Ambac Rocky Balboa oder chapter 11
Seite 115 von 309 Neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 01:14 | ||||
Eröffnet am: | 14.05.09 22:36 | von: pacorubio | Anzahl Beiträge: | 8.707 |
Neuester Beitrag: | 25.04.21 01:14 | von: Petraqnvka | Leser gesamt: | 1.369.257 |
Forum: | Hot-Stocks | Leser heute: | 615 | |
Bewertet mit: | ||||
Seite: < 1 | ... | 113 | 114 | | 116 | 117 | ... 309 > |
die zeit wird kommen,meine persönliche meinung.
Gute Möglichkeit für die uns (die jenigen die verkaufen) abzuzocken.
Aber der Kurs wird steigen.
Hat jemand eine eine Info über den Kauf/Verkauf Verhältniss aus USA?
Der Kurs bewegt sich nicht, weil die Hedge Fonds, die vereiteln wollte das AMBAC Geld von seiner Tochterfirma bekommt, keinen Titel als Policeholder haben und somit nicht als Policeholder klage können und die Aktionäre nun abwarten. Wer nun verkauft vergibt eine große Chance und wer billig kauft ist ein Idiot oder Glückspilz, da die Sache sich so dreht das man sagen kann günstiger für Aktionäre. Abwarten und Tee trinken.
ich habe gelernt mich zu gedulden.
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender by assets, should repurchase as much as $20 billion in home loans that were based on wrong or missing information, said a trade group for bond insurers.
More than half of the soured home-equity credit lines and residential mortgages created from 2005 through 2007 that insurers examined should be bought back, the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers said in a Sept. 2 letter to Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan. MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group Inc. and Assured Guaranty Ltd. are members, and AFGA said repurchases tied to the group may total $10 billion to $20 billion.
Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (“OCI”) to divide
AAC’s business. AAC kept the “good” policies in its General Account,
while the “bad” policies (including the RMBS policies) were isolated in a
Segregated Account. The General Account holds all of AAC’s claimspaying
assets, while the Segregated Account has nothing but a promise that
the General Account will provide money to pay claims, and a reinsurance
policy issued by AAC.
The same day they adopted this plan, AAC and OCI initiated
rehabilitation proceedings for the Segregated Account. At the time, AAC
was negotiating with a group of banks to commute policies insuring credit
4
default swaps (the “CDS Settlement”). The settlement called for AAC to
use General Account assets that were to pay Segregated Account claims to
commute the CDS policies. OCI approved the CDS Settlement, apparently
without regard to its effect on the Segregated Account’s ability to pay
claims.
As soon as the RMBS Policyholders learned of AAC’s and OCI’s
actions, they sought to protect their interests by trying to obtain discovery
and challenge the legality of OCI’s and AAC’s actions in the Circuit Court.
However, rather than providing any discovery or meaningful review, the
Circuit Court denied the RMBS Policyholders’ motion to intervene and
adopted wholesale OCI’s findings of fact. Instead of reviewing the legality
of the Segregated Account and the fairness of OCI’s actions, the Circuit
Court has insulated all of OCI’s actions from meaningful review, thereby
ignoring OCI’s statutory requirements and the statutory mandate to the
Circuit Court to oversee rehabilitation proceedings.
The Circuit Court built a wall of functional immunity around OCI’s
decision to authorize AAC’s creation of an inadequately funded Segregated
Account. It extended that immunity to OCI’s decision to approve AAC’s
transfer of the RMBS Policyholders’ policies to the Segregated Account,
and to OCI’s approval of the CDS Settlement.
Ab Seite 12
http://ambacpolicyholders.com/storage/...f%20RMBS%20Policyholders.pdf