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

Yo tengo la impresión de que la jueza va a dejar que las piezas de este puzzle vayan encajando solitas...aunque eso suponga alargar esto hasta el infinito. Así nadie le puede meter en un lío.

Fijaos como poco a poco las cosas van saliendo adelante... EC...examiner...rechazo del informe del examiner...y dentro de poco todo indica la evidencia de las pruebas hará que el POR sea rechazado...pero todo a su tiempo...

La gente con cierto control de riesgos en usa ya empieza a tomar conciencia de lo corrupto que está todo, y barajan como una posibilidad muy alta que el POR sea aprobado, en función de eso ya plantean sus estrategias. Lo que no estoy de acuerdo con el comentario, es que una posible apelación del POR por parte del EC, revierta la decisión. Sea cual sea la decisión pienso que estará juridicamente formada, de manera que ante una segura apelación por la parte que sea desestimada.

Saludos

Maximunae: ¿de quien estas hablando? que todo está corrupto no hace falta tener control de riesgos para saberlo pero nadie sabe de que pie cojea la Juez si a eso te refieres.

As some of you may have already noticed, our Equity co-counsel, Ashby & Geddes, filed their November 2010 services billing on December 17, 2010 (Docket #6373). What I have found particularly interesting from this billing statement is the following:

1) It does not contain a narrative detail of their daily activities/hourly billings; and

2) They spent 275.6 hours, 82% of their total billed services for the month, on “Plan and Disclosure Statement” (“P & DS”) matters.

Also, the 275.6 hours spent in November on P & DS was a significant increase over the 148.6 hours they spent in October 2010 (Docket #5966) on this subject matter.

Therefore, the question arises in my mind as to whether all this effort occurring in November was focused on just continued analysis of the existing proposed POR in preparation for the early December 2010 hearing activities, or possibly in part for some other future purpose. As it is my understanding from reliance upon some of the frequent posters on this board, a competing POR cannot be submitted until the current proposed POR is defeated. Therefore, as there is no doubt that Susman Godfrey is Equity’s lead litigator, is it plausible to think that Ashby & Geddes has been assigned the responsibility to begin the framework on a competing plan, which incorporates much of the potential A>L asset enhancements that were exposed in the recent hearings and docket filings, and which may also contain the long-awaited Solomon analysis ?

Hay opiniones de todos los colores por eso digo que aquí no sabe nadie nada como va a actuar la Juez.

The fight is Commons: ( Assumed that P and K paid face )

The judge wants a settlement.

EC knows ( has a good idea ) what commons are worth.

A lot of forces will not let Commons come through the other side of this BK intact.

JPM, FDIC is chocking on the amount commons are worth.

If money were to flow to commons and they got control of WMI, think crap in the fan for a long time to come.

If commons killed, a million Hoffmans lined up with question demanding answers.

So IMHO, this has got to settle. The success of MM's to keep PPS in the toilet is now only increasing the pressure of the coming explosion. This has gone on too long and I would sure like to witness some of the back room finger pointing going on.

------------------------------
In Judge W’s ruling, the word that rang the loudest bell to me was her use of “hearsay”. This was her prime justification to throw out the examiner report. For this same justification, and by using the power of the hearsay ruling so can she deny passage of the POR.
For some time now, she has made no secret of the fact that she does not understand how the debtors can justify the worth of the POR without opening up their books. So since they were so very careful to avoid work product and justification data release, it looks like Judge W may allow them to live with that fatal decision. She needs total transparency in order to evaluate and adjudicate. Hearsay is nothing more than gossip to the courts ears.

It is pretty obvious that Rosen is hiding evidence that will provide for his own demise!

Sí, claro, como cuando por ejemplo denegó el Examiner la primera vez y lo aprobó a la segunda.

Maximunae no se que estrategia pueden plantear la gente con cierto control de riesgo, como expones, si me lo quieres explicar, como no sea, para no perder, vender, porque no ven muchas opciones.

O estas o no estas dentro, no hay mas opciones, a corto plazo puedes triplicar la inversion o perder 2/3 partes de nuevo.

Las H tienen poco recorrido y salirte para comprar de nuevo tu mismo lo desaconsejas.

No veo mas opciones y menos sin control de riesgos.

Spot1roth dice:

There has been many discussions and topics discussed over the last twenty seven months. We have heard the infamous ruling that was to be made ASAP, the statement where this has been investigated to death and several orders to Rosen about various topics to follow through on and of course he did not. In most cases this would be considered contempt of court. Many people believe the Judge has allowed Rosen to get away with so much due to Delaware’s leniency toward corporations who are incorporated there and who end up having to file bankruptcy. There are many other people who believe the Judge has let Rosen get away with all that she has to speed this case up and make it as appeal proof as possible and I believe both are very true.

I have learned to judge people on not what they say but by their actions and this case is a good example of that when I think of the Judge. I have noticed the last couple of hearings the Judge’s actions have been more abrupt toward Rosen and I view this as extremely positive towards turning down this POR and this brings me to my point. Many people laughed at Rosen when the Judge ordered his cell phone taken away and while I thought it was funny as well, I believe there was much more inferior motive with this action from the Judge. This action showed who is in charge of the court, respect will be adhered to and more important I believe this action shows how upset the Judge is with Rosen’s orchestrated corrupt behavior he has exercised in her court and from what the Judge learned during the Confirmation Hearings. To me this cell phone action/order is the beginning of what is about to happen in a VERY negative way for Rosen continuing with turning down his POR VERY soon.

In the past I have been very hard on the Judge because what I viewed from her actions was extremely negative for equity but I must admit not knowing the Judges true motive. If her motive was to get to the Confirmation Hearings in an expedited way, then kudos to the Judge but her actions troubled me. Recently my view has changed VERY favorable to the Judge as her actions has shown she is NOT putting up with this continued orchestrated embarrassment of her court. I will go out on a limb and say due to the Judges actions since the Confirmation Hearings, she will reject the POR VERY soon and possibly before the XMAS Holiday.

Más vale que no lo hubiera aprobado nunca, porque sólo tienes que ver el cataclismo que provocó en la cotización y todavía no nos hemos recuperado.

Saludos