WMI Holdings ! Gibt es eine Alternative ?

Keine Sorge, lieber ID, ich äußere mich gerne, zumal sowohl von Dir als auch von union wieder einmal haarsträubende Geschichten bzw. Unwahrheiten in den Raum geworfen wurden:

1. Die Piers sind gedeckelt gem. der "September-Opinion" von Walrath. Wurde hier schon x-mal diskutiert. Deshalb hätte ich gerne einmal einen Nachweis, wo denn bitteschön "die Piers" versuchen, mehr als den gedeckelten Betrag zu bekommen. Gibt es darüber etwas Schriftliches, oder handelt es sich wieder einmal um "Hinterzimmergespräche", über die nur LG, ID und evtl. union Bescheid wissen...? ;-)

2. Lieber ID, bevor Du über die Chancen der Escrows referierst, solltest Du Dich erst einmal mit dem Status Quo beschäftigen. Die Piers können natürlich nicht durch die runoff-notes "ausbezahlt" werden, weil die Piers die runoff-notes schon längst erhalten haben. Du selbst hast doch lang und breit darüber geschrieben und Dich zusammen mit "US-Kumpel" LG diebisch darüber gefreut, dass die Piers bis zur Bedienung der notes angeblich noch knapp 15 Jahre warten müssten. Dummerweise (für euch) kam es anders. Die First Lien-Notes sind fast vollständig bedient, die Second Lien-Notes dagegen größtenteils noch nicht. Eine Bedienung der Notes ändert aber an dem noch ausstehenden Piers-Claim nichts, weil die notes natürlich schon vom Claim abgezogen wurden.

3. Ja, entgegen aller dummen Äußerungen von faster und diverser Amis ist der Marta-Claim in Klasse 18 noch nicht vom Tisch. Er kann wieder eingebracht werden, sobald die Klasse 18 "im Geld" ist. Das ist natürlich erst der Fall, wenn die vorrangigen Klassen voll bedient sind. Deshalb ist es zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt müßig darüber zu streiten, ob Doral Bank & Co. den Claim wieder einbringen werden. Wenn sie nicht ganz verblödet sind, werden sie es machen, wenn im Trust noch genügend Geld vorhanden sein sollte, weil dem Trust schlichtweg die Zeit davon läuft, weshalb ich mir gut vorstellen kann, dass die ein kleines Settlement herausschlagen können. Ist aber nur meine Meinung. Dem Claim an sich gebe ich persönlich keine große Chance, aber an einer jahrelangen Klage hat der Trust sicherlich auch kein Interesse. Sobald es LTI-Bescheide für die Class 18 gibt, werden wir es erfahren.

Viel Spaß noch beim weiteren "Phantasieren",
stay  

...hat im Escrow-Thread wenigstens User moneymoagi den Durchblick!
Alle anderen suchen wieder irgendwelche "Deckel" (die es nicht gibt) und machen sich ernsthaft Gedanken, ob die Ex-Commons nicht (gegenüber den Ex-Prefs) "benachteiligt" wären, wenn "am Ende 30-40 Mrd. übrigen bleiben würden". Noch einmal: Es gibt KEINE Deckelung für die Ex-Prefs, weil es keine Ex-Prefs mehr gibt, sondern - für den Fall, dass die Escrows ins Geld kommen sollten, LTI-Ansprüche. Das kann doch alles nicht so schwer sein.
p.s. Habe übrigens ein kleines Bildchen angehängt, damit unser "ID-chen" einen "Beweis" dafür hat, dass die runoff notes bereits eingebucht sind. Muss natürlich erwähnen, dass ich als "Nicht-Investierter-Basher" das Ganze selbstverständlich höchst aufwendig mit Photoshop "designt" habe, lol... ;-) So in etwa müsste das aber auch in der Realität aussehen, wenn ich mich nicht irre... ;-)
p.p.s. Die Depotentwicklung habe ich übrigens speziell nur für unseren justy stehen gelassen, weil er sich immer solche Sorgen um meine Finanzen macht. Ist natürlich auch mit Photoshop "designt" worden, lol... ;-)
 

Wahrscheinlich bekommst du auch bald eine Geheimzahlung der Geheimmilliarden:

Zitat Anfang:

„Sie hoffen noch immer, einiges unter den Tisch kehren zu können, um sich dann daran bereichern zu können.“

Zitat Ende

Vielleicht gibt es ja eine Verjährungsfrist für die Opinion, dass du Kohle ohne Ende bekommst, falls die Piers bis zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkt nicht voll bedient sind.

Anders kann man die wirren Ausführungen doch leider nicht mehr interpretieren.

Und schön, wie die Verschwörungstheorie von der Grinsekatze hier einfach mal adaptiert wird. Ging es beim Grinser noch um GS Maulwürfe, die die Auszahlung blockieren, um eine Klage gegen GS zu verhindern, geht es jetzt um „Groszen“ die verhindern, dass die Piers bedient werden, um … Was eigentlich? Ach ja, hier hört es auf, weil Verständliches kommt jetzt nicht mehr.

Zur Erinnerung, wer hier der Märchenonkel ist (Auszahlung Jahreswechsel 12/13):

http://www.ariva.de/forum/...s-Corp-News-461347?page=424#jumppos10607

Man kann die Erinnerung an die tollen Vorhersagen nicht wach genug halten:

Zitat Anfang:

„Nachdem Pb, VD, der Kreuzritter, klein Adlerauge aber auch mein neuester Freund Astragalaxia so ziemlich einen Schmarrn wissen, wäre ihnen geraten sich zunächst mal so flach unter dem Teppich zu machen, dass man die kleinste Bewegung nicht mehr wahrnehmen kann.“

Zitat Ende

Klein Adlerauge wusste damals schon, dass die Ausführungen eines ID ein Schmarrn sind.

 

Das ist ja das Abenteuerliche: Es wird immer ein anderer "Zahlmeister" auserkoren: Erst JPM, dann GS (da war sich das Melonen-Kätzchen doch absolut sicher, lol) und jetzt FDIC. Alles ohne Sinn und Verstand.  

Hier mal ein wenig support Material, dass die „hidden assets“-Theorie als das erscheinen lassen sollte, was sie ist: ein Märchen

Es geht ja um, "off the balance sheet" assets, dann hier:

Zitat Anfang
JPMC acquired WMB’s assets “whether or not reflected on the books” of WMB.
Zitat Ende

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...stee-jpmSJmotion.pdf

und etwas zur FDIC als receiver:

Zitat Anfang
Should the Receiver be found liable on any of JPMC's indemnity claims, under the P&A, those claims will be satisfied as administrative expenses and thus before the claims of general unsecured creditors. 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 Ende

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu_settlement.html

Bei mir gibt's nachprüfbare links, beim Generaldirektor a.D. erfundene Geschichten.  

Ja, das sind eigentlich uralte Geschichten, die jeder Investierte kennen sollte. Und das ist mithin auch der Grund, warum die VORRANGIGEN Junior Bonds bei rd. 0,01 $ das Stück notieren. Deshalb ja schon mehrmals meine Frage: Warum decken sich LG, ID, union, faster & Co. nicht damit ein? Die sind doch wahre Schnäppchen, wenn die FDIC-Milliarden kommen, lol... ;-)  

schon richtig, dass es bekannt sein sollte…vor allem die FDIC receivership

…aber so lange es solche Worthelden wie ID gibt, kann man es nicht oft genug verlinken.
Vielleicht hilft es ja dem einen oder anderen, bei der DD

Zitat Anfang:
"- mitunter auch mangels selbst erworbenen Wissens (man nennt das DD) falsch reagierten –"
Zitat Ende

und sie erkennen dadurch den „generaldirektorischen a.D.“ Schaumschläger hinter den Worten.
Vor dem Hintergrund dieser „off the balance sheet“ Diskussion fand ich aber das filing schon recht interessant mal einzustellen.
Ist ja auch noch nicht so alt … Tag der deutschen Einheit 2014, da klar gesagt wird, dass JPM alle assets übernommen.
Den Irrglauben, dass die holding selbst Bankgeschäfte tätigte bekommt damit leider nicht aus der WaMuWelt.
 

 

Habt Ihr alle schön releast?!:-D  

Zitat Anfang
„Es muss eine völlig neue, unbekannte Droge sein, die solche permanenten Halluzinationen hervorruft! Was muss man da eigentlich nehmen...?“
Zitat Ende

Entweder das oder die o.a. Definition des Generaldirektor a.D. bzgl. due diligence = Mangel an (selbst) erworbenen Wissen, trifft auf die dortigen Protagonisten zu.

Ich stimme hier einfach mal IDs Aussage und Definition zu, seine Fähigkeit der DD in o.a. Sinne ist großartig.
 

aber unsere Releases gelten natürlich nicht für Dummpusher, Lügner usw...
Das sollte doch klar sein!
 

Ja. Aber Deine "Frage" führt zu einer m.E. interessanten Gegenfrage, die mir bislang noch kein "Nicht-Releaser" beantworten konnte: Da ja gemäß diverser Ihub- und Escrow-Thread-Theorien die von uns erteilten Releases (z.B. für JPM und FDIC) nix wert sein sollen (Stichwort "fraud"), stellt sich dem interessierten Leser nunmehr die Frage, was sich die Nicht-Releaser denn durch das Nicht-Releasen überhaupt für einen Vorteil versprochen haben...? Ich erhoffe mir kompetente Antworten von Schwarzi & Co... ;-)  

lieber Stay, bitte fühle Dich mit mir insofern verbunden, als das ich Dich zwar lesen kann, aber ein Sternchen verpassen geht nun nicht mehr für heute.
Alles Gute Euch, im Kaffeethreadchen der feinen Gesellschaft! Sollen merse reilasse?  

wir sind ja nun ein richtig "weltoffenes Forum"........die "Strafbank" ist leer.....

Aber ob man das auf Dauer durchhalten kann?

Time Will Tell !!
 

Hier ein paar Informationen für euch. Da es ja nicht mehr viele sind die hier reinschauen und schreiben ist diese Information bez. WMIH wichtig für euch.
Ich hoffe es beantwortet eure vielen Fragen .-)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/...msg.aspx?message_id=111151510

A Refresher - Escrow Share Account Owners - Discussion on Asset Sales/Transfer

I have long said the resolution P&A, finalizing tranches 5/6 by the FDIC is key to the ending of this case.
____________________________________
HIDDEN ASSETS - LOOK AT THIS LINK and thanks again goes to that Biker AZ.

http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/17733/68131/...lyxDeclaration.pdf

_____________________________________

Nobody would know what did or did not happen in two months of mediation or what is under the court seals. I sure do not know. So one can expect almost anything in a case that is ANYTHING but a normal case.

As you know Piers investors have ZERO chance of a HUGE payoff because they were NOT awarded escrow shares. IMHO, this is where the "mother load" of monies is going to be placed. I have included some very important information regarding our (Escrow Account Owners) and how this is possible.

If one did not invest primarily with equity, then this information may not align with their interest.

I will leave with a couple of links for investors to research if they so choose. All I can say is as the official close of the P&A nears, I sure do LOVE my escrow shares!

The following is from (Co-written) Weasel/Gotcha/Mangle - Imagine that! Ensure you pick on the "melting ice-cube theory. Also registry accounts on pages 50/51

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Roe_645.pdf

http://materials.abi.org/sites/default/files/2013/...3SalesTopics.pdf

This is a great read about Rule 363 being used recently. Look at pages two to five discussing 'vanishing sub rosa plan doctrine' plus how 363 plan sales are used to funnel asset sales while a shell company goes through chapter 11.

http://www.wlrk.com/webdocs/wlrknew/AttorneyPubs/WLRK.17844.10.pdf
This is a super refresher of what happened. Also term sheet that was finalized on 5/2010 and 363 sale placed in Treasury Bonds

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63319846/...mation-Hearing-in-December-2010

The following is about Chrysler and how a 363 sale can be violated and to bring in someone from the outside such (example) as JPM.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Roe_645.pdf

WMIH,WMILT, IMHO, Escrow Share Account Owners, Piers, Tranches 5/6 and employee claims are all directly tied together
The FDIC also has to make a filing whether these employee claim settlements can be paid or not. At this point, makes no difference to me as I see an HUGE amount of money transferring into the accounts of escrow share account owners.

Tranches five and six will be more procedural than litigation. This is because they cannot litigate these claims for the same reason I said three years ago there would NEVER be any third party suits (not including D&Os that were already in play) all because this would become public knowledge while people defended themselves and this CAN NEVER happen! We have signed term sheets and other information regarding this under seal and we may never see this information because everybody will have been paid off in one form or another.

Insider Trading AGAINST HEDGE-FUNDS- Capital Management LP, Centerbridge Partners LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Owl Creek Asset Management. These claims can still haunt Hedge Funds if what they have agreed to in secret mediation is not followed
____________________________________

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/...er-trading-ruling-1-.html


Very Juicy Material from the “Texas Litigation” involving the illegal seizure of WaMu

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090501000000000002.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/...er-trading-ruling-1-.html

_____________________________________
WaMu Bankruptcy Judge Agrees to Drop Insider-Trading Ruling
By Steven Church Jan 25, 2012 12:33 PM ET
The judge overseeing Washington Mutual Inc. (WM)’s bankruptcy agreed to drop a ruling that hedge funds may have engaged in insider trading.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath in Wilmington, Delaware, found in September that there was enough evidence of insider trading to allow a lawsuit to be filed against four hedge funds that hold billions of dollars of WaMu’s debt.

Walrath agreed today to certify to a higher court that she probably will vacate (YOU DON’T SAY) that order, which is on appeal. The certification would allow Walrath to drop the ruling if she approves WaMu’s $7 billion reorganization plan at a hearing scheduled for next month. Striking part of the insider-trading order will “pave the way for the debtors to finally exit bankruptcy after three years of extensive litigation and negotiation with a multitude of interested parties,” WaMu said in court papers.

WaMu is preparing to try for the third time to win approval of its plan after settling the objections of critics including shareholders. The Seattle-based company filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 26, 2008, the day after its banking unit was taken over by regulators and sold to JPMorgan (JPM) Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion.

Creditors Rejected Walrath today rejected the arguments of a group of creditors that oppose WaMu’s reorganization plan. The group claimed that Walrath would set a bad precedent by vacating her ruling ( YOU DON’T SAY) and that the four hedge funds were trying to restore their reputations after being accused of insider trading. The hedge funds “are pursuing this so they can go out as part of their business model and say, ‘Look, the judge supported our position,’” Howard J. Kaplan, a lawyer for creditors, told Walrath at the hearing. Shareholders had accused Aurelius Capital Management LP, Centerbridge Partners LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Owl Creek Asset Management LP of receiving inside information and using it to trade on WaMu securities. The four funds denied the allegations and supported vacating the order.

From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/...on-plan/53133432/1
In approving Washington Mutual's plan, Walrath agreed to strike language in her September ruling (OH, NO) that referred to the insider trading allegations (YOU DON’T SAY) against the hedge funds, a condition the hedge funds had demanded in the December settlement that paved the way for the plan.
Distressed Claims Trading: Insider Trading May Lead to Disallowance of Bankruptcy Claims and Breach of Fiduciary Duties
By Paul J. Ricotta

In a significant expansion of the potential risk for distressed claims traders, the Delaware bankruptcy court has recently ruled 1 that traders who engage in insider trading may have their claims subordinated to equity, and that traders who amass claims sufficient to block a plan of reorganization owe fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders during plan negotiations.

Washington Mutual, Inc., a bank holding company that formerly owned Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), was once the nation’s largest savings and loan association, having over 2,200 branches and holding $188.3 billion in deposits. When WaMu filed for bankruptcy protection in September, 2008, disputes immediately arose among a number of parties regarding the ownership of certain assets and various claims that the parties asserted against each other. After more than a year of negotiations, a settlement was reached among some, but not all of the parties (the “Settlers”), and was incorporated into a proposed plan of reorganization that offered to pay creditors but would leave nothing for shareholders. The non-settling parties, including the Debtor’s Equity Committee (“Equity”), sought, among other things, to equitably subordinate the Settlers’ claims on account of alleged insider trading and to hold the Settlers liable as “temporary insiders” for breach of fiduciary duty because the Settlers held claims that were sufficient to block confirmation of any other plan.

Equitable Subordination

Equity claimed that, during the course of the settlement discussions which ultimately lead to the proposed plan of reorganization, the Settlers obtained material, non-public information about WaMu and traded in its securities. They further claimed that the Settlers maintained a blocking position which would prevent the confirmation of any plan that did not have the support of the Settlers. By virtue of their leverage, the Settlers then “dominated” plan negotiations to assure that their settled claims would be paid while nothing was given to WaMu’s equity.

Based on these facts, Equity sought to equitably subordinate the claims of the Settlers despite the fact that other courts have held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the disallowance of a claim on purely equitable grounds. Notwithstanding prior case law, the Delaware bankruptcy court held that it had the power to equitably subordinate claims if they were subject to a defense outside of bankruptcy (in this case, a securities law violation).

A securities law violation can be established if a corporate insider trades in the securities of his corporation on the basis of material, non-public information. The court found a colorable claim for liability because the Settlers traded in WaMu’s securities with knowledge that a settlement was being discussed, including the relative stances the parties were taking in those negotiations over the course of the discussions, and with knowledge of the settlement term sheets exchanged by the parties, all at a time when the public knew only that WaMu and its creditors were engaged in contentious litigation.

The court found no merit in the Settlers’ arguments that Equity was simply utilizing 20/20 hindsight based on the fact that a settlement had ultimately been agreed upon or that, until a deal in principle is reached, mere negotiations do not constitute material, non-public information. The court noted that, as the negotiations progressed, it became clear to the parties involved — but not the public — that a settlement was becoming more probable and that the funds available to the bankruptcy estate were increasing. The court also dismissed the Settlers’ argument that the fact that some Settlers bought claims, some sold, and some did neither, demonstrated that the information gleaned during the negotiations was not material, because unwise or contrary trading does not provide a defense to a securities law violation.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Equity also contended that the Settlers became “temporary insiders,” which include those who have entered into a special, confidential relationship in the conduct of the business of the enterprise and are given access to confidential information solely for corporate purposes. Equity asserted that the Settlers became temporary insiders when they were given access to the settlement term sheets and participated in confidential settlement discussions. As insiders, the Settlers owed a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of all creditors and shareholders, which was breached when they supported a plan that paid nothing to the shareholders. The Delaware bankruptcy court agreed with Equity, deeming the Settlers temporary insiders, and ruling that they owed fiduciary duties to all other creditors and shareholders because they held blocking positions in two classes of WaMu’s debt structure. The court authorized Equity to commence litigation against the Settlers for breach of that fiduciary duty.

_____________________________________
Thanks goes to tanjazielman (IHUB # 400941) for an EXCELLENT Summation!

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/813494/jpmfdic.pdf

These releases are IMO part of a deal. A deal has to be negotiated.

The release of AAOC was not something that they would get for free. And handing over 95% ownership of WMIH for equity didn't cut it either. Not if you have negotiators like Ed Sargent and Mike Willingham at the table.

My opinion is AAOC would give a whole lot more to be rescued from a dangling sword above their heads waiting to fall down at any moment in the future.

EC got a good hand there. Insider trading charges against Hedge Funds with big clients. People would be facing jail time, and their methods would be monitored more strictly on a permanent basis. They would do anything to sweep it under the rug! The releases must be given at all cost!

If one thinks the EC didn't have a strong leverage here, one must be completely oblivious to power play.

The EC was willing to talk (and especially listen) And remember: only Willingham and Sargent sat at the table for the EC!

(Remember Susman & Godfrey's motto: "Trial by agreement")

JPM and FDIC were not present at mediation. WHICH WASN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE THE NEGOTIATION WAS ALL ABOUT THE RELEASE OF AAOC.

Also: All term sheets are under seal. And let's sum up what we have seen so far by the LT:

- Litigating Trust: 20 million used for litigation? No way man! We bring back 12 million, we don't need 20 million... "we're not gonna sue anyone!" Until today that appears to be FACT.
- Depositions and subpoena's of former employees, directors and JPM are postponed until after the life span of WMI LT. Don't believe anyone who tells you the three years can be prolonged with three years. It's not going to happen. Why? It's not necessary!
See the statement above why the LT is not necessary.
- Escrows are not an asset of the WMI LT. It's not on the books, there is no mention of it in the FAQ on wmitrust.com. But the legal definition in a bankruptcy context it is a "legal obligation to distribute assets, mostly money". Whole different beast then an LTI? And who got those? PIERS of course.
- Susman, who takes care of the claims FOR the LT, didn't bill squat.

"13.12 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until
the sixth (6th) anniversary (NOW EXPIRED) of Bank Closing" (which is until 25th of Sept. 2014, ladies and gentlemen) Which literally STATES what we end up with:

SCHEDULE 3.2 - Purchase Price of Assets (Whoa-Billions-YOU DON’T SAY!)
(a) cash and receivables from depository Book Value
institutions, including cash items in the
process of collection, plus
interest thereon:
(b) securities (exclusive of the capital stock of Market Value
Acquired Subsidiaries), plus interest
thereon:
(c) federal funds sold and repurchase Book Value
agreements, if any, including interest
thereon:
(d) Loans: Book Value
(e) Other Real Estate: Book Value
(f) credit card business, if any, including all Book Value
outstanding extensions of credit:
(g) Safe Deposit Boxes and related business,
safekeeping business and trust business, if Book Value
any:
(h) Records and other documents: Book Value
(i) capital stock of any Acquired Subsidiaries: Book Value
(j) amounts owed to the Failed Ban by any Book Value
Acquired Subsidiary:
(k) assets securing Deposits of public money, Book Value
to the extent not otherwise purchased
hereunder:
(1) Overdrafts of customers: Book Value
(m) rights, if any, with respect to Qualified Market Value
Financial Contracts.
(n) rights of the Failed Ban to provide Book Value
mortgage servicing for others and to have
mortgage servicing provided to the Failed
Ban by others and related contracts.
(0) Bank Premises: Book Value
(p) Furniture and Equipment: Book Value
(q) Fixtures: Book Value
 

"...Nobody would know what did or did not happen in two months of mediation or what is under the court seals. I sure do not know. So one can expect almost anything in a case that is ANYTHING but a normal case.

As you know Piers investors have ZERO chance of a HUGE payoff because they were NOT awarded escrow shares. IMHO, this is where the "mother load" of monies is going to be placed. I have included some very important information regarding our (Escrow Account Owners) and how this is possible..."

Bereits die ersten beiden Absätze zeugen leider davon, dass LG absolut keinen Plan hat:

1. FDIC und JPM haben NICHT an der Mediation teilgenommen, deshalb kann folgerichtig in der Mediation mit diesen beiden Parteien auch nichts "Geheimes" ausgehandelt worden sein.

2. Ich weiß ja, dass das schwierig ist und dass vor allem LG enorme Verständnisprobleme bez. der Escrows hat: Die "escrow shares" sind keine "shares" im eigentlich Sinn, sondern Platzhalter für Liquidating Trust Interests (LTI's). Sollte der Wasserfall ausreichen, würden die "escrows" aus dem Depot verschwinden und man stattdessen einen LTI-Bescheid vom Trust erhalten. Die PIERS haben die LTI-Bescheide sofort vom Trust bekommen. Kann doch nicht so schwer sein.

 

Ohne Haus Nix Raus !!!!  

@Staylongstaycool:
"...Du bist wirklich ein armes Kerlchen....!"
Time will show ...SOON!
LG ID_pb  

Lässt sich das ein wenig präzisieren? Was soll passieren und wann? Nur damit ich mich schon einmal darauf einstellen kann... ;-)  

Zitat:
"Time will show ...SOON!"

Lieber ID_pb:

Könntest Du bitte das oben genannte "SOON" ein wenig präzisieren? Eventuell mit einem Termin (Datum)...?

DANKE
 

Mist, du warst schneller!!

Haha...  

Na klar. Ich liebe ja die diversen "Wamu-Daten"... ;-)  

Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa , endlich haben  wir die 2,20 $ geknackt :-)))))  

gut so, bestell mal einen bei der Bardame im Kaffeehäuschen!!  

Geht da Heute was?