Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

El EC está claro que no, pero no está claro que la firma del EC sea vinculante para que el POR sea aprobado.

Saludos

Pues conspiracion o no pero ahora parce que lo de los problemas subitos de Joyce ya no s elos cree nadie... Yo nose... en si no ha pasado nada malo para nosotros, el problema es que dede luego bueno tampoco y ahi seguimos pagando abogados y saltando de argumentos para encontrar algo positivo...k teniamos a Bonderman de nuestro laod, que Weil era el salavdor, que Venable se los iba comer con patatas... Yo sigo dentro porque creo qeu seguimos teniendo buenas posibilidades de que esto acabe bien y las preferentes las sigo viendo que cad vez que bajen de los 40 va a entrar dinero (el mio por ejemplo) pero...aparte de que es justo y tenemos razon...cada dia tenemos menos argumentos (por suerte tambien menos claims en contra)y ya con la salida de Venable parece que acuerdo nada de nada asi que a ver cual e sla valoracion que nos dan y con eso se puede negociar algo.

El dia muy malo no ha podido ser cuando las preferentes subieron asik no decaigan los animos...eso si de ahi sacar algo en positivo... De todas maneras lo dicho, yo aprecio muchisimo lo positividad de Mr_simson y cia que ademas de animar nos tienen al dia de todas las noticias.Que eso tb es importante.

Lo los bopnistas de wmb tp deberia sustarnos demasiado, lo bueno del POR es que ya esta encima de la mesa y ya sabemos lo que hay y los de WMB menos las reits que se comen las mismas migajas que nosotros no ven nada, asik si quieren algo tendran que remar con nosotros..

Because in showing the BK court that there is validity to the claims WMI has against WMB, it will become nearly impossible for the DOJ and THJMW to allow for a settlement that wipes equity out when the courts recognize those claims as "assets".

At the same time, the FDIC/JPM threat of painful exposure just went up 10 notches.

THJMW effectively did what I dreamed we'd see the EC do. She put their back against the wall and more than likely just pushed a wedge between WMI and FDIC/JPM as they will do what they have to do in order to protect themselves.

That means showing what happened here WASN'T right and that the bank shouldn't have been seized. There was never a cease and desist letter from the FDIC, REMEMBER? The OTS just entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with WMI and said they would be fine for a prolonged period of time... REMEMBER?

This little maneuver may have just sped things up, in a big way. Equity is still in danger. I can't deny that. But at the same time I have to believe the EC will be all over this and will be looking for any and all ways to exploit things.

What happens next? Does WMI offer to give the WMB bondholders JPM's "illegal" cut of the tax refunds? Would JPM sign off on that? Is that enough to satisfy the WMB bondholders? I don't know...

But this was a huge move. I need to digest it to get a feel for the different angles that can play out, but I still think this bodes well for us, and astronomically well if we don't see a revised settlement/POR where the WMB bondholders take JPM's cut released between now and the end of the next hearing.

EN 2 SEMANAS SETTLEMENT O CARGOS POR FRAUDE JPM/FDIC/OTS/WMI

MAÑANA...

1. Sell Bonds (quickly if you purchased post seizure)

2. WMI shares (all classes) still cheap.

3. "Professionals" have now assumed the reigns of the EC.

4. Bonderman's post seizure purchase of massive quantities of bonds are now in danger of "vaporizing"...which, oh by the way, will force him to jump on the EC bandwagon to save his aSS.

5. 2019 Applies to ALL.

SUMMARY: 1-5 above could force a quick settlement before every participant's aSS becomes truly exposed.

I came across a filing in the Mirant bankruptcy case that relates to our current EC member Willingham and that I think is relevant to this discussion. The filing, docket #14392, is titled "FINAL FEE AND BONUS APPLICATIONS HEARING (VOLUME V)", and is very long. As the title suggests, this document (one of many) seems to concern court hearings at the wrap up of the case where the judge (D. Michael Lynn) heard testimony regarding billings and bonuses.

Willingham was a member of the EC in this case. It appears that Willingham was testifying in favor of awarding some kind of bonus to the firm (Brown Rudnick) that was in charge, for the EC's side, of a 27 day long valuation hearing. Here's what the judge said at the end of Willingham's testimony (Willingham is "THE WITNESS").

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT: All right. That’s all I had.
Before you stand down, Mr. Willingham, I will tell you
this. If ever the U.S. Trustee was looking for a poster child
for a committee member, you should be it. Your services have
been exceptional. Your understanding of the case is incredi-
ble. Better than many of the lawyers who have participated in
it, in fact. If there were a way I could pay you a bonus, I
would do so cheerfully and without question. I think you have
served your constituency remarkably well, and please step down
with the gratitude of the Court.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

Buenos dias,
creo que vamos por el buen camino,visto lo de ayer tenemos a los tenedores de bonos remando a favor nuestra y eso me da buena sensación.....
vamos haber los cambios que se presentan en el POR antes del 21
espero que todo esto no sea una farsa y que prevalezca la justicia para todos

saludos y buena suerte

Thanks to Bend from the Ghost board found this.

"WAMU Bonds Clear First Hurdle..." Dow Jones 4/6/2010
« on: Today at 04:27:58 PM » Quote

----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

Pulled off E*Pro so no link...

WAMU Bonds Clear First Hurdle in Parent Bankruptcy" 4-6-2010
By Peg Brickley
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW

WILMINGTON, Del. (Dow Jones)--A bankruptcy judge on Tuesday refused to throw
out claims that bondholders of Washington Mutual Bank, or WaMu, filed in the
Chapter 11 case of its former parent, Washington Mutual Inc.

Judge Mary F. Walrath said creditors of the failed thrift, which was seized
and sold in September 2008, can move to phase two of a multi-billion-dollar
legal fight, and attempt to prove allegations the parent company is to blame
for WaMu's failure.

The finger-pointing is not just a matter of legal theory. Washington Mutual,
the former parent, is positioned to amass up to $7 billion in cash in its
Chapter 11 case, including tax refunds and funds on deposit.

WaMu, in contrast, left behind only about $1.9 billion in a receivership--the
cash J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) paid for the thrift.

Walrath's ruling gives WaMu bondholders a shot at collecting some of the
Washington Mutual cash.

It also cut the ground out from under what's left of a tentative settlement
between WaMu's former parent, Washington Mutual, its new owner, J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Announced in late March, the pact that would end disputes over what went
wrong at WaMu is still up in the air, with the FDIC refusing to sign off.

The former parent company attempted to hold WaMu bondholders at bay with
arguments that only the FDIC, as receiver for WaMu creditors, has the right to
demand payment on their behalf from the parent company.

Walrath said Tuesday that WaMu bondholders may pursue certain claims against
Washington Mutual if the FDIC declines to do so. Her decision gives WaMu's
bondholders leverage in the bargaining.

Alleged grounds for WaMu's claims against Washington Mutual include
securities fraud, misrepresentation, mismanagement and fraudulent transfer of
billions from WaMu as it teetered on the brink of collapse.

Tuesday's ruling is a victory for an assortment of institutional investors
who say they thought they were backing a sound, regulated Seattle thrift, only
to find themselves with distressed debt.

WaMu bondholder attorney Philip Anker said the decision should drive "a
settlement, a settlement that is productive for everyone."

The attorney, who's with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, said his
largest client paid 100 cents on the dollar for WaMu bonds.

That's in sharp contrast to many parent company bondholders, who, he claimed
bought Washington Mutual debt in September 2008, paying less than 1 cent on the
dollar.

Parent company debt has been trading above 100 cents on the dollar, driven by
hopes of a deal that will send most of the billions left in the wreckage of
WaMu into the pockets of those who bet on the parent company.

(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and
those under bankruptcy protection.)

-By Peg Brickley, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review; 302-521-2266;
[email protected]

Lets try not to forget that the bondholders claims (WMB) hinge on the fact that supposedly WMI removed cash from WMB (975M) and transfered that to WMfsb. That near 1B in itself coupled with the 4B deposit would have been enough cash on hand alone to support their cap ratio to the point of not being seized. Coupled with the funds already in WMfsb which were to be infused per Project Filmore, the fact of WMB not being insolvent still lingers. This fact alone will be pounded by the EC. Now with the WMI post bonds being required to conform with 2019 means WMI will eventually have to start showing some worth. It's my opinion that JMW did this intentionally to draw out the fact that Rosen was fking equity as well as getting the truth out about the financial position of WMB at the time of seizure. The 21st will be interesting to say the lease.