are on the BOD for Capmark as well.  I guess that new page on the http://www.wmih-corp.com/ website talking about conflicts of interest might simply refer to these two men.  
http://www.capmark.com/SiteAssets/...oup%20Inc%20-%202015%20Proxy.pdf

I still cannot figure out why our website shows Eugene Davis as our Chairman Of The Board but there seems to be no official filing for this change.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7521.msg106940#msg106940

Zitat Scott Fox:
http://quotes.wsj.com/WMIH/company-people
Maybe not yet. Could be official after the impending move even though it's on our site now. Maybe why no PA?
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
I called WMIH just now and left a message, asking who our Chairman Of The Board is today.

FYI, the answering machine message still identifies that phone number as "WMI Holdings Corp" and "WMI Liquidation Trust".
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
http://wmih-corp.com/director-and-officers/
Directors & Officers

Directors

   EUGENE I. DAVIS – Chairman of the Board
   THOMAS L. FAIRFIELD
   WILLIAM C. GALLAGHER
   DIANE BETH GLOSSMAN
   TAGAR C. OLSON
   PAUL E. RAETHER
   MICHAEL RENOFF
   STEVEN D. SCHEIWE
   MICHAEL WILLINGHAM
---------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
~ This is the part I like' ~

just sayin'
http://wmih-corp.com/about-us/
WMIH Corp. (“WMIH”) (OTCQB: WMIH) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. WMIH is the direct parent of WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc., a Hawaii corporation (“WMMRC”), and WMI Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation. On March 19, 2012, WMIH emerged from bankruptcy proceedings as the successor to Washington Mutual, Inc. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we had limited operations other than WMMRC’s legacy reinsurance business, which is being operated in runoff mode and has not written any new business since September 26, 2008. We continue to operate WMMRC’s business in runoff mode and we are actively seeking acquisition opportunities across a broad array of industries

--------------------
Zitat CSNY zu azcowboy:
What if an insurance firm were to be merged into WMMRC?  There are a lot of possibilities.
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese zu azcowboy:
This page of the website was largely re-written.  As recently as November, 2014 it looked like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141101055541/http://...orp.com/about-us/
Quote
On September 26, 2008, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. After a 3 ½ year bankruptcy proceeding, we emerged from bankruptcy on March 19, 2012 with a new board of directors and certain new officers. At that time we also changed our corporate name to WMI Holdings Corp. (OTCQB: WMIH) and we are the successor to Washington Mutual, Inc. We currently operate a single business through our wholly owned subsidiary, WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, whose sole activity is the reinsurance of mortgage insurance policies that is operated in runoff mode.
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
To Me that means that WMI Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation was recently returned.
---------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
Yes' ... and remember, ... per the documents ~ WMI Investment Corp ~ made a ... "contribution" ... "only a contribution"
------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
Yes,

The going-forward part of WMIIC went to WMIH, and the old part was contributed to WMILT.
--------------------
Zitat deekshant:
Posted today

Third Point Re Chief Says Not Any Dummy Can Start a Reinsurer
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-09/...tart-a-reinsurer
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
Just a reminder from the WMIH-Corp website.

http://wmih-corp.com/corporate-governance/definition-of-independence/

Company’s Definition of “Independence”

NASDAQ Stock Market – Corporate Governance Requirements – 5605(a)(2)

5605. Board of Directors and Committees
+++++++++++++
zu User  jaysenese:
So, WMIH has experienced an "Material Event" with the addition of WMI Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation as the direct parent of?

I think so!!
-------------------
Zitat Uncle_Bo:
Ron,

This is from the first 10-K post exit, WMIIC was listed there, but one has to wonder what are these investments held there - may be this Thackeray stuff which Bob has discovered. They must be brining up WMIIC to the forefront (the website) for a reason.

Uncle Bo
Quote
WMI Holdings Corp.

After a nearly 3 1/2 year reorganization process, WMI Holdings Corp. (“WMIHC”) emerged from bankruptcy proceedings as the successor to Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”). WMIHC is a holding company organized on August 17, 1994 (under the name Washington Mutual, Inc.) and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. WMIHC is the direct parent of WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc., a Hawaii corporation (“WMMRC”), and WMI Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation (“WMIIC”). As of September 26, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), the date WMI filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Chapter 11”) in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”),                                                                      

WMIIC held a variety of securities and investments.

Upon emergence from bankruptcy on March 19, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), we had no operations other than WMMRC’s legacy reinsurance business with respect to mortgage insurance which is being operated in runoff mode and we have not written any new business since the Petition Date. All of the banking assets of WMI were sold to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) prior to the Petition Date.
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
IMO.

WMIIC was an empty shell because the "variety of securities and investments" went FDIC-"Save-Harbor' to JPM [R-203] as a 'Bridge Bank'.

Footnote 39!

Now the "variety of securities and investments" are coming back to WMILT and WMIH.
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
A keen observation, Ron.  Thanks
--------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
It is notable how the 7 amended POR ,specifically, discloses that assets of WMIIC are contributed to WMILT and the equity interest stays with WMIH Corp. :

From the 7th amended POR at 32 of the PDF:

"1.140 Liquidating Trust Assets: From and after the Effective Date, all Assets
of the Debtors (including, without limitation, certain Plan Contribution Assets and such Runoff
Notes which are either (a) not distributed on the Effective Date or (b) placed into the Liquidating
Trust Claims Reserve) except (i) Cash to be distributed by the Reorganized Debtors as
Disbursing Agent to holders of Allowed Administrative Expense Claims, Allowed Priority Tax
Claims (to the extent applicable), Allowed Priority Non-Tax Claims, Allowed Convenience
Claims, Allowed WMI Vendor Claims, Allowed Trustee Claims, and the fees and expenses
owed to certain Creditors’ professionals pursuant to Section 41.18 herein, in each case as of the
Effective Date, (ii) Cash necessary to reimburse the Reorganized Debtors for fees and expenses
incurred in connection with initial distributions made by the Reorganized Debtors as Disbursing
Agent, (iii) the economic interest retained by the Debtors in any Litigation Proceeds pursuant to
the respective elections for Reorganized Common Stock, and (iv) Creditor Cash on the Effective
Date and the equity interests in each of WMI Investment (all the assets of which, for the
avoidance of doubt, shall be contributed to the Liquidating Trust, including any Intercompany
Claims), WMMRC and WMB."

and , 40 of the PDF:

"1.192 Reorganized WMI: WMI, on and after the Effective Date, which shall
include One Hundred Percent (100%) of the equity interests of WMI Investment, WMMRC and,
subject to the abandonment of the equity interests of WMB, WMB.
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229111212000000000003
WMIIC, the Subsidiary " with no assets and no operations" is the link between the LT and New Co., there have to be a reason for this Sub to survive the BK process and emerge as a link for the two separated entities , IMO.  
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

WENN ES EINE LEERE HÜLLE WAR;DIE JETZT GEFÜLLT WIRD
WAS ZWNGSLÄUFIG NICHT JPM GEHÖREN DARF UND FDIC NICHT BEHALTEN KANN
TOLL ,WENN ES SOOO EINFACH FUNKTIONIERT !!!  

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7521.msg107119#msg107119

Zitat boarddork:

Now that's interesting....I always wondered what the point of WMIIC remaining, and why it even needed to be part of the bankruptcy restructuring.   I guess it would if it had just been stripped of mortgages......very interesting.
---------------------
Zitat investorwad:
Wow!  Look at them GO!  "Keen", "Amazing", "Interesting"!  Talk about some amazing DD!  R TEAM!

Come on, WMIIC has been a part of both WMILT and the reorged Debtor from day one.  Gold star to whomever shows the reason why. My guess is the R Team won't even try.
--------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
~ WMI Investment Corp, was not able to be two entities' ~ WMI Investment Corp, had its Bankruptcy determinations combined with Washington Mutual Inc (the parent corp) early on' ... however, ... WMI Investment Corp exited Bankruptcy as a sub of WMIH' (the reorganized company) along with WMMRC' and not as part of the WMI' ... "Original Debtors Estate" ... or part of the Liquidating Estate ...

and again' ... per the documents ~ WMI Investment Corp ~ made a ... "contribution" ... "only a contribution"

I find it interesting that upon the Mar 2012' reorganization, ... only the available cash' was utilized to work through the creditor classes ... no assets at all' ... and now we see this

AZ
---------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
Definitively and evidently  WMI Investment Corp is of great importance in the process ,  it is worth noting that initially in the GSA , when we were not supposed to participate in the end result, the definition of “Reorganized Debtors” was simply " WMI and WMIIC, as reorganized." ( see page 235 of the PDF):

“Reorganized Debtors” shall mean WMI and WMIIC, as reorganized"

Then, in the 7th amended POR the definitions , on top of the equity interest in WMI Investment Corp. ,  include WMMRC and the possible tax attributes from WMB , see page 40 of the FDF which were not contemplated initially in the GSA:

"1.189 Reorganized Debtors: The Debtors from and after the Effective Date. "

"1.192 Reorganized WMI: WMI, on and after the Effective Date, which shall
include One Hundred Percent (100%) of the equity interests of WMI Investment, WMMRC and,
subject to the abandonment of the equity interests of WMB, WMB."
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229111212000000000003
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107098#msg107098

Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
This is interesting.... So below, back in April 2013, the FDIC determined assets of Colonial Bank were insufficient to make distribution on unsecured claims and had no value.  The FDIC has now withdrawn its determination because the Receivership's theoretically possible recoveries have been revised upward as a result of changed circumstances and could exceed previously calculated $1.68 Billion debt...

ND9
****************************************
Withdrawal of Determination of Insufficient Assets To Satisfy Claims Against Financial Institution in Receivership

A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/10/2014

ACTION         Notice.

SUMMARY       The FDIC has withdrawn and set aside its determination that insufficient assets exist in the receivership of Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama, to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and that such claims have no value.

TABLE OF CONTENTS            DATES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DATES:       The FDIC withdrew its determination on June 4, 2014.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:      If you have questions regarding this notice, you may contact an FDIC Claims Agent at (972) 761-8677. Written correspondence may also be mailed to FDIC as Receiver of Colonial Bank, Attention: Claims Agent, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:     On April 15, 2013, the FDIC determined that the assets of Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama, were insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims, and that such claims therefore had no value. Notice of the determination was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2013. 78 FR 23565. The FDIC has now withdrawn its determination because the Receivership's theoretically possible recoveries have been revised upward as a result of changed circumstances and could possibly exceed the previously calculated $1.698 billion deficit, which in turn could possibly result in payment on non-deposit claims under the most favorable circumstances.

Dated: At Washington, DC, June 4, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13423 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/...ncial-institution
---------------------
Zitat CSNY:
R's case won't be unprecedented
--------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
Thanks ND9. This would fall in line with what Ken has been saying all along about our possibilities of larger returns. That statement is similar to the one about us on the FDIC site. " Current information indicates that the Receiver is unlikely to have sufficient funds to distribute to holders of receivership certificates issued to junior note holders or equity holders of WAMU."
--------------------
Zitat  vitellom:
"WE BELIEVE" It is, what it will be!
Colonial bank was much smaller than Washington Mutual.


"Press Releases  

BB&T, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Assumes All of the Deposits of Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 14, 2009  
Media Contact:
Andrew Gray: (202) 898-7192
Cell: 202-494-1049
E-mail: angray@fdic.gov
Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama, was closed today by the Alabama State Banking Department, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Branch Banking and Trust (BB&T), Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to assume all of the deposits of Colonial Bank.

Colonial Bank's 346 branches in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Texas will reopen under normal business hours beginning tomorrow and operate as branches of BB&T. Depositors of Colonial Bank will automatically become depositors of BB&T. Deposits will continue to be insured by the FDIC, so there is no need for customers to change their banking relationship to retain their deposit insurance coverage. Customers should continue to use their existing branches until BB&T can fully integrate the deposit records of Colonial Bank.

This evening and over the weekend, depositors of Colonial Bank can access their money by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards. Checks drawn on the bank will continue to be processed. Loan customers should continue to make their payments as usual.

"The past 18 months have been a very trying period in the financial services arena, but the FDIC and its staff have performed as Congress envisioned when it created the corporation more than 75 years ago," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair. "Today, after protecting almost $300 billion in deposits since the current financial crisis began, the FDIC's guarantee is as certain as ever. Our industry funded reserves have covered all losses to date. In fact, losses from today's failures are lower than had been projected. I commend our staff for their excellent work in assuring once again a smooth transition for bank customers with these resolutions. The FDIC continues to stand by the nation's insured deposits with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. No depositor has ever lost a penny of their insured deposits."

Customers who have questions about today's transaction can call the FDIC toll-free at 1-800-405-8739. The phone number will be operational this evening until 9:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time (CDT); on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., CDT; on Sunday from noon to 6:00 p.m., CDT; and thereafter from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., CDT. Interested parties can also visit the FDIC's Web site at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/colonial-al.html
As of June 30, 2009, Colonial Bank had total assets of $25 billion and total deposits of approximately $20 billion. BB&T will purchase approximately $22 billion in assets of Colonial Bank. The FDIC will retain the remaining assets for later disposition.

The FDIC and BB&T entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $15 billion of Colonial Bank's assets. BB&T will share in the losses on the asset pools covered under the loss-share agreement. The loss-sharing arrangement is projected to maximize returns on the assets covered by keeping them in the private sector. The agreement is also expected to minimize the disruptions for loan customers.

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $2.8 billion. BB&T's acquisition of all the deposits was the "least costly" resolution for the FDIC's DIF compared to alternatives. Colonial Bank is the 74th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the first in Alabama. The last FDIC-insured institution to be closed in the state was Birmingham FSB, Birmingham, on August 21, 1992.

# # #

Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to restore public confidence in the nation's banking system. The FDIC insures deposits at the nation's 8,246 banks and savings associations and it promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed. The FDIC receives no federal tax dollars – insured financial institutions fund its operations.

FDIC press releases and other information are available on the Internet at http://www.fdic.gov/
, by subscription electronically (go to
http://www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html
and may also be obtained through the FDIC's Public Information Center (877-275-3342 or 703-562-2200). PR-143-2009"
--------------------
Zitat boarddork:
Excellent find ND9......despite a lot of 'opinion' that it never happens, lol.
---------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
Was Colonial Bank considered solvent at the moment of the seizure by the FDIC, it would be interesting to investigate how many solvent banks the FDIC have seized until today's date.
-------------------
Zitat WithCatz:
Incorrect.  Numerous requests for examples of where it HAS happened, and how it (if it) matches our scenario.
--------------------
Zitat investorwad:
THIS is an example of something CHANGING and CONFIRMED by an OFFICIAL entity that could change things as we know them now.

Some (ANY) indication like this in our case could be a good sign:

-WMB Juniors win their actions and are made whole by the R.
-R initiates asset disputes with JPM.
-DOJ/Fed steps in and once and for all ends the back and forth between FDIC and JPM.
-R updates the WaMu receivership showing more than $2.7B available.
-And, the Mother of them all, WMILT shows some (ANY) action relating to status as R creditor.

Good post. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

April/May/June (to date) 2015, Termination of Bank Receiverships

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7627.msg106773#msg106773

Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
Was just looking back at FDIC "Termination of Bank Receiverships" for June (to date) April, May.

ND9

***************
1.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10087, Security Bank of Houston County, Perry, Georgia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/08/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Security Bank of Houston County on July 24, 2009

2.) Notice to All Interested Parties, of the Termination of the Receivership of 10473 Chipola Community Bank, Marianna, Florida
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/08/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Chipola Community Bank on April 19, 2013.

3.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10090, Security Bank of North Metro, Woodstock, Georgia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/04/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Security Bank of North Metro on July 24, 2009.

4.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10088, Security Bank of Jones County, Gray, Georgia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/04/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Security Bank of Jones County on July 24, 2009

5.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10157, First Security National Bank, Norcross, Georgia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/02/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Security National Bank on December 4, 2009

6.) Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10274, NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, Georgia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 06/01/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of NorthWest Bank and Trust on July 30, 2010.

7.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10066, First National Bank of Anthony, Anthony, KS
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 05/20/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of First National Bank of Anthony on June 19, 2009.

8.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10318, Paramount Bank Farmington Hills, Michigan
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 04/29/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Paramount Bank on December 10, 2010.

9.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10173 Premier American Bank, Miami, Florida
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 04/17/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Premier American Bank on January 22, 2010.

10.) Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10014, Ameribank, Inc., Northfork, West Virginia
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 04/16/2015
The FDIC was appointed receiver of Ameribank, Inc. on September 19, 2008

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/...amp;page=2&quiet=true
---------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
I am trying to use the link you provided and can't get it to do what I want.

How can I see a list of OPEN receiverships that have not been terminated?   I want to see how many have been open as long as WaMu.

(Thanks for posting your list - it looks like 5 - 6 years is the norm for terminating receiverships these days.)
--------------------
Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
Failed Bank List

The FDIC is often appointed as receiver for failed banks. This page contains useful information for the customers and vendors of these banks. This includes information on the acquiring bank (if applicable), how your accounts and loans are affected, and how vendors can file claims against the receivership. Failed Financial Institution Contact Search displays point of contact information related to failed banks.
This list includes banks which have failed since October 1, 2000. To search for banks that failed prior to those on this page, visit this link: Failures and Assistance Transactions
Failed Bank List - CSV file (Updated on Mondays. Also opens in Excel - Excel Help)
Click arrows next to headers to sort in Ascending or Descending order.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
--------------------
Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
Jaysenese, good question.    I just went down list of banks seized before Wamu and clicked on bank link to see if receivership is terminated.   My quick scan, and I could have made a mistake here or there, showed:

Ameribank - open (I think really closed because I see FDIC receivership termination press release that I posted above).

Silver State Bank - open
Integrity Bank - open
Columbian bank - open
First Priority - open
First Heritage - open
First national - open
Indymac Bank - open
First Integrity - opem
ANB Financial - open
Hume Bank - open
Douglass National bank - open
Miami Valley - open
Netbank - OPEN

Metropolian Bank - terminated
Bank of Ephraim - terminated
Reliance Bank - terminated
Guaranty National bank - terminated
Dollar bank - terminated
Pulaski Saving bank -terminated
First National - terminated
Southern Pacific - terminated
Farmers Bank - terminated
Bank of Alamo - terminated
AmTrade bank - terminated
Universal Bank - terminated
Connecticut Bank - terminated
New Century Bank - terminated
Net 1rst national Bank - terminated
Nextbank - terminated
Oakwood Bank - terminated
Bank of Sierra Blanca - terminated

Hamilon Bank - open

Sinclair Bank - terminated
Superior Bank - terminated
Malta National Bank - terminated
First Alliance Bank - terminated
National State Bank of Metropolis - terminated
Bank of Honolulu - receivership terminated.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7521.msg107136#msg107136

Zitat azcowboy:
AMD'

Excellent Due Diligence and thank you for digging through the Plan' ... This is important' ... there is a distinction made regarding WMII' pre-reorganization and post-reorganization ...

AZ

"1.192 Reorganized WMI: WMI, on and after the Effective Date, which shall
include One Hundred Percent (100%) of the equity interests of WMI Investment, WMMRC and,
subject to the abandonment of the equity interests of WMB, WMB."
---------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:

And we all thought that WMIIC was supposed to be liquidated as per the LT annual report. As of 12/31/2014 it only has roughly $214K to get liquidated....and then it pops up at WMIH Corp as a subsidiary. Why should WMIH deal with a dead horse?!

http://www.wmitrust.com/wmitrust/document/8817600150406000000000001

page F6

Subsidiaries
The Trust currently has five (5) subsidiaries, all of which have ceased operations and are in the process of being liquidated pursuant to a plan of liquidation that was adopted on October 5, 2012 (the “Subsidiary Plan of Liquidation”). The aggregate value of the subsidiaries’ assets as of December 31, 2014 was $214,000; on December 31, 2013 was $187,000; and on December 31, 2012 was $209,000, which amounts are comprised of cash and cash equivalents. Pursuant to the Subsidiary Plan of Liquidation, the subsidiaries will distribute their remaining assets to the Trust when the liquidation is finalized.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Trust and all of its subsidiaries. All material intercompany transactions and account balances have been eliminated in consolidation


WMI’s equity interests in (i) (WMI edited by me) Investment (all the assets of which were contributed to the Trust or were transferred to JPMC pursuant to the Global Settlement Agreement), (ii) WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc. (“WMMRC”), a wholly- owned subsidiary of WMI Holdings Corp. (formerly known as Washington Mutual, Inc. and referred to herein as “Reorganized WMI”), and (iii) Washington Mutual Bank (substantially all of whose assets were sold to JPMC on September 25, 2008, pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and whose stock was abandoned by WMI shortly before the Effective Date);

Funny, Kosturos has done it again...
--------------------
Zitat kinged:
WMI Investment Corp.

Why does it still exist?  Why was it saved?

Here is how I understand it from what has been written above.  WMI Investment Corp. is now owned 100% by WMIH by way of its 100% equity ownership via the POR.  However, ALL assets have been stripped from this company prior to reorganization and WMIH emergence.

My interpretation is that WMI Investment Corp. is now an empty shell with NO assets, but is an active corporation in the state of Delaware.  Is it possible that this corporation has some significant license or business structure that is still in place within this empty shell with no assets?

If so, this is why it still exists and has been saved?  To go through all the effort to keep WMI Investment Corp. active and as part of the emerging company, one would have to believe there was an important reason.

Anyone care to offer why it would be important?  Seems quite easy to just set up a new Corporation in Delaware on any given day.
--------------------
Zitat
MfG.L:)
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107125#msg107125

Zitat Uncle_Bo:
ND9,

Thanks for a great post.

I have always believed that the tool which the FDIC will use is the footnote #9 on the receivership balance sheet associated with the (40B) adjustment. That adjustment puts the receivership into a deficit. The nature of the adjustment is "guess"-timated claims and assets losses. These have become more or less known now - the housing market has recovered and there are no new claims against the FDIC, even a ruling in the DB case came out. They may now be in a position to start recording some more accurate numbers on their books and with that issue whatever appropriate documents are necessary.

Uncle Bo
--------------------
Zitat Bobwatch:
I think that this question has been the pivotal point of doubt and mistrust for many of us regarding any so called statements of numerical fact issued by the FDIC-R regarding our case. We all know that they threw a grenade through the front doors of the bank in a mad rush to take total control. They had, nor did they take any time to gather any studied factual financial data, but rather rushed to justify and complete the kill. The dust is still settling...
--------------------
Zitat vitellom:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 14, 2009  
"
As of June 30, 2009, Colonial Bank had total assets of $25 billion and total deposits of approximately $20 billion. BB&T will purchase approximately $22 billion in assets of Colonial Bank. The FDIC will retain the remaining assets for later disposition."
--------------------
Zitat sunshine:
Thanks Bo,

Doubt the $ 40 B number was arbitrarily picked. Seems to me "R" has not collected the $ when this footnote 9 was made +  also continued to serve for public consumption the justification for the seizure...
--------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
Also, ... I would suggest, bringing this thought process out even further' and well beyond the examiners report' ... I highly doubt ... any "R" returns at all to the estate' ... would have been allowed to be openly discussed all the way up to and including the Sept 2014'  termination of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement' between the FDIC and JPMorgan'

To speculate openly regarding these possible financial returns from "R", would have been an issue that would have had to be considered by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and researched' ... Prior to any allowable Settled Reorganization', and at minimum, prior to allowing the removal of APR'

The absolute only allowable exception to Rule 1129(b) to allow the Reorganization to go forward, with the mediated removal of the Absolute Priority Rule would have been to only show to the Court ... A Possibility ... A Possibility ONLY ... of FUTURE returns to the reorganized estate' ...

The "we believe" as was presented, regarding ONLY the possibility of Net Operating Loss availability accomplished what was necessary at the time' ... nothing more

AZ
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107161#msg107161

Zitat CSNY:
The HFs (SNs and TPSC) would not want release of any information suggesting preferred would be satisfied as the fulcrum would have been more like 75:25 favoring common.
--------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
Absolutely and 100% Correct'

The 2011 Court Ordered Mediation was between the snh's and the Equity Representation' ... TPS was determined by the Court to NOT be able to participate and was Ruled to be ... already being represented by Equity' after having been determined to be class 19'

JPMorgan and the FDIC were already "all set"
--------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
Exactly AZ. The deal between JPM and the FDIC had to be completed before any firm numbers can be reported. Any of the safe harbor items would be kept under wraps until it is deemed time for them to be released also. Once again, our BK was a lot more complex , maybe by design, than any bank I've read about and so many more assets and so much more money at stake. Big difference in totals after six+ years. Also, JPM had the ability to buy what they wanted in this time frame also changing totals and value.
---------------------
Zitat CSNY:
I've always believed that MW knew (but could not prove it as a legal matter (i.e., by the preponderance of the evidence -- at least) or not) that enough $ would materialize in the end such that to cut common out would be evil.  At the current configuration (75:25 favoring preferred) if anything above $10B comes in, preferred receive more than par.  At some point we'll see just how much injustice the HFs planned for common.  Of course, and in the interest of full disclosure, I've benefited by what went down, but I'm not unhappy by how things turned out.  American investors could choose to buy Ps and Ks, but it would have been especially hard on foreign investors who only had access to common.
--------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
Correct! And JPM Bank, JPM Clearing etc. owned tons of preferred shares as per the WAMU vote results as of Feb. 2012! They will double dip again once assets reach the LT.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

5 month anniversary of the Preferred Offering - Where is our M/A?

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7625.msg106681#msg106681

Zitat Simonizer:
Today is the 5 month anniversary of the completion of the Private Preferred Share Offering.  I am very surprised we still have no M/A announcement.  I know it was said at the shareholder meeting that we needed this money in the bank to get WMIH to be taken seriously in M/A talks, but it has now cost the company 7.5 million dollars in interest payments.  (3% per year =1.5 milion per month).  The deal pocketed 568 million after expenses and we have now spent 1.5% of that on interest minus the miniscule amount of interest being earned.    

Many posters have complained about the amount of stock incentives the CEO and CFO received, but the interest has almost exceeded that value. How much longer can it be?
--------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
Until .. July of 2018' ... Sections 5 & 6 of the rights offering, describe this in detail'

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/...790/d845621dex31.htm

UPDATED POST;

SECTION 5. Mandatory Conversion on the Mandatory Conversion Date. (a) On each closing date of any Acquisition, the number of outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock having an aggregate Liquidation Preference equal to the net proceeds of the Offering utilized in such Acquisition, on a pro rata basis, shall automatically convert into a number of shares of Common Stock equal to the Liquidation Preference divided by a conversion price equal to the lesser of:

(i) $2.25 per share of Common Stock (the “Initial Conversion Price”); and

(ii) the arithmetic average of daily Volume Weighted Average Prices of the Common Stock during the 20 Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding the public announcement by the Corporation of its entry into a definitive agreement for such Acquisition, subject to a floor of $1.75 per share of Common Stock (the “Floor Price”).

In addition, on the closing date of a Qualified Acquisition, each outstanding share of Series B Preferred Stock shall automatically convert into a number of shares of Common Stock equal to the Liquidation Preference divided by the applicable conversion price set forth in subclauses (i) and (ii) immediately above. Each closing date of an Acquisition (including a Qualified Acquisition) shall be a “Mandatory Conversion Date.” The Corporation shall issue a press release relating to each Acquisition (including a Qualified Acquisition) as soon as practicable, but in any event no later than the closing date of such Acquisition.

(b) Each of the Initial Conversion Price and the Floor Price shall be subject to adjustment, if applicable, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.

(c) In addition to the shares of Common Stock issuable upon Mandatory Conversion, Holders of the Series B Preferred Stock shall have the right to receive on each Mandatory Conversion Date in cash an amount equal to any accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares of the Series B Preferred Stock to be converted on such Mandatory Conversion Date as of such Mandatory Conversion Date, whether or not declared (other than previously declared dividends payable to Holders of record as of a prior date), to the extent the Corporation is lawfully permitted to pay such dividends at such time. To the extent that such dividends cannot be lawfully paid at such time, the amount of such dividends that cannot be so paid shall be added to the Liquidation Preference in the calculation of the number of shares of Common Stock to be received in the Mandatory Conversion (provided, that no fractional shares of Common Stock shall be issued and there shall be no payment with regard to fractional shares); provided, however, that in the event the receipt of additional shares of Common Stock in lieu of such dividends would cause such Holder to become a Substantial Holder, then pursuant to Article VI of the Articles, the number of additional shares of Common Stock shall be reduced to the extent necessary such that upon receipt of such shares such Holder would not become a Substantial Holder (resulting in such Holder receiving less than the full value of the dividends it was otherwise entitled to receive).

(d) If upon the applicable Mandatory Conversion Date the shares of Common Stock issuable upon such Mandatory Conversion Date exceeds the number of authorized shares of Common Stock (that are not otherwise reserved on the Issue Date), such shares of the Series B Preferred Stock shall automatically convert, to the fullest extent possible, into all authorized shares of Common Stock (that are not otherwise reserved on the Issue Date) available for issuance on a pro rata basis using the applicable conversion price on such Mandatory Conversion Date (the “Partial Conversion”). Shares of Series B Preferred Stock entitled to be converted but not actually converted in the Partial Conversion (such shares, the “Unconverted Shares”) shall remain outstanding and shall continue to be entitled to all the rights and preferences of the Series B Preferred Stock, including, without limitation, the rights and preferences set forth in Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15. For the avoidance of doubt, shares of the Series B Preferred Stock converted into shares of Common Stock in the Partial Conversion shall not remain outstanding and shall not retain the rights and preferences of the Series B Preferred Stock.

(e) Upon the Reincorporation or such earlier date that authorized shares of Common Stock sufficient to effect the Mandatory Conversion of the Unconverted Shares are available (the “Remainder Conversion Date”), the Unconverted Shares shall automatically convert into shares of Common Stock using the applicable conversion price on such Mandatory Conversion Date.  

(f) With respect to dividends paid in connection with a Partial Conversion or a conversion of Unconverted Shares, such dividends shall be applied (whether paid in cash or, if applicable, added to the Liquidation Preference in the calculation of the number of shares of Common Stock to be received in such Mandatory Conversion) only with respect to the shares of the Series B Preferred Stock being converted at such time.

SECTION 6. Mandatory Redemption. (a) Except as described in Section 6(b), the Corporation shall be required to redeem all outstanding shares of the Series B Preferred Stock (including unconverted shares of the Series B Preferred Stock remaining after any Mandatory Conversion, including Unconverted Shares), if any, unless such shares of the Series B Preferred Stock have been previously repurchased at the option of the Holder pursuant to a Put Event or mandatorily converted (including in a Partial Conversion), on the third anniversary of the Issue Date (the “Mandatory Redemption Date”), out of funds lawfully available for payment, at a price equal to $1,000 per share of the Series B Preferred Stock, plus an amount equal to accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, whether or not declared (the “Mandatory Redemption Price”).

(b) If, prior to the Mandatory Redemption Date, the Corporation has publicly announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement for an Acquisition, the Mandatory Redemption Date shall be extended to the earlier to occur of:

(i) July 5, 2018; and

(ii) the day immediately following (x) the date such definitive agreement is terminated or (y) the date such Acquisition is closed.

(c) The Corporation shall submit a certificate to the Escrow Agent (within the time period required by the Escrow Agreement (unless waived by the Escrow Agent)) to request disbursement of funds sufficient to pay the Mandatory Redemption Price on the Mandatory Redemption Date. If the Paying Agent holds immediately available funds sufficient to pay the Mandatory Redemption Price on the Mandatory Redemption Date, each share of the Series B Preferred Stock shall cease to be outstanding and dividends shall cease to accrue on the Mandatory Redemption Date, whether or not such Series B Preferred Stock is delivered to the Paying Agent, and all other rights of the Holders shall terminate (other than the right to receive the Mandatory Redemption Price).

just sayin'

AZ
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
Yes, AZ's right, but I understand the prohibition against KKR shorting only extends to the end of this year.  That's an incentive to do something before then.
--------------------
Zitat baldeagle1:
CSNY - Was it December 2015? I thought it was December 2016 before KKR could short the stock!
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
Yes, but;

The B's needs [reasonable efforts] for WMIH to be on a National Exchange by July 5th which is really Thursday the 2nd because of the weekend, and the sixth is Monday.

“ Post-Closing Covenants ” have already been satisfied with the “ Reincorporation ”. WMIH can have a Qualified Acquisition at any time now.

The condition been met, and no forced conversion of the B's is pending. Then out to 2018 for forced conversion.
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7605.msg106421#msg106421
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
Whenever it is, WMIH will have consummated some deal before then.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: 5 month anniversary of the Preferred Offering - Where is our M/A?
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7625.msg106696#msg106696

Zitat azcowboy:
Well ? ol' AZ doesn't think that the 2015' shareholder meeting was moved up two months early to April 2015' to merely accommodate the ... "company's summer vacation schedule" ...

~ maybe I guess, but' lets hope not ~

Heck' ... we still only have two "employees" and eleven "Board of Directors"' ...  (eleven Captains and just two Privates - I just bust up laughin' every time I think of that') ...

AZ figures the move to Delaware must have been kinda' easy and all, ... with only a couple of people' ... they' (WMIH) merely hooked up a small U-Haul trailer to the Company' VW Bus' and headed "east" ...

just sayin'
--------------------
Zitat T1215s zu User baldeagle1 bezüglich December 2015 oder 2016 before KKR could short the stock:

baldeagle1
KKR & Affiliates
December 2016
---------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
Item 1.01  Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=10391663
Looking for the 180 days language.

(pp) “ Post-Closing Covenants ” means the covenants by the Corporation that within 180 days of the Issue Date, the Corporation shall (i) reincorporate from Washington to Delaware, (ii) amend its Articles to provide that the number of members of the Board of Directors be increased from seven to up to eleven directors and (iii) authorize a number of shares of Common Stock sufficient for Mandatory Conversion of all shares of the Series B Preferred Stock (collectively, the “ Reincorporation ”)

This has all happened.



(ii) if, prior to the consummation of a Qualified Acquisition, any of the Post-Closing Covenants have not been satisfied on or prior to the date that is 180 days following the Issue Date (such an event, a “ Post-Closing Covenant Default ”).
---------------------
Zitat baldeagle1:
Thanks T! I thought so! That gives us a little more time to make our decisions going forward
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
That gave them two years to do a deal as I consider avoiding shorting more of an incentive than the 1/5/18 Mandatory Conversion date.
--------------------
Zitat Plissken:
This move to Delaware has me bouncing some questions around in my head, more with the timing of the move. Was it always the plan to have WMI Holdings ( a Washington company ) merge into WMIH Corp. ( a Delaware company )  BEFORE any company acquisition? ‘If so’, why was the move ( to Delaware) not done any sooner?  Why did it not happen the first few years after WMIH was restructured after BK? How serious could they (WMIH) have been about looking for an acquisition? More importantly, what were they waiting for?
--------------------
Zitat Masterp281:
Those are the questions most of us have. Many things could and should have been done sooner but wasn't. It seems all of the disclosures of "diligently searching for acquisition targets" were deceptive and there was a total lack of a sense of urgency.

Keyword: MILKING.
--------------------
Zitat Plissken:
I agree. There seemed to be a lack of urgency. Out of all the questions i ask myself the biggest one is  - What are they waiting for? Have they not been able to find the right acquisition target or are they waiting for a certain (insert AZ theory) acquisition target?
--------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
Personally, I think there are a few reasons, one of them is under a different thread title. The move just makes sense in every way. It seems you're right AZ, timing of everything looks to be coming together. More note lotteries now also. MM's also just seem to be hanging out waiting like the rest of us.
--------------------
Zitat kenwalker:
This ain't a side of the road fruit stand selling off the tailgate till the cops run you off for lack of a permit. I'll admit the interest payments while it looks like no movement raises questions but for now I'll assume there are legitimate answers. There's enough at stake that warrants due diligence ( the def: care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property ) where bases have to be covered and more gears turning than just those under your control.
--------------------
Zitat Uncle_Bo:
Ron,

So basically, that third statement about the authorization of the shares ties us to an event at 180 days - at least the earliest anticipated event . Before that date July 3/6 WMIH had to have the shares authorized - to not only accommodate the conversion of SBP, but perhaps the warrants exercise and the SAP conversion and then some...  up to 3.5B common and up to 10B preferred.

Uncle Bo
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
There are no further obligations until the earlier of an acquisition or 1/5/18.  AZ pointed out that although there is just over 2 1/2 years with 11 BOD members and two employees, it seems like overkill to wait that long to do a deal.
--------------------
Zitat InPortlandd:
There is language in this disclosure that states conditions for "Put Events" Triggers--in case of Post closing Defaults--Meaning the B holders can "Put" their preferred shares back to the company--One case lists a purchase of "B" shares for as much as $1750-per plus dividends--money the company plainly doesn't have...The other Put Event is a repurchase @ $1000- per plus dividends--With these kinds of penalties one would think they are dead serious about getting this thing done...
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
Yes, if (a) there's a change of control or (b) the share authorization, BOD increase, and reincorporation in DE hadn't happened.
--------------------
Zitat sysintelfin:
Pay the interest or more converted stocks. It is yet to be seen but the stock prices might not go down to make the formulated conversion price below 2.25.

I think it is part of well planned execution  

I provided a reference to a number of similarly situated companies where the average time for the first deal appears to be around three years after the involvement of hedgies/ private equity or reorganization as the case might be. Companies with some employable assets/business were faster in finding the deal.

Most of these companies are doing relatively well. The kinda deal WMIH has to pull proportionate to NOL amount as a measure, It is likely that more and larger wrinkles need to be iron out. I still think a KKR entity.....

There might also be a a link to finalizing the bankruptcy and having the authorization to issue non- voting equity as after the conversion of preferreds and warrants the ownership change needs to be more closely managed. On the other hand, a combination of Rights and debt might avoid that bankruptcy restriction.
--------------------
Zitat Sgtofarmsone:
Nicely done and thanks for the coherent  input!  

Obviously everything is being orchestrated to protect WMIH's major asset (the NOL's) while complying with the IRS guidelines throughout these past few years.  The hired professionals are seeing to it.  We are now recognizing the benefit of it with the accelerated WMIH coverage.  The recent passing the of the torch to GD shouldn't be overlooked either IMO.  But no one has really commented on this transformation.  Especially with GD's known history and talents.  It's certainly good news for MW though.  He has an additional feather in his cap.  His previous title as COB of WMIH has also added to his resume with a presumed multi-billion dollar entity notwithstanding his past EC representations.  Regardless, the most important thing is that they are NOT willing to sacrifice the NOL's AND they are NOT  willing to overpay for an acquisition.  It now seems the reputation and experience of our BOD's comes with a time factor, but we should all benefit later as shareholders in the end by their discretionary measures.
--------------------
Zitat sysintelfin:
With all due respect, I think I also nicely did the job of pointing out your indifference towards the supposedly important folks on the board while you calling me out and holding me responsible for derailment of a thread.

Once Catz told me to "heed"
Then you did recently
While the big guys get the free pass.
Let me seriously ask you this
Ain't I human? What I did to make you so mad?
--------------------
Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
I think it has to be sooner than later...  Otherwise, I don't think Willingham would have resigned as Chairman of the Board.

JMHO
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
Read the link in my last post.  It suggests July 5th is a significant date.
--------------------
Zitat Mr_Simpson:
Keep in mind that KKR Special Situations Vehicle II (our B´s) has a closing date in 3 years per their 10K so by that date the returns have to be wayyyy into their pockets and those of the investors that gave us $600 Million - commissions: $568 Million.

My take is this summer between July 1st - July 3rd... Could also be July 6th but announcing with PR completion................ that PR has to be near.
--------------------
Zitat CSNY:
The pages to which I referred suggest July 5, 2015 is a significant date.  Also, AZ's point about WMIH's investment affiliate as guarantor is interesting.
--------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
CSNY,

Yep, thank you for the reference ... Heck, thank goodness, it appears that we are finally getting close to "something" ...

Truth be told, at this point, ... nothing can change my mind, short of a catastrophic event' ... I'm dug in like a ... tick on a mule deer'
--------------------
Zitat Nightdaytrader9:
Also............    Coincidence?   As discussed below, this new rule takes effect July 1, 2015.

PART 340—RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF ASSETS OF A FAILED INSTITUTION BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Footnotes
DATES:
Back to Top
This final rule is effective July 1, 2015.
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
180 days from January 5, 2015

26 days January
28 days February
31 days March
30 days April
31 days May
30 days June
 4 days July
------------------
180 days = July 4, 2015

(I realize this makes very little difference, but I just wanted to put it out there).
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: 5 month anniversary of the Preferred Offering - Where is our M/A?
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7625.msg106751#msg106751

Zitat azcowboy in Richtung User Sgtofarmsone:
Wait a minute' ... Wait just a dog gone minute here ~ Just an observation, leading to my obvious inquisitive nature ~ But'

I can understand how WMIH would be the ... "Designated" ... BORROWER, ... regarding the "Financing Agreement" ~ But how in the world was ~

WMI INVESTMENT CORP. ... able to be considered the ... GUARANTOR: ? ...

I thought WMI INVESTMENT CORP' ... was empty' ... How could WMI Investment, actually ever guarantee anything ? ... I thought we were told that there wasn't supposed to be anything in that one' particular sub, this whole time ~

AZ


BORROWER:

WMI HOLDINGS CORP.
By: /s/ Charles Edward Smith
Name: Charles Edward Smith
Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer and Secretary

GUARANTOR:

WMI INVESTMENT CORP.
By: /s/ Charles Edward Smith
Name: Charles Edward Smith
Title:
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary

http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=10391663
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah' ... Well, Lets just say' that ever since I started researching this entire deal' ... going all the way back' ... The one thing that I found consistant, was the feeling that there was always a whole lot of public ... "muffin butterin" ... goin on'

From the FDIC's initial press release' to all of the ... "we believe" ... and then after the reorganization, to all of the same old ... "fluff and stuff" ... repeated' at each and every one of the three shareholders meetings

just sayin'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, ... So, you continue to ... "we believe" ... that the NOL's initially mentioned' ... remain to be WMIH's "major" asset ? ... and that Mike Willingham did all of this, that he' did this whole entire WaMu deal ... just to put another "notch" on his resume' ? ...  

Well, ... OK den' ... let's just say that ... we' ... disagree regarding what you just posted ? ... and ... we' ... also disagree regarding about twelve thousand other related issues regarding everything WaMu'

~ I'll hold with this base thought, ~ Wamu ~ has, ... past, present, and future tense' always been about ... big money' ... very' big money' ... massive financial returns, for everyone that was able to remain included within the process' ... both the seizure ? and the bankruptcy'

(here is a bit of news for you' ... people that own and run a business, or have achieved personal wealth' ... don't really care, or even ever think about any resume' ...)

just sayin'
--------------------
Zitat Uncle_Bo bezogen auf User Plissken sein Beitrag(siehe im Teil 2):
["...WMI Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Guarantor ..."]

AZ,

This is a great find, a short trip down memory lane...

The SNs settled, they gave equity the reorganized company and 75MM in cash. Of course, they opened up the possibility for a 125MM credit line with 100MM of it earmarked for acquisitions.

If you have ever borrowed money in your life you know that it is almost a guarantee that the lender will look for some collateral or if you don't have it the lender would ask someone who has collateral to guarantee the loan.

Now, what collateral did WMII (a Delaware company) had to offer in order to guarantee that line, more importantly - how did the SNs knew about it and what made them accept the Guarantor signature.

Uncle Bo
--------------------
Zitat deekshant:
From Page 1
Item 1.02 Termination of a Material Definitive Agreement
On January 5, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement for termination (the “Financing Agreement Termination”) of that certain Financing Agreement, dated as of March 19, 2012, by and among the Company, WMI Investment Corp.,    
             the lenders party thereto         and U.S. Bank National Association, as administrative agent (the “Financing Agreement”). Pursuant to the Financing Agreement Termination, the Financing Agreement automatically terminated on January 5, 2015 and the Company no longer has or will have access to the funds thereunder. As of January 5, 2015, there were no loans outstanding under the Financing Agreement.

Thanks Az and Plissken,

This is very very interesting.  I thought we can have different entities for different purposes. One being as Lender and the other being as Guarantor

Az: "How could WMI Investment, actually ever guarantee anything ?"

& in what capacity did WMI Investment Corp become the lender to SNHs. It seems to show that WMI Investment Corp had liquid cash available to disburse. Am I reading this all wrong? Why is all this undertaking from within the WMI residue
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: 5 month anniversary of the Preferred Offering - Where is our M/A?
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...?topic=7625.msg106793#msg106793Re: 5
Zitat Mr_Simpson:
__________________________________________________
Quote from: Nightdaytrader9 on June 06, 2015, 12:21:00 PM
***********************
Also............    Coincidence?   As discussed below, this new rule takes effect July 1, 2015.

PART 340—RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF ASSETS OF A FAILED INSTITUTION BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Footnotes
DATES:
Back to Top
This final rule is effective July 1, 2015.
__________________________________________________
I believe this is Key to the whole enchilada. Next... Uplisting & M/A or viceversa by July 6th (Monday)
--------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
I find the time lines of all of the happenings completely orchestrated and had to be a part of the plan and certainly worked on since the PAA was initiated. There is no doubt to me that we COULDN'T get much info from any party during this waiting time and the lack of it made many anxious. I hope we hear something well before the drop-dead date, strange things have happened to me when deals were set up that way.....
--------------------
Zitat sysintelfin:
"Nothing.  I'm not mad.  Just a no nonesense serious person when it comes to BS and money."

Really?

Then tell me for which of his investments ALI Meshkati is whistling this tune? There certainly is a message there; something to learn...

"Bill Ackman at the Sohn Conference in May gave a presentation regarding platform companies. Platform companies are essentially shell companies that act as a platform for future acquisitions. Ackman argues that Wall Street cannot accurately value these companies. In fact, Wall Street undervalues these platforms on a consistent basis."
http://www.zenolytics.com/2015/06/...raging-year-to-date-performance/
---------------------
Zitat CSNY:
__________________________________________________
Quote from: azcowboy on June 06, 2015, 11:03:15 AM
CSNY,

Yep, thank you for the reference ... Heck, thank goodness, it appears that we are finally getting close to "something" ...

Truth be told, at this point, ... nothing can change my mind, short of a catastrophic event' ... I'm dug in like a ... tick on a mule deer'

AZ
__________________________________________________
The references to July 5, 2015 are there for a reason.  Also, ND9's reference to the 7/1/15 regulatory change is intriguing, to say the least.
--------------------
Zitat govinsider:
__________________________________________________
Quote from: sysintelfin on June 05, 2015, 08:13:27 PM
I still think a KKR entity...
__________________________________________________
Agree 100%..that's how they roll.

Candidate: Sentio Healthcare Properties
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/...isp?action=getissuer&CIK=0001378774
---------------------
Zitat sysintelfin:
The nagging question remains as to why KKR would let go of already optimized tax structure (KFN as a pass through and Sentio as REIT) and make these artificially tax paying corporation/assets as part of a new C just to use available NOL at WMIH. The answer unfortunately comes from a complex model that determines the incremental benefits of two decisions (not using these entities or using them as acquisition candidates for WMIH) in context of return on their total investments/cost incurred in WMIH deal making.

Perhaps the answer lies in a carve out of assets from existing entities/portfolio that is more geared to dramatic asset appreciation/income to increase NOL utilization resulting in tax savings. The way Capmark has done two quick acquisitions might also point to WMIH creating momentum for larger size and more NOL use as a natural consequence of the size. Although, this might still be prone to a little more waiting for price appreciation.

For example, the oil and gas portfolios at KKR have already been marked down a lot, if one believes that Oil goes up to 60-65 during coming year or so, there would be a sudden jump for a tax paying corporation to utilize NOL. I don't know how safe that strategy would be though.

Once the first filed financial information is out after acquisition the swing to the positive side would be sudden and relatively great if the big investors could read the tea leaves in the positive direction from the public information. That is what happened recently with RELY (formerly SGGH).

Going by what all these similarly situated companies have done having a fraction of NOL of WMIH, it appears to me that we are going to see a large deal or two in quick succession by WMIH. Only MYRX and WMIH of these companies still (that I followed) remain engaged in looking for the first deal, all others have found at least one.
--------------------
Zitat von Nightdaytrader9 bezogen auf nachfolgendes Zitat von mMn. "BoardpostBasher" investorwad (also mit Vorsicht zu genießen):
_____________________________
Quote from: investorwad on June 07, 2015, 12:03:32 PM
The split/diverse ownership structure was also done in the WMIH investment and appears to be KKR's MO.

We can't/won't buy anything owned by KKR for various reasons:

-COI would be obvious and stunning with KKR as majority shareholder.
-Possible IRC "stuffing" flag with KKR as majority shareholder.
-WMIH has stated they've been looking at hundreds of targets so it's likely they have.
-Last I looked, most KKR portfolio companies are out of our range.
-If this was the plan all along, what's taking so long and why did WMIH float the SBP.

I also think some of the above may prevent KKR from being a substantial debt holder and if we see an offering, it will be arm's length and on the open debt markets.
________________________________
I think if KKR could  buy KFN legally (which they did), then WMIH could figure out a way to buy a company in KKR's portfolio...  I don't think it will happen but if WMIH wanted to buy one, I'm sure the KKR legal folks could figure out a way to make that happen..

JMHO
ND9
--------------------
Zitat  sysintelfin ebenfalls bezogen auf investorwad sein obiges Posting:
COI- Ask Eirnhorn how BIOF became GRBK ( Green Brick Partners).

Stuffing- Ask Eirnhorn re GRBK and Icahn re VLTC.

Are all KKR companies out of our range ?WMIH might look for only one possibly a financial company

Ask EIRNHORN what took him so long from his original investment in BIOF? Ask other hedge funds investing in Pure and mix NOL play what takes them so long to increase their investments in the shells or shell like with Assets ( Philip Falcone)?

With all due respect, I offer from my shallow understanding of these complicated things.
---------------------
Zitat investorwad darauf zurück in Rtg. User ND9:
They really can't with KKR as majority shareholder in WMIH. Everything KKR does with WMIH MUST be at arms's length for WMIH's Board to maintain integrity. KKR gets representation on the Board as you'd expect, but it's not a majority nor has control.  The suit filed by the KFN shareholders claimed conflicted interests, but the judge tossed the suit partially because KKR only held a 1% position in KFN and had no control over the KFN board. The transaction was fair and at arm's length.

When business dealings are a little too cozy or can be perceived as such, companies usually go to great lengths to protect themselves, but shareholder suits can still fly. What could be wrong with KKR selling one of it's subs to WMIH?

1) Why WMIH? Highest bidder or KKR as majority WMIH owner? How was the purchase price determined?
2) Why WMIH? Well, NOLs of course. The scrutiny could fly from various sources.

I think some of the "magic" that's been discussed here for three years has tainted the views of many.

And, of course, WMIH has been lying about meeting and reviewing tens of acquisition targets for the past two years and decided to hire G&F and give them almost two million shares so they can profit when KKR stuffs one of it's subs into WMIH.  Hey, that's why it's taking to long for KKR to sell us a sub! WMIH is waiting until everyone directly involved with WMIH has millions of shares and THEN KKR makes them all rich. Ah, now I get it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-15/...uyout?cmpid=yhoo
--------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: Eugene I. Davis - Chairman of the Board?
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7521.msg107152#msg107152

ZItat Inthemoney:
There certainly has to be a future need. Why would they continue to pay the fees to the state government to keep it active and the Federal tax forms? This, coupled with the new verbiage on the home page makes it clear this is no over sight. When do we start filling all these empty buckets up? The build out is quite impressive. I won't speculate as to why..... mainly because I am not sure you are even allowed to do that on this site anymore.
--------------------
Zitat amd4001967 zu kinged seinem Posting (siehe Ende Beitrag #282):
I believe that there is something more into this , why ? , remember that AAOC negotiated directly with JPMC and the FDIC the GSA, in the GSA  the only mention  of WMMRC is as a WMI entity and I do not remember any mention of the WMB tax attributes , maybe those came a little bit later , but ,IMO, the most important thing in the negotiation was WMIIC , it looks like WMMRC and the WMB tax attributes were irrelevant for the Edge Funds back then , look at the definition of " Reorganized debtor" on the GSA, it just disclose the WMIIC sub, like anything else were peanuts. IMO.

“Reorganized Debtors” shall mean WMI and WMIIC, as reorganized."  ( Definition as per the GSA)
--------------------
Zitat tdmd99 zu Inthemoney:
It really is disappointing that PROSPECTIVE thinking is ridiculed instead of RETROSPECTIVE thinking.  You're 100% right when you think retrospectively.  You're also 10 steps behind in this game if you think that way.

Anyhow, it really is prudent to point out that there is another entity involved here, namely WMIIC.  I was always under the impression that WMIIC was where WMIH would put their money so it could grow (preferred shares proceeds as well as money that we had coming out of bankruptcy).  Not sure why things were structured that way though.

Unless....someone wanted to "hide" assets or say a bank charter or something.....If so, then i guess WMIH doesn't have a bank charter.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the case.  But just trying to think out of the box as to why they would go through the trouble of keeping it around.
---------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
Kinged, I like the way you presented this. What is the license/other that is the most time consuming or hardest thing to get for a financially based company, or one that must show an income or long term business numbers to get in Delaware? One more, could it be that no one was/is certain of a date which certain proceeds will be available to us and we needed a place for them to be quickly transferred at the time in this venue?
--------------------
Zitat jaysenese:
Until recently, WMI called itself a "holding company".

In the last WMIH quarterly reporting, that language was changed to read "WMI Holdings Corp. (“WMIHC”), is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. "

So: is being a "direct parent" different from ownership as part of a "holding company"?  If so, can anyone explain the difference?
[WMIHC is the direct parent of WMMRC and WMIIC.]
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=10391663
Looking for the 180 days language.

(pp) “ Post-Closing Covenants ” means the covenants by the Corporation that within 180 days of the Issue Date, the Corporation shall (i) reincorporate from Washington to Delaware,          (ii) amend its Articles to provide that the number of members of the Board of Directors be increased from seven to up to eleven directors           and (iii) authorize a number of shares of Common Stock sufficient for Mandatory Conversion of all shares of the Series B Preferred Stock (collectively, the “ Reincorporation ”)


3.2
Number; Qualification; Election; Term.
The number of directors that shall constitute the entire Board shall not be more than eleven (11), or such greater number as may be determined by the Board.  Except as otherwise provided by the Bylaws or the Charter, the directors shall be elected at each annual meeting of stockholders at which a quorum is present.  Directors shall be elected by a plurality of the votes of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on the election of directors and each director so chosen shall hold office until the date of the subsequent annual meeting following the annual meeting at which such director was elected or, if earlier, until his death, resignation, or removal from office.  None of the directors need be a stockholder of the Corporation or a resident of the State of Delaware.  Each director must have attained the age of majority.

http://wmih-corp.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AR-Bylaws.pdf

We currently have nine Directors.

All is good. I started to panic when I count-up the members on the BOD and only see 9. The Articles are amended.
--------------------
Zitat boarddork:
KCCLLC claims register:   a search of just the debtor WMIIC (and not WMI) under "Present Claim Amount" shows only one claims left to vet.  An employee claim of $14k.
--------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107217#msg107217
Zitat dixdeau:
______________________________________
Quote from: hgh2live on Yesterday at 11:28:46 AM
Does anyone know the current status of the Colonial Bank receivership?  I have searched the FDIC website but cannot find it.  Does the FDIC now show funds to be distributed?  Have they ever distributed funds to shareholders?  I have used the search feature every way I can think of, but the last listing about Colonial Bank is always in 2014.  The FDIC withdrew its determination in June of 2014, and unless I have missed it, nothing has happened since then.  Does that mean we have years more to wait?  I hope not.
_____________________________________
Let me Google that for you.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/colonial-al.html

At the end of 2015 Q1 only 78.++% of depositors had been covered. Check out the balance sheet, as of the end of March, 2015 no creditor dividends had been disbursed.

"The FDIC has since withdrawn the Determination because potential recoveries from the receivership’s pending litigation have been revised upward as a result of changed circumstances, thereby creating the possibility that all higher-priority deposit claims could be paid in full. Consequently, under the most favorable circumstances, it is theoretically possible for recoveries to result in payment on non-deposit claims. Please be aware that the FDIC’s withdrawal of the Determination does not mean that there will be assets available to the Receiver in the future to make payment on your claim, but only that the possibility theoretically exists.

If you feel that you have been disadvantaged in any way by the FDIC’s now-withdrawn Determination, please contact an FDIC claims agent at the address provided above."

If FDIC prevails against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP at the figure FDIC is asking then there will be money available to trickle down to shareholders.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/...-over-colonial-bank-failure-1405531036
--------------------
Zitat hgh2live:
Thank you very much Dixdeau.  You are far more astute than I (not that that is saying that much- billions of people on earth are smarter than I).  But I appreciate you pointing out the Balance Sheet for Colonial Bank for Q1 2015, which has the information I was looking for.

So, in the case of Colonial Bank, a year has elapsed since the withdrawal of determination of insufficient assets, and still the balance sheet  shows a deficit of nearly 4 billion dollars.  I realize there are vast differences between Wamu and Colonial, but I am not comparing the two institutions, just trying to extract some WAG about how long it takes to go from withdrawal of insufficient assets, and resolution of receivership.   From this I conclude that it could well be another year before funds are released from the Wamu receivership.

I hope someone can demonstrate that the above assertion is incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7649.msg107234#msg107234

ZItat:


http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CPMK

Volume 158

CPMK MARKET CAP: 688.67 M
WMIH MARKET CAP: 554.90 M

Weird...
-------------------
Currently the bid/ask is 5.91/6.40
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107305#msg107305
Re: FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets (4)
Zitat nasus:
A judge’s ruling last week stung Appaloosa Management and other holders of Washington Mutual bonds.
By MATT JARZEMSKY
June 11, 2015 5:37 p.m. ET
0 COMMENTS
A legal victory for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. stung Appaloosa Management LP and other hedge-fund firms last week, the latest in a streak of soured Wall Street bets on litigation outcomes.

Appaloosa was among holders of failed thrift Washington Mutual Inc.’s $6 billion in senior bonds, which sold off following the judge’s decision, according to people familiar with the matter. The bet was popular with hedge funds and had many other takers, some of which are being advised by investment bank Houlihan Lokey Inc. and law firm Dechert LLP, people familiar with the situation said.

It isn’t clear how much of the WaMu bonds Appaloosa held or how much it lost when the bonds fell after the ruling. The investment accounted for a relatively small piece of the hedge fund’s holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The legal decision marked the latest setback for hedge funds trying to predict how a judge will rule in lawsuits stemming from corporate bankruptcies or crisis-era dealings, then buying deeply discounted securities likely to increase in value if the investors are right about the ruling. in the past year, funds have suffered similar backfires in rulings related to Nortel Networks Corp.’s bankruptcy and lawsuits against mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that sent securities prices tumbling.

Distressed-debt investors have piled into litigation bets in an era of historically low interest rates, which are keeping a lid on bond returns and allowing many troubled companies to stave off bankruptcy. Adding to their allure, the performance of such investments is unrelated to that of asset classes like stocks and government debt. As pension funds and other institutional investors take a closer look at manager fees for plain-vanilla investments, these uncorrelated investments are an easy sell to fund backers, market participants say.

Advertisement

Some of these bets have been successful. In November, a federal appeals court ruled Chesapeake Energy Corp. improperly redeemed $1.3 billion in debt at a favorable price, a win for hedge funds such as Aurelius Capital Management LP and River Birch Capital LLC. The decision increased the creditors’ odds of collecting on more than $400 million in disputed payments.

But a series of recent backfires have illustrated the risky nature of this tactic.

In the latest case, hedge funds had purchased WaMu’s senior bonds at deeply discounted prices, betting in part that a judge would saddle J.P. Morgan—which bought WaMu’s banking operations at the height of the financial crisis—with certain liabilities related to a Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. lawsuit over soured mortgage bonds.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer limited J.P. Morgan’s potential liabilities from the WaMu deal, leaving a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-run WaMu receivership backing the bonds potentially on the hook for the bulk of any damages that may result from the Deutsche lawsuit.

A WaMu bond that traded around 28 cents on the dollar before the decision lost about one-fifth of its value on June 3 following the ruling, according to MarketAxess.

Bonds of bankrupt telecommunications company Nortel Networks Corp. tumbled after U.S. and Canadian judges unveiled a scheme that creditors hadn’t anticipated to divide $7 billion in cash. Nortel bondholders that had bought the debt and pressed for interest payments included hedge funds Angelo, Gordon & Co. and Aurelius.

In September, preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac widely held by hedge funds plummeted after a U.S. District Judge threw out lawsuits challenging the government’s crisis-era dealings with the mortgage giants. Fairholme Capital Management LLC, Perry Capital LLC and Pershing Square Capital Management LP were among the investors that took big paper losses amid the selloff, The Wall Street Journal reported.

To be sure, investors on the losing side of a litigation can still make money on the bonds if they are ultimately worth more than what the holders paid or if future price swings allow them to trade out profitably. Investors often hold out for appeals that can turn their fortunes around.

Still, the recent losses are a blow to hedge funds that invest in distressed debt, which continue to face a dearth of investment opportunities as defaults remain near all-time lows.

“There’s a lot of money chasing very few ideas right now, many of which are very binary in their outcomes,” said Kevin Starke, an analyst at research firm CRT Capital Group LLC.

—Emily Glazer contributed to this article.

Write to Matt Jarzemsky at matthew.jarzemsky@wsj.com
--------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: FDIC withdraws determination of insufficient assets(7)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7644.msg107384#msg107384

Zitat govinsider:
“I cannot believe the continuing audacity of this woman.” – Email from OTS Executive Director John Reich to OTS senior official Scott Polakoff (referring to FDIC Chair Sheila Bair), 9/10108, Polakoff

—– Original Message —–
From: “”Bair, Sheila C.”" [SBair@FDIC.gov]
Sent: 08/06/200805:46 PM AST
To: Donald Kohn
Subject: Fw: W

This is pretty over the top

—–Original Message—–
From: Reich, John M
To: Bair, Sheila C.
Sent: Wed Aug 06 17:32:482008
Subject: Re: W

Dear Sheila, You really know how to stir up a colleague’s vacation.

I do not under any circumstances want to discuss this on Friday’s conference call, in which I mayor may not be able to participate, depending on cell phone service availability on the cruise ship location.

Instead, I want to have a one on one meeting with Ben Bernanke prior to any such discussion – as early next week as possible following my return to the office. Also, I may or may not choose to have a similar meeting with Secretary Paulson.

I should not have to remind you the FDIC has no role until the PFR (i.e. the OTS) rules on solvency and the PFR utilizes PCA.

You personally, and the FDIC as an agency, would likely create added instability if you pursue what I strongly believe would be a precipitous and unprecedented action. And ifit occurs without my consent, I will not sit quietly by and observe – there would be a public reaction. Put yourself in the PFR’s shoes in this situation. We have our responsibilities, including the right of primary supervisory determination of this institution’s condition, and until Congress changes the statutes under which we operate, our responsibilities as the PFR are not to be simply tendered to the FDIC in a down economic cycle.

It seems as though the FDIC is behaving as some sort of super-regulator – which you
and it are not. I also believe there could be a high potential for FDIC actions of the type you are contemplating to calIse irreparable harm to Wamu if, at any point in the near future, Wamu wishes to actualy seek a buyer. The potential harm could stem from the fact that any such potential buyer may have been allready been contacted by the FDIC.
If in fact any meetings or discussions have already taken place by the FDIC with either JPMC, Wells Fargo, or any other entity, in any capacity in which WaMu was even mentioned, I would like to see a copy of the signed confidentiality agreement signed by the bank – required in any resolution scenario before an institution is told the name of the failing bank.

This is an OTS regulated institution, not an FDIC regulated institution. We make any decision on solvency, not the FDIC, and I have staff equally as competent as staff at the FDIC, whom I know well.

The FDIC can do whatever internal contingency planning it wishes, but should in no way go outside the FDIC. This is a 3-rated institution. Are you also trying to find buyers for Citi, Wachovia, Nat City and others?

Finally, ifWamu were to learn ofthe FDIC’s actions, there may well be a question as to whether these actions may constitute a disclosable event. That, in and of itself, is a reason not to proceed with this approach for a publicly traded institution. The government should not be in the business of arranging mergers – particularly before they are necessary, and we are not at that point in WaMu’s situation.

I will attempt to be on the Friday conference call, and I am going to assume this notion is not going to be raised.

John

—– Original Message —–
From: Bair, Sheila C.
To: Reich, John M Cc: Murton, Arthur J. ; Polakoff, Scott M
Sent: Wed Aug
Subject: W

Dear John,

I’d like to further discuss contingency planning for W during the calion Friday. Art talked with Scott about making some discrete inquiries to determine whether there are institutions which would be willing to acquire it on a whole bank basis if we had to do an emergency closing, and on what terms. I understand you have strong objections to our doing so, so I’d like to talk this through. My interest is in assuring that IF we have to market it on an emergency basis, there is multiple bidder interest.
In any event, both the FDIC and the FRB agree that there needs to be a contingency plan in place, so let’s talk this through on Friday. I’d really like to develop a plan everyone is comfortable with.

Sheila
--------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
Thanks for the post Gov. I remember reading that letter/e-mail years ago and was dumbfounded that Bair could pretty much do as she pleased even though there was proof that WAMU was not in as bad of shape as she said. She had very broad powers and there were also many discussions between her and Dimon before it hit the fan, and so quickly. WAMU had the money JPM needed and this eliminated a government meltdown that would have come if JPM bit the dust. So much simpler to 'take' the bank and save a country already in trouble which brings me to this point Doo. Bair knew what she could do and not get in to that much trouble IMO. The 'taking' was legal in that  it could be done AS LONG AS any monies or holdings seized by 'mistake' would be returned to the owner after the process was completed. I don't even know if there is a hard time line for them to do this but there may be. Heck, ever Bair said it wasn't fair to WAMU afterwards. CSNY and Ron hit it right, they weren't clubby enough and they had the goods needed. WAMU knew it was coming also when they weren't included in discussions and spurned when they asked for some breaks. This made me think hard about the shifting of the goods before the BK officially went down.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

WMIH ASKED FOR THE 3.5 BILLION A/S BECAUSE -- PER BLUEE FOXX @ IHUB
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7711.msg108407#msg108407
Zitat baldeagle1:
Interesting take on the 3.5 billion a/s authorization, which does not infer that it was done to purchase R-returned assets from WMILT/

BlueeFoxx  Member Level    Monday, 06/22/15 02:47:41 AM
Re: None  
Post #   of 426584      
WMIH ASKED FOR THE 3.5 BILLION A/S BECAUSE THEY WILL NEED TO ISSUE MORE SHARES TO THE EXIT EQUITY CONSOLIDATED TAX GROUP (CTG) THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS THE GROUP WHO CONTROLS THE NOL'S FOR TAX PURPOSES. EVIDENCE BELOW

Example:

204 M is currently O/S
10.55 M in Series A Preferred (P's) were issued in Dec 2013 to KKR, these P's once converted will translate to KKR stake of 9.6M Shares.
KKR received warrants to purchase basically 61.4M additional shares at a blended rate of $1.38 PPS
Total for KKR is now (once converted and exercised) 71M shares of WMIH at
204M current O/S an issue at completion of acquisition gives KKR 9.6M shares. And the option to grab another 60.4M shares at their discretion, as long as doing so does not affect the 50.1% ownership the CTG needs to maintain to protect the NOL.

Now, we move to the Series B P's, that translates to 267M shares at the ceiling of $2.25 PPS. Here's your biggest issue with converting these Series A and B P's at the current share structure.

IT KILLS THE NOL's.. The corp largest asset, so WMIH needed to ask the shareholders to approve a large A/S, because they know they will need to issue more shares to the CTG to keep them in control and therefore the NOL intact.

Example. KKR owns 200M in Series B, therefore they basically will get est 89M in shares on conversion, add to this the 9.6M they will also get, and the potential of 61.4M shares from the conversion, it puts them in a big ownership position, however, the existing Series B P's owners will also need to be converted and that is where the evidence of a "future forward split" comes in.

total issuance for Series B P's + 267M
KKR also has 9.6M at conv and aqnother potential 61.4 for a total of
160M in shares of WMIH. Look at numbers, they are not possible, so WMIH will need to issue more equity shares to the CTG.

Let's just say 267M + 9.6m + 61.4 = 338M
Problem We only had 201M O/S when we exited and CTG (WAMUQ<PQ<KQ) owned about 85% of the equity. Creditors got the rest.
85% /201M = 170M shares (this is not perfect, but you will get the point) Keep in mind CTG controls the ownership of the NOL's in terms of IRC 382.
read on.....

170M is now the 50.1% NOL ownership group.
That means only 169M can be issued, before it affects the NOL's. Currently the NOL's are fine, but with future commitments, things have to change.

so the potential 338M encroaches 1-1=2 on the CTG.
That means the CTG would need to be raised up one share per shareholder to 340M. Total O/S would need to be 678M. This balances the shareholers,however...

KKR is staked at 160M shares, When you move the CTG to 340M and O/S to 678M. You accommodate the other owners at 338M, however that does not leave any room to issue any equity to an acquired company, nor do a capital raise, so KKR can buy 50% up to a 42.5% ownership stake.

KKR 160M puts them at 23.5% ownership, remember they want to own 42.5% that means at the O/S of 678, they would need to get to 310M shares. Yes, they can purchase the converted P shares from the holders. WMIH paid 9M in dividends last quarter to these P's and will keep paying it until they are converted.

People need to chime in, because if WMIH wants to have equity for a capital raise, they will need to do a forward 1-2=3 and that puts the CTG at 510M ownership...leaving P's holders at basically 338M if KKR exercises warrants, this is 34% ownership in WMIH.

What say all of you.
Remember no need to ask for 3.5B if you do not expect to issue plenty of it in the future. Remember WMIH has a "poison pill provision" for protection of the NOL's. As long as the NOL's are valid, WMIH will not have a "change in control." That means the BOD has to issue more equity to CTG. That is why you have those unique cusip numbers in your accounts, they are tracking numbers and will be used in the future to basically give you more shares (i.e "fair and reasonable")



Cheers
Blue
--------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7773.msg109867#msg109867

Zitat azcowboy:
The timing of the Rights Offering mandate, for WMIH to be in Delaware by ... Now' July 2015' ... coincides with a few things'

Three full financial quarters have been completed since the termination of the P&AA

The 12/19/2014 Rights Offering Press Release

JPMorgans 12/31/2014 ... 10-K and its attachments, specifically the R-203

The Jan 5th, 2015 Completion of the Rights Offering

The March 24th, 2015 LT(s) Press Release

The "Need to Move" the Shareholders Meeting' up two months to 4/28/2015

The allowance and need' for the B' transitional future commons ability to "vote" prior to any actual conversion,

The need for WMIH to increase to a 3.5 billion shares, now available to be used

The updated WMIH Corp web site information, referencing WMIIC openly'

The realignment of the BOD and the compensation packages, which heavy reward the new guys' for "an action" or "acquisition" ...

The 7/1/2015 JPMorgan Press Release ... the 30b dollar blunder'

... and, now for my absolute favorite' ...

~ For the First Time' ever' since Sept 2008' ... NOW' ... WMI Investment Corp' can be "eliminated upon consolidation" with WMIH Corp' ... NOW ... because for the first time, ... They are both finally joined together in Delaware' ... both' ... finally operational and free, due to the March 2012 reorganization'

The Pasts Plan, for the seizure of WaMu' in 2008 ... could not predict the future' ... however it was able to protect the financial future within the confines of WMIIC as time moved forward' ...  (Plan 6 ~ now ~ redefined to include equity, Plan 7) ...

... The Original Debtors Estates assets are the target' ... everyone wins' ... the LT & WMIH Corp

"WMIIC which "assets" belongs to WMILT but 100 % of the "equity" interest reside at WMIH Corp"

AZ
---------------------
Zitat  kenwalker:
"WMIIC which "assets" belongs to WMILT but 100 % of the "equity" interest reside at WMIH Corp"

DEFINITION of 'Asset'

1. A resource with economic value that an individual, corporation or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide future benefit.

DEFINITION of 'Equity '

1. A stock or any other security representing an ownership interest.

2. On a company's balance sheet, the amount of the funds contributed by the owners (the stockholders) plus the retained earnings (or losses). Also referred to as "shareholders' equity".

3. In the context of margin trading, the value of securities in a margin account minus what has been borrowed from the brokerage.

4. In the context of real estate, the difference between the current market value of the property and the amount the owner still owes on the mortgage. It is the amount that the owner would receive after selling a property and paying off the mortgage.

5. In terms of investment strategies, equity (stocks) is one of the principal asset classes. The other two are fixed-income (bonds) and cash/cash-equivalents. These are used in asset allocation planning to structure a desired risk and return profile for an investor's portfolio.

I've included the definitions, obvious concerning assets but with equity ................

What does that sentence mean to you? Why keep a sub around that assets have been sold? Why the need to "eliminated upon consolidation" a worthless sub? I've got my ideas but I'd like to hear yours.
---------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
Well, ... I believe what the filings present to be defined to a specific moment in time, literal and true' ... I always have ... sometimes, it takes longer than other times to dissect the disclosed meaning, and sometimes I have secured and paid for help in understanding complex issues, ... However, ... The words presented, ... ultimately, are always true'

All, except one small three word reference, which remained questionable until just recently, Three small words written, under the WMIIC heading' ... "eliminated upon consolidation" ... A consolidation between WMIH Corp and WMI Investment Corp, has never been possible until now ... WMIIC, has continuously maintained Delaware Registration, ... While WMIH remained in Washington State until now ...

And' ... The 10-Q, ... doesn't say ... will be eliminated upon consolidation ... the doc states, ... IS' ... eliminated upon consolidation'

So, ... I simply went back and dove into researching WMIIC again' ... now that it began to have new meaning' ...

One initial study revealed, ... WAAC, ... and the transition to ABS-15G and ABS-15G(a) registrations, in lieu of 8-K filings' ... for the numerous complex trusts beginning in 2012 and forward, which continued to be maintained out of their Delaware Registration' ... Legally, these complex trusts remained registered out of Delaware, as did WMIIC ...

WMIIC, ... was requested and approved to be joined with the WMI Bankruptcy "procedurally only" ...

The value of the complex trusts held within WMIIC, could then never been considered as a financial variable, as the process of the parent corp's bankruptcy moved forward'

Now, ... however, ... for the first time ever' ... WMIIC can actually be "eliminated upon consolidation"

So, as stated within the documents, ... The assets of WMIIC belong to the LT - (the Original Debtors Estate) - ... So, if WMIH Corp, wants those assets to now belong to it' ? ... WMIH Corp, has to simply work out a deal with the LT' ... which is now possible, for the first time ever, all things considered'

just sayin'
---------------------
Zitat  kenwalker:
I guess I came at it from a different angle but things are starting to overlap. The question to me is why? Why keep or for that matter, go to the trouble to  "eliminated upon consolidation" a worthless sub? The short answer is, it ain't worthless. I'm not sure how much a trust can be insulated from BK ( I need to look into that ) but my thoughts have been along the lines of a worth other than liquid cash ................. along the lines of deed title or tax attributes. Personally I suspect title as the driving reason.
---------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
Among other things the factual link between the two independent,legally separated entities, WMILT and WMIH Corp., the evidence that both entities have economic interest in any value contained in WMIIC in receivership that can not ,and could not, be accounted for at the moment, or in the past, due to FIRREA and in some measure a foundation for the believe that the real target of the New Co. is the original Debtor State and any residuals that could be returning from the receivership in addition to direct assets of the Debtor retained by the FDIC since 9/2008
--------------------
Zitat kenwalker:
Good point about the "tie" between WMILT and WMIH as I've always felt they were connected in more than a 2.5% way ........... not to be such a knuckle head by coming back around to: assets = economic value and equity = ownership ......... why dance around the issue of ownership when the economic value is not yours?
---------------------
Zitat bgriffinokc:
Ken,

In late 2006  WMI INVESTMENT CORP., formerly WAMU INVESTMENT CORP  was moved to DE. The name "WAMU"was later Amended and changed to "WMI".

On 3/19/2012, the day POR 7 was approved  Charles Smith files an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation for WMI INVESTMENT CORP.  

Logically, What were the assets and where are they now?....With the LT, of Course.  

I know that another Direct or indirect Sub. of WMI, Thackeray Holding Corp was moved to DE in early 2007. then mysteriously is dissolved in Feb. of 2013 and then reappears incorporated in TX.  Factually, Jared Rusman, WG&M Attorney is the Managing Member of Thackery and has  been involved since 2007.  

Below is an article he wrote...Wow, can you believe the topic?  It seems to dovetail nicely with the assets of WMI INVESTMENT CORP held by the the LT.

Thinking back I know a valid concern appeared in late 2006 and early 2007 that caused a shuffling of many subs to be Reincorporated in DE. and we find that their assets are mysteriously unaudited and unaccounted for.

Safe Harbor brought about by Project West?

Bob

Could our future be laid out in this link?

http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/tax_alert_august-2013.pdf
---------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=7758.msg111658#msg111658

Zitat sillyinvestor:
One question for anyone who might know. From the second GSA, we have this section which refers to "Exhibit Z".

Have we ever had/posted what this exhibit contains? I don't recall ever seeing it, nor can I find it.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/...ttlement_agreement.pdf

Section 2.19. Loan Servicing. From and after the Effective Date, JPMC shall (a) cause such of its Affiliates to continue to service the loans identified on Exhibit “Z” hereto (the “Loans”) pursuant to the servicing agreements identified on Exhibit “AA” hereto (the “Servicing Agreements”), (b) cause such of its Affiliates to remit to WMI all checks and/or payments received in connection with those loans in its possession and (c) promptly (i) remit to WMI all servicing advances that JPMC is holding with respect to such loans and (ii) provide WMI an accounting with respect to each of the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any dispute that may arise relating to the servicing of such loans during the period from and after the Effective Date shall be brought pursuant to such servicing agreements and this Agreement is not intended to create any additional rights, obligations or remedies. The Parties acknowledge and agree that (y) the Loans are the only loans that are or will be, from and after the Effective Date, serviced by the JPMC Entities (or their Affiliates) for the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates or their successors in interest) and that the Service Agreements are the only servicing agreements between the JPMC Entities (or their Affiliates) and the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates) and (z) with the exception of the obligations set forth in this Section 2.19, the JPMC Entities (and their Affiliates) shall have no further obligations or liability to any of the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates) with respect to or in any way related to the servicing of any loans for the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates).

Edit: I'll take the lack of responses as a "No"....
--------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
I have posted this before.The key point is 510(b).

510(b) is an over-funded Claim. More money in the pot, than claims against the pot of goods.

Tranquility Master Fund

Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Alter or Amend the Court’s Opinion and Order Regarding Subordination of the Claim of Tranquility Master Fund, Ltd. [Docket No. 9301; filed 1/3/12]

Court Docket: #9301
Document Name: Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Alter or Amend the Court's Opinion and Order Regarding Subordination of the Claim of Tranquility Master Fund, Ltd.
Date Filed: 1/3/2012

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120103000000000017

“Here, although the Trusts were “issuing entities,” they were not the “issuers” of the securities as a matter of law. The “issuers” were the depositors, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (“WAAC”) and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (“WMMSC”), both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”). Accordingly, the “issuers” of the securities were indeed affiliates of the Debtors. The correction of this error of law will lead to the proper subordination of Tranquility’s claim.”


RELIEF REQUESTED
9.
The Committee seeks to alter or amend that portion of the Court’s Opinion and Order in which the Court ruled that the Debtors have not stated a basis for subordination of the Claim. The Committee requests entry of an order finding that WAAC and WMMSC were the issuers of the Certificates, and that because WAAC and WMMSC were affiliates of the Debtors under section 101(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, section 510(b) applies to subordinate the Claim.


JPM's R-203 OBS is WAAC and WMMSC. The affiliates of the Debtors [WMI and WMIIC].

Therefore, 510(b) is R-203.
$78B repaid.
$48B liquidated.
$38B remain.

15G

"JPM to shed $100B in customers deposits".

Get it?
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

 

Mention of WMI Holdings during the KKR earnings report - 7/23

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...r-earnings-conference-202427268.html

ZItat Girlnextdoor:

There are two specific mentions of WMI Holdings during the earnings report.


The first is during the portion of the main earnings statement by Scott Nuttall.


The second is during the Q & A portion referencing Special Situations in response to a question by Bill Katz - Citigroup Analyst.
--------------------
Zitat  jaysenese:
Thanks for this!   It all looks good to me.   Certainly KKR is (1) happy with their WMIH investment so far; and (2) have plans ahead involving acquisitions.  

It's interesting that the one question seems to scold them for not moving quickly enough to make investments (the same criticism we have leveled at WMIH's BOD).  KKR's answer indicates they are not concerned.

I've attached the PDF "Page 8" that is mentioned in the transcript.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=8062.msg111979#msg111979

ZItat  jaysenese:

Discusses WMIH (and says that KKR "controls" it):

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/07/jdpi-2q15-letter/

JDPI 2Q15 Letter To Investors – Value In NOLs
Posted By: VW StaffPosted date: July 24, 2015 11:19:57 AMIn: Value InvestingNo Comments

Dear Partner,

For the second quarter we were up 1.83% net to limited partners versus 0.27% for the S&P 500. Year-to-date the fund was down 0.68% versus 1.23% for the S&P 500. Since inception in October 2011, we have earned 87.42% after all fees and expenses, or 18.24% annualized.

JDPI - Review and Outlook

The Partnership outperformed in the second quarter due to anticipated earnings and/or corporate actions within our largest holdings. These gains made up for declines earlier in the year stemming from negative macro sentiment.

In the first half-year we realized gains on 25% of the portfolio due to valuation and limited upside. Capital was recycled into a  combination of: a) Our highest conviction ideas, b) Basket of small caps with asymmetric qualities and strong balance sheet protection,  and c) Increased cash.

Our strategy is focused on ideas that we believe could double within three or four years, with a margin of safety appropriate for the business and price. When there is an opportunity we take it, and do not try to time the market. Wearing this hat often makes monthly price movements more of a distraction than value enhancing.

Looking ahead, the fundamentals of our collective portfolio advanced materially from the start of the year despite prices having not  caught up yet. We are positioned to do well even in a low-growth environment for the indexes.

Our top four holdings continue to make  progress from our entry at controversial inflexion points in their history. Strengthening competitive advantages and impressive capital allocation are creating long-term compounder characteristics for each. As of 6/30/2015 our largest positions were: ALJ Regional Holdings, CyrusOne, Carrols Restaurants and Bank of America.

We think of a “compounder” as a business with a very unique mix of assets and shareholder friendly management that cultivates a sustainable, low-risk ecosystem for earnings growth to compound faster than the broader market for a long period of time—easier said than done. Portfolio Update In the second quarter we sold Perry Ellis-PERY (38% IRR) and Liberty Global plc (NASDAQ:LBTYA) (NASDAQ:LBTYB) (NASDAQ:LBTYK)-LBTYA (33% IRR).

PERY was the subject of an activist campaign to narrow a wide valuation gap created by years of founder-family insider dealing and poor capital allocation. We made the investment with the thesis that there was a high probability the company would be sold. Ultimately the majority of the PERY board was voluntarily replaced with independent directors to avoid a proxy fight and near term sale of the company.

We sold LBYTA after the stock’s rapid appreciation largely due to an overly enthusiastic anticipation of the July spin-off of the Latin America division’s tracking stock (NASDAQ: LILA/K). We felt there would be a better opportunity post-spin to buy LILA/K if we chose to do so. The decision proved timely.

Our experience with LBTYA over the last two years has been valuable and has led to a deeper  understanding of the economics and opportunities within the cable internet/TV business. We also have developed a knowledge base around the public players globally and the consolidation opportunities that still exist. We remain excited about the sector and are evaluating other ideas that are less mature, less understood, cheaper, and have more upside than LBYTA.

In the second quarter we added to our holdings in CyrusOne and Bank of America “A” warrants.

JDPI - New positions

Based  on our profitable experience with ALJ Holdings, we have been on the lookout for similar opportunities around cheap shell-like small capswith huge Net Operating Losses (NOLs) that have been taken over by experienced capital allocators to be used as acquisition platforms.

In the first half we initiated new positions in a basket of three small caps that have similar characteristics to ALJ circa 2012: WMIH Corporation, BFC Financial Corporation and ModusLink Global Solutions. Each company has more than $1 billion in NOLs generated from an original business that is dying on the vine, or was once partly or completely bankrupt. The remaining assets have been re-purposed as investment vehicles for proven deal maker teams. WMIH (formally Washington Mutual Bank) is controlled by KKR & Co. L.P. (NYSE:KKR), BFC is controlled by Alan Levan and John Abdo, and ModusLink is controlled by Steel Partners.

Ideally, enormous value can be created for pubic shareholders when a NOL-heavy HoldCo acquires high free cash flow generative assets because the tax shielding affect provides more cash to pay down buyout debt than would be available to a traditional buyer.

Additional arbitrage value is created if the acquisition(s) is purchased well below average public company free cash flow multiple comps because of the buyer’s unique access to proprietary deal flow—think ALJJ.

Our price for this basket was attractive based on low multiples of cash per share in the case of WMIH and MLNK, and in the case of BFC Financial, approximately 4x estimated EV/2015 EBITDA of the current operating businesses. The three holdings represent 7.5% of AUMand we are ready to add more capital if one or all can further demonstrate an ability to find and execute on meaningful transactions.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...php?topic=8301.msg117090#msg117090

Zitat Nightdaytrader9:

FDIC terminated 11 Bank Receiverships this long Labor Day weekend but no WAMU

FDIC terminated 11 Bank Receiverships this long Labor Day weekend but no WAMU.......

Notice of Termination; 10201 American National Bank, Parma, Ohio
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10201, American … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice of Termination; 10067 Southern Community Bank, Fayetteville, GA
… The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10667 Southern … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice of Termination, 10274, NorhWest Bank and Trust Acworth, Georgia
… The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10274, NorthWest … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice of Termination, 10473 Chipola Community Bank, Marianna, Florida
… The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10473 Chipola … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice of Termination; 10318 Paramount Bank, Farmington Hills, Michigan
… The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10318 Paramount … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice of Termination; 10066 First National Bank of Anthony, Anthony, KS
… The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10066 First … further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in … executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10243 Bank of Florida-Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida
… the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Bank of … receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Bank …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10468 Westside Community Bank University Place, Washington
… the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Westside Community … receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Westside …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/08/2015 PDF

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10357 Rosemount National Bank, Rosemount, Minnesota
… the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Rosemount National … receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Rosemount …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/03/2015 PDF

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10242 Bank of Florida-Southwest Naples, Florida
… the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Bank of … receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Bank …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/03/2015 PDF

Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10241 Bank of Florida-Southeast Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
… the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Bank of … receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Bank …
A Notice by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 09/03/2015 PDF


https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/...der=newest&quiet=true

At one time, I thought the wording for each one was standard and identical.  However, if you read some of them, you'll see the wording is actually different for some of them.... Some notices, even ask parties for comment.  Interesting.
__________________________________________________
Zitatende

MfG.L:)