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

con la perdida (momentanea) de fedemore, lo que perdemos es a una persona que tenia varios nick (algo que nunca termino de reconocer), que nunca fue claro con su posicion (mientras todos los demas si) y que lo unico que dice es que finalmente el POR se aprobara (sin ningun tipo de sustento serio, ademas de la intuicion, atras de este comentario)
quizas si te sirve psicologicamente que te recuerden todos los dias que se puede perder todo... pero con estar en una otc es mas que suficiente para saber esto.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/08/wamuinvestorclaims.html

By Alison Frankel, The Am Law Litigation Daily

Delaware federal bankruptcy court judge Mary Walrath is going to have a doozy of a fall. On September 7, she's set to receive a report from the recently-appointed examiner in the Washington Mutual Inc. Chapter 11, who has a broad mandate to investigate the circumstances of WMI's September 2008 demise. On the same day, WMI is scheduled to file its response to an adversary proceeding brought by holders of $1 billion in WMI trust preferred securities, who assert that WMI and JPMorgan Chase wrongfully appropriated $4 billion for WMI's estate.

At a hearing in Wilmington on Tuesday, Judge Walrath said trial in the adversary case would begin on November 1, as the first order of business in the confirmation hearing on WMI's reorganization plan. And according to the trust preferred investors' counsel at Brown Rudnick, the outcome of that proceeding may derail the rest of the confirmation hearing.

The trust preferred securities holders filed their 97-page complaint last month, naming WMI, several WMI trusts, and JPMorgan Chase as defendants. (JPMorgan, you'll recall, acquired WMI's subsidiary, Washington Mutual Bank, in 2008, after the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation took over WaMu Bank.) As Zach Lowe at The Am Law Daily explained at the time, Brown Rudnick's clients allege that WMI, the federal government, and JPMorgan colluded to deceive and then deprive them of their $1 billion investment in preferred trust securites. They bought the securities, they allege, with the understanding that if WaMu Bank failed, the preferred trust shares would be converted into WMI preferred stock. But instead, they allege, WMI attempted to transfer all of the preferred trust securities--totaling $4 billion--to JPMorgan when it acquired WaMu Bank.

The $4 billion transfer is cited in the settlement agreement between WMI and JPMorgan Chase that's the foundation of WMI's reorganization plan. But Brown Rudnick's clients assert that, in fact, the transfer never took place and their trust preferred securities are not part of the WMI estate. That's the issue Judge Walrath will address beginning on Nov. 1.

"There's unanimity on the point that our claims have to be resolved before anything else," said Jeremy Coffey of Brown Rudnick, who represents the trust preferred investor group. "It's a $4 billion issue. If we're right, there's $4 billion less in the estate, and I don't think the plan goes forward."

The investors had asked Judge Walrath for a trial apart from the plan confirmation process, but Coffey said it's not important that she set their trial to begin as part of that process. "It will be the first thing she hears," Coffey said. "We'll be ready for trial on November 1."

WMI and the other defendants may still move to dismiss the trust preferred investors' case. They have until Sept. 7 to do so. We called WMI lead bankruptcy counsel Brian Rosen of Weil, Gotshal & Manges but didn't hear back."

I finally spoke to Jason yesterday. He had another attorney present, I think his name was Brad but I didn't catch the last name. We talked for an hour and at the end I asked if I could discuss our call and he said yes I could but he could not make amy public statements. He then said he better check to make sure I could discuss our call and if he found I couldn't he would call right back; no call back.

The first part of the call was about my background and the position I held with Wamu. When then discussed what each area under my direct responsibility did. After that we discussed the events leading up to the transfer of the Freddie Mac and FHLB accounts in Sept 2008. I gave 4 other names of former employees that he may want to contact regarding these account transfers. He asked if he could call me back with additional questions and that was it. I did give him additional information that I had not posted to this board that I thought also contributed to the bank run.

When we were scheduling the meeting he was not available (yesterday) from 2:00 - 3:30 which led me to believe he might be calling into the court hearing.

I'm not sure if any of my information will help but at least I got to say my piece and I know it sure won't hurt the case.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday approved changes that make it easier for shareholders to nominate directors of public companies.

The 3-2 vote allows groups that own at least 3 percent of a company's stock to put their nominees for board seats on the annual proxy ballot sent to all shareholders. The new financial overhaul law enacted last month formally gave the SEC the authority to make the change.

Under the current system, investors must appeal to shareholders at their own expense if they seek new directors on a company's board or a bylaw change.

The new policy was long sought by investor advocates. But business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, opposed it. The board's two Republican commissioners voted no. One of them warned that it would likely be overturned by a court.

The change comes at a time when investors are angry about risks corporations are taking for short-term profit gains and extravagant compensation packages for executives. Getting candidates on the board gives supporters a better shot at influencing company policy. The policy change will be in place in time for next spring's corporate elections season.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has said the vote was one of the most contentious issues ever addressed by the agency. The change is "a matter of fairness and accountability," she said at Wednesday's meeting.

But Commissioner Kathleen Casey called it "so fundamentally and fatally flawed that it will have great difficulty surviving judicial scrutiny." The new rules favor big institutional shareholders over individuals, she said.

Casey and Commissioner Troy Paredes, the two Republicans on the panel, maintained the rules will trample states' rights. States are allowed to establish their own procedures for companies based within their borders for conducting shareholder elections. That's an area where court challenges could come in, Casey suggested.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce official called it "a giant step backwards for average investors" and said the organization plans to fight it. He didn't say specifically whether the Chamber would mount a legal challenge to the new rules.

Supporters say the change was necessary, especially in light of the risks taken that led to the financial crisis. The new rules are likely to be used "only in egregious cases where boards have ignored shareowners' concerns," said Amy Borrus, deputy director of the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents public pension funds. Yet the fact that the tool is there could make directors more responsive, she added.

Under the new rules, the shareholders will need to have held the minimum level of stock for at least three years. In addition, shareholders won't able to borrow stock to meet the minimum 3 percent level. And they will have to certify in writing that they don't intend to use the new rules to change control of the company or gain more seats on the board than the one or 25 percent of the board -- whichever is greater -- permitted in the new regime.

Until now, the SEC hadn't made a thorough review of the proxy system in 30 years. In that time, there have been numerous changes in technology, shareholder demographics and the structure of share holdings.

Y si eso fallara tenemos un segundo aliado llamado TPS que nos ayudará
en el Hearing del 1 de Noviembre.

Así que con esta info el que crea que el POR se va a aprobar la lleva clara :)

There's unanimity on the point that our claims have to be resolved before anything else," said Jeremy Coffey of Brown Rudnick, who represents the trust preferred investor group. "It's a $4 billion issue. If we're right, there's $4 billion less in the estate, and I don't think the plan goes forward.

Mira a ver, no hables tan ligero, no sea que luego te lleves una sorpresa.

Interesante post sobre TPS.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53741031

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=539101&mid=539101&tof=1&frt=2#539101

Lo de siempre, que cada uno saque sus propias conclusiones.

PD: Como dijo en su dia AlCapone " Si quieren ir a por la verdadera mafia vayan a Wall Street " ...que razón tenía el tio.

Saludos.

Los 2 posts de Govinsider son muy buenos...

2. “Find it or face a deposition” on October 1st.

Walrath’s elegant solution to this “problem” was the directive to either “find it, or face a deposition”. This immediately puts JPM in a perilous position. If it suddenly “finds” the valuation of those assets (i.e., the thousands of 2nd mortgages), then that would tend to instantly suggest that it was also capable of “finding” the other valuations for all the other assets it received by virtue of the transaction. In short, it would be very difficult to argue that other such valuations did not ALSO exist. Indeed, WEIL's utter silence on this critical issue speaks volumes about that firm’s representation – or lack thereof – as to the debtor’s estate. To now surrender the TPS valuation would be tantamount to cracking-open the lid to the existence and location of other assets. It would be like stumbling onto the Rosetta Stone. But to now maintain that such valuations cannot be found is equally as perilous, as it flys in the face of common sense (i.e., Walrath’s incredulous “you can’t locate them!?!” outburst) and Walrath’s continued patience.

3. “You’ll go first, and others might wish to ride your coattails”

Posters seemed unimpressed with Walrath’s directive to the TPS attorney that he would “go first” at the November 1st confirmation hearing, and that others (objectors to Rosen’s DS/POR) might “follow on your coattails”. THIS WAS A HUGELY IMPORTANT STATEMENT, as it put the TPS matter on the SAME TRACK as confirmation. Prior to making that statement, they were proceeding along on two different tracks. Now they are one. The statement was also an EXPLICIT SHOT ACROSS ROSEN’S BOW. [In other words, ‘you, Mr. TPS attorney, get the first crack at “vaporizing” the DS/POR that is devoid of valuations. Your actions will make it unnecessary for me to rule on the matter, and I’d feel more comfortable with that scenario. And if YOU don’t prevail, then hopefully, there will be others, “ON YOUR COATTAILS”, that will’.] Folks, listen to that portion of the proceedings again. You can hear the GLEE in her voice.

4. Enormous pressure to settle.

The hearing added immense pressure on JPM to settle the case, in that it gave JPM its first real whiff of the danger that lies ahead for it. It must either “find” the valuations, and thereby provide a distinct trail to other valuations of assets that do not belong to it, or have its senior people face the TERROR of a deposition conducted by some of the brightest legal minds in the country, out to make a name for themselves by cracking this conspiracy wide open. Rosen knew this to be a danger back in March. JPM just recognized it 2 days ago. JPM CANNOT SUBJECT ITSELF TO SUCH A DEPOSITION. IT MUST SETTLE THE MATTER PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1ST. This is in keeping with the date I put forth in my two previous posts. Things got better for us two days ago. Things got MUCH better indeed.