Jump to content

MBI - MBIA Inc.


valuecfa

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If they can not get approval for paying the interests on time, would "MBIA Inc" be in default?  There was an episode like this last year, if I recall correctly.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130108/mbi8-k.html

MBIA Inc. announced today that its wholly-owned subsidiary MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA Corp.") has issued a notice to the Fiscal Agent and the registered holder of MBIA Corp.'s 14% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Surplus Notes due 2033 (the "Notes"), in accordance with the terms of the Fiscal Agency Agreement governing the Notes, that it has been advised by the New York State Department of Financial Services ("NYSDFS") that the NYSDFS has not yet determined whether to approve the request filed by MBIA Corp. to make the scheduled interest payment on the Notes due January 15, 2013. Pursuant to Section 1307 of the New York Insurance Law and the Fiscal Agency Agreement, any payment on the Notes may be made only with the prior approval of the NYSDFS, and no such payment becomes due absent the NYSDFS's approval.

 

In accordance with the terms of the Fiscal Agency Agreement, MBIA Corp. is required to provide five business days' notice to the Fiscal Agent and the registered holder of the Notes prior to the interest payment date if it has not received approval by such date to pay the interest due on the interest payment date.

 

 

No. Neither MBIA Inc or MBIA Corp would be in default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MBIA Presentation on The Parties’ Motions for Summary

Judgment on Successor Liability Based on De Facto Merger

1

(Motion Sequence Nos. 60-61)

 

Slideshow just came up on the court's website. It won't link so you will have to get it there until MBIA loads it on their website .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh off the heels of AGO paving the way & winding up their (likely successful) trial against Flagstar with a decision due very soon...

 

MBIA sues Flagstar

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/mbia-flagstar-idUSL1E9CB6VG20130111?feedType=RSS&feedName=bondsNews&rpc=43

 

Why does MBIA start to sue Flagstar at such a late time of the game? MBIA's suit with BAC lasted more than 3 years already and still not in trial. Do you think the MBIA vs Flagstar one will not be in trial until 2016?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Palmer, analyst at BTIG, met with MBIA's CEO and CFO for a 2.5 hour meeting to discuss where the company stands now.

 

http://www.btigresearch.com/2013/01/14/mbia-meeting-with-ceo-jay-brown-and-cfo-chuck-chaplin-addresses-endgame-of-litigation-with-bofa/

 

Coincidentally, i chatted with Mark over the weekend before his research piece came out, but after his meeting (he didn't mention the meeting as it wasn't public yet)...and he remains upbeat on the company and where it stands. He reminded me of a third option the judge could give in regards to successor liability. Either rule in favor of BAC or MBI, or let the trial go on without a decision on successor liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either rule in favor of BAC or MBI, or let the trial go on without a decision on successor liability.

 

Sorry, I'm confused...

 

Let the trial proceed without SJ? Or let the trial proceed with no decision at the conclusion of the trial?

 

What are Mark's thoughts on how successor liability etc... affects the Article 78 ruling? That's the key to this entire thing - as long as MBI can split, a favorable successor liability decision is merely a call option, as we all know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either rule in favor of BAC or MBI, or let the trial go on without a decision on successor liability.

 

Sorry, I'm confused...

 

Let the trial proceed without SJ? Or let the trial proceed with no decision at the conclusion of the trial?

 

What are Mark's thoughts on how successor liability etc... affects the Article 78 ruling? That's the key to this entire thing - as long as MBI can split, a favorable successor liability decision is merely a call option, as we all know...

 

Confused me as well. I didn't realize the judge could reserve to not issue a decision on SL.

 

When i asked him specifically about the successor liability decision his words were along the lines of:

Justice Bransten has three options: summary judgment in favor of MBIA, summary judgment in favor or BAC, or let the case go to trial.

I assign a low probability to a summary judmnet ruling for BAC - I think their [bAC] best outcome here is for the case to go to trial.

 

Perhaps he was implying overall summary judgement and not a decision on successor liability issue alone, and i just misread him or was misreading me...which in retrospect seems more likely.

 

Read the research report to get some of his thoughts on the meeting, which we did not discuss. Particularly, i'd look at the liquidity comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No go on the Surplus notes payment

 

Perhaps the regulators are trying to smoke them out and push for a settlement.  There's no default as a result of this, but obviously if they are prohibited from paying it's going to be next to impossible if not impossible to raise any new debt if they needed it.  So that would mean dilution if they needed funds (and could do it, which they don't want to). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I searched but could not find good precedent in insurance. Are there cases where a regulator takes over a distressed sub like Corp without ecoomically touching the holdco? I look at banks more often and the FDIC at least has set precedents where they usually take some portion of the holdco's remaining assets when they take over a troubled sub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds contradictory:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/mbia-notes-idUSL1E9CH9O320130117?type=companyNews

 

Compare this statement where they deny any liquidity problems:

 

The decision "does not reflect MBIA Insurance's current solvency or ability to pay claims to policyholders," Marc Kasowitz, a lawyer for the insurer, wrote in a letter to a New York state judge.

 

To this one where they blame any liquidity problems (hrm???) on BofA:

 

In its reply on Thursday, MBIA said the regulator's action was irrelevant to the court proceeding and blamed any liquidity issues at MBIA on Bank of America Corp's refusal to pay $5 billion in obligations it says the bank owes MBIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/bofa-s-mbia-case-backed-by-payment-denial-bank-says.html

 

Confirms that MBIA Insurance cannot meet its financial obligations without the $5 billion improperly siphoned. – BAC spokesman

 

There is a significant amount of money that they owe us … that we have marked it cents on the dollar. – Moynihan in today's CC

 

This sounds contradictory:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/mbia-notes-idUSL1E9CH9O320130117?type=companyNews

 

Compare this statement where they deny any liquidity problems:

 

The decision "does not reflect MBIA Insurance's current solvency or ability to pay claims to policyholders," Marc Kasowitz, a lawyer for the insurer, wrote in a letter to a New York state judge.

 

To this one where they blame any liquidity problems (hrm???) on BofA:

 

In its reply on Thursday, MBIA said the regulator's action was irrelevant to the court proceeding and blamed any liquidity issues at MBIA on Bank of America Corp's refusal to pay $5 billion in obligations it says the bank owes MBIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...