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

Mas que ganar el mejor Simpson, yo diría, que se haga justicia. Tan fácil y tan dificil como eso.

Las gracias hay que darselas a este señor que, como tu dices, se ha tomado su tiempo y nos regala toda esa información. Yo solo la he copiado y pegado aquí.

Simpson este post no me clarifica nada que no conozca, la guerra en este proceso tal como comenté esta pérdida, sigo pensando que en octubre la juez determinara las 2 opciones que doy como posibles, aprobación del DS para votar el POR o traslado del proceso a Chapter 7, ambas invalidan el valor de todas las acciones, cancelandolas. Si, la guerra llega a su fin, tal como predices, una vez sentenciado a no ser que tengas apartado capital desde que comenzaste el bombeo al principio del hilo, perderás toda la apuesta que tengas en ese momento. Lo lamento por Ten o los que directa o indirectamente has engañado y llevado al sacrificio, pero no será que no fueron aunque tarde, advertidos.

Este post ha sido baneado en Yahoo (Bopfan)

"Most of the offending pleadings related to stealing WMI's assets from equity have been signed by Brian Rosen, however, and as I've said before, Marcia Goldstein and Michael Walsh will be answerable for those pleadings in an ethics inquiry as co-conspirators. There is no question that they knew what Rosen was doing (they did or they will be charged with constructive knowledge given their names appear on the pleadings with his), and he will certainly try to bring them down with him.

Accordingly, partners who didn't sign the pleadings but whose names are listed are on the hook with Rosen.

This leaves the question of the non-partners (i.e., associates) who probably did 95% of the work of researching and writing the pleadings in question. The ethics rules require that (1) an attorney cannot harm his client (in this case the owners of WMI), and (2) every attorney assess his actions in connection with representing a client against the canon of ethics.

This means that if, for example, a Weil associate knew s/he was researching and/or writing a pleading that would cause WMI to breach its duties to equity (e.g., including distorting financial information to make A appear < than L, creating the DS/Plan that would give away assets of the estate, etc.) that attorney had a duty to inform his/her superiors of his ethical responsibilities and to refuse to engage in the unethical conduct. If the objectionable pleadings were filed he would have a duty to inform senior firm management about what the offending partners were doing. This, of course, would be employment suicide at Weil, so I know none of the junior lawyers did this.

Although it is unlikely junior attorneys who participated in these unethical acts will face discipline, they should be thinking about what being part of these activities might mean against their careers and reputations if their identities were revealed in connection with Weil's bad acts. Names of team members to get into legal publications like the American Lawyer, the New York Law Journal, and into business publications like the WSJ on big deals. In the case of scandal, media sources are often vicious in doling out humiliation and a young Weil lawyer whose name is mentioned in connection with they type of scandal that is clearly brewing here probably won't have the resources (i.e., wealth, family protection) to rehabilitate himself.

Tal Sapeika, an 8th year Associate (probably on track for partnership), has been involved in this matter from the beginning (her name is all over the Internet in connection with the case, so any prospective employer can Google her to learn of her role in the case), so she is just the type of non-partner who should have asked herself if she wanted to be accountable for what Brian Rosen was doing. She'll know whether she made the right decision very shortly."

Think That FDIC Will Do Another Extention

""The contrivance behind the GSA is now obvious: use it to scare equity away. However, the FDIC was reluctant to sign anything that would look like they had resolved their claims with JPM as they had the P&A and the typhoon of WMI equity liability lurking. However, WMI and Weil wanted the FDIC's cooperation badly as the ruse against equity would not have appeared credible otherwise.

The GSA is a double edged sword: (1) if the examiner has the goods on WMI then Weil will be in even deeper trouble for more ethical and Rule 9011 violations (i.e., filing bogus pleadings to mislead the court) if it continues to push the GSA, and (2) if it suddenly drops the GSA it has to face questions about whether it ever was valid (ethical and Rule 9011 violations for contriving the GSA, POS, and DS in the first place).

I say WMI will opt for (2) rather than brazen it out, because at least with (2) it can blame the GSA's collapse on the FDIC's non-cooperation. This is specious, of course, because the examiner will argue the POR/DS was, at inception, a breach of duty by both WMI and Weil, but, again, dropping the whole thing sooner rather than later is the smarter move. ""

Hola Ten,
Todo ok, esperando el 30 y fundamentalmente el 7-9 para conocer el informe preliminar del examiner.
Yo entré cuando todavía no había ni EC formado, con lo cual, no puedo dejar de ver más allá de la cotización, lo mucho mejor encaminados que estamos en la actualidad.
Saludos.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-484171

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50714459

La SEC está totalmente corrupta por Christopher Cox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox

han cerrado las WAMUQ a casi 0.24, menudo arreon los ultimos quince minutos.
Las WAMPQ han subido un misero 1%.

Es curioso como las preferentes han qeudado descolgadas de la subida del ultimo mes.

Cuando estuvieron las comunes a 0.24, las preferentes estaban a 80~$ (mas vale no pensarlo los que cambiamos comunes por preferentes, hemos salido escaldados con el cambio de momento)