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

JPM tiene conducta ejemplar
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/JPMorgan-settlement-with-SEC-apf-3297524178.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

HOLA LULOU:

SERIAS TAN AMABLE DE COMENTAR EL TOPICO?, PUES CON LOS TRANSLATERS ME HAGO UN TANTO DE CONFUSIONES. A VER SI MAS O MENOS LE ENTENDI LO QUE DEBIERA.

GRACIAS.

Por si quedaba alguna duda ya sabemos la sec a favor de quien está.

De momento volumen anémico, ni rompe para arriba ni para abajo. Por lo que intuyo que nada bueno para wamu se ha dicho de momento...

Ni nada malo....

This is from a Yahoo thread about the delay in the $4 billion cash summary judgment ruling, from Mr. Viv. Just in case something happens over at Yahoo...

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

"I agree that if the judge intended to deny the SJ motion it would be an easy thing to just write a short opinion briefly explaining why she did so. All it takes is one or two holes the the moving party's evidence or legal argument to shoot down such a motion, and the holes are usually obvious and easy to explain in a written decision. That's why, statistically, summary judgment motions are rarely successful.

On the other hand, given the myriad arguments, issues and implied threat submitted by JPM and FDIC in opposition to the summary judgment motion, in order to grant the motion she will have to methodically address and thoroughly dispose of each issue in turn. When you consider that it took some of the best attorneys from some very good law firms MANY months to formulate, argue and brief the law on all those issues, it is not surprising that a careful judge (assisted by a clerk or two) would take some time in deciding a big issue in what is probably the biggest case she'll ever have. As I noted in the thread "10/8 Decision" a couple of days ago, the fact that this judge issued a 16-page decision denying an obviously bogus claim by a non-attorney, self-represented claimant demonstrates that Judge Walrath is VERY careful and thorough.

In addition, as was pointed out by others over the last couple of days, you have to factor in that it would be strategically preferable (from Judge Walrath's point of view) to wait to announce her ruling until after JPM's appeal to Judge Sleet is decided (and presumably denied) and/or the DC court rules on WMI's motion to dismiss counterclaims and stay proceedings there, because both proceedings involve decisions regarding her fundamental jurisdiction over the case. After all, JPM/FDIC will immediately appeal an adverse turnover action decision to the Third District Court of Appeal. As a consequence, the $4B won't actually be moved to WMI any time soon. What's more, WMI doesn't need that money yet to continue the litigation, and the court doesn't need it yet to pay the creditors, since, absent a settlement, this estate is a long way from reaching reorganiztion or liquidation. So, from her perspective, having all those other ducks in a row makes the impact of her decision more clear-cut and more likely to facilitate settlement. And (to answer your second question), if all the above doesn't work, then the turnover case will go to trial before her (not a jury, not some other judge) in due course

Thus, counter-intuitively, alhough I certainly had hoped for a bold, early decision on the issue, maybe we're all better off the longer she takes. It certainly would put continued downward pressure on share price and provide continued buying opportunities for those so inclined!"

Les cuesta, les cuesta,... les cuesta muchisimo dar con el martillo a jpm, y sólo en este asunto, de acuerdo que 4 bill no son 4 duros, pero desde mayo junio, telita, si de verdad está tan claro que son de wmi y jpm son unos chorizos, que les den caña yaaa''''', estos tios se están riendo de todos, y la juez no se como muestra tanta pasividad. Esto es david contra goliat

THJH - The honorable Judge Hollyer
THJMW - The Honorable Judge Mary Walrath

I've tried to keep my opinions in []'s.

I arrived at the courthouse around 1:40PM. I was behind our attorneys while going through security; it was just them and me.. very quiet day at the courthouse. Attorney's are permitted laptops and blackberry's. I didn't even try bringing my phone.

I entered the court room around 1:50PM to find attorneys on both sides ready to go. I sat on the left side, the WMI side. From 1:50PM-2:10PM the main Quin attorney, Carlinsky, paced near their table seemingly going over arguments in his head. The FDIC and JPM counsel seemed very relaxed and smiled a lot towards each other.

The principal WMI attorney's were Mr. Carlinsky from Quin and Mr. Swarshek(sp?) from Weil. JPM's speaker was a Ms. Friedman. FDIC Receivership's speaker from Piper was Mr. John Clark.

THJH entered around 2:20PM and asked the attorney's to identify themselves. WMI had 5 attorney's at the table (a mix of Quin and Weil) and 5 attorney's on the bench. FDIC/JPM had 6 attorney's at the their table (1 Fed from FDIC for FDIC Corporation, 2 FDIC from Piper for FDIC Receiver, and 3 from JPM) and about another 5 on the bench. There was also an attorney for the WMB Bond Holders on the FDIC side.

As opposed to a THJMW hearing where they methodically step through the agenda, THJH did not worry about the agenda. On multiple occasions THJH stated she had read all the briefs and was familiar with the arguments from both sides. It was apparent from nearly the start that THJH had a pretty good idea as to what questions she wanted answered and what she wanted the attorney's to argue. THJH directed both sides limit re-stating their arguments from their briefings. THJH wanted to hear, from both sides, the recent happenings from the BK court.

[WMI's goal was to stay as many counts/issues as possible. FDIC/JPM wanted all counts to proceed or even removed arguing the counts by WMI were not pleaded correctly according to rule 11; this didn't go very far in the hearing.]

Discussion proceeded on all the counts as the attorney's jumped among the different counts. Discussion ensued on the $1.88B sale of the bank. WMI pointed out the huge disparity between the $1.88B sale price and the liquidation value. THJH asked WMI if it matters if it matters if the FDIC undersold, hypothetically, by $500k or by $20B. WMI stated it matters when comparing it to the size of the assets and whether the FDIC comparatively undersold by a little or by a lot (i.e. small mistake or big mistake). FDIC argued that Congress gave them the right to take action without oversight from any court. THJH gave a very questioning look towards the FDIC and asked if the FDIC can undersell something for $20B and not be answerable for it. FDIC said he would give an indirect answer; he went on to explain that Lehman had fallen 10 days prior to WMB and that in the 2 weeks before WMB being seized it had a run of $16B; WMB had ~ $160B deposits and the FDIC only had $31B at the time, hence the justification for urgent action. THJH stated she was very interested in how Wachovia was handled by the FDIC, with the FDIC ready to sell Wachovia only to have the deal fall through because a buyer bypassed the FDIC with a much higher offer.

THJH then seemed very set on the attorney's arguing one principal thing.. what they thought should be heard in her court and what should be stayed. WMI and JPM all agreed that any stay should have a time limit. WMI argued for all 6 counts to be stayed. FDIC/JPM argued for all 6 to proceed; and JPM specifically argued all 6 proceed -but- if a stay was to happen JPM thought only 4 should stay and stay only short-term.

THJH then set the stage for everyone by stating, "let me give a shot across the bow" and stated that Judge THJMW has already been moving along and had made rulings that made it clear THJMW felt her court had jurisdiction over certain things; particularly "what assets belong to the estate". JPM kept arguing that Congress gave only the DC court jurisdiction over the FDIC. THJH agreed that DC has the jurisdiction over the FDIC but that THJMW has already made rulings regarding the estate assets and that she (THJH) would not go against the BK court asserting jurisdiction over estate assets. THJH stated that if FDIC/JPM wants those items argued in DC then they need to get THJMW's decisions overturned. Otherwise it remains in BK court.

THJH continued to state many times to JPM that she (THJH) will not take jurisdiction away from the BK court where the BK court has decided it has jurisdiction. THJH said she does not want two courts deciding the same issues. THJH stated all claims arising out of receivership would be decided in DC.

The question then arose whether the FDIC Corp. needs to remain a defendant. FDIC Corp. wants out but WMI argued that they want FDIC Corp. in because both the FDIC Corp, and FDIC Receivership sign the P&A. WMI stated they want to ensure someone can pay in the end. THJH questioned the FDIC regarding this point as to who would pay if the FDIC were found to have done wrong. (This got into a discussion about the role of each FDIC entity. FDIC Rec. said they would only pay out what the Receivership held; THJH asked "$1.8B?" FDIC Rec. said yes. [I think THJH will probably keep the FDIC Corp. in the suit; it was my opinion THJH didn't like that answer.])

THJH said she would not rule and take it all under advisement. Court adjourned.

MY PERSONAL OPINION

Like THJMW, THJH is a -very- fair and good judge. These are not traffic court judges and I do believe they want what is both right and just.

It looks clear to me that THJH will probably stay 4 counts and will watch what happens in the BK court. It is also clear to me from THJH's statements that THJH will defer to THJMW on anything that THJMW feels is the BK court's jurisdiction.

I think the $4B is of -huge- importance to the WMI attorney's (I may have overheard something regarding this. ok. I know I did) And appeals are expected with it but WMI just needs the initial ruling as a huge win.

It also seems clear to me that non-WMB assets will be decided in DE, while WMB related receivership issues will be decided in DC. DC will eventually proceed since it has jurisdiction over the FDIC. Questions about the $1.88B fire sale to JPM will be decided in DC. I also don't think the FDIC will ever pay a penny until they have exhausted the court system. However, I think JPM on the other hand would be more willing to negotiate as the chips fall against them. Only JPM can make this entire thing go away.. WMI is looking to pile up the wins and build pressure for JPM to deal. IMHO.

In all, I think this hearing went very much in WMI's favor.

note: JPM attorney stated she will be in the same courthouse before Judge Hoyt(?) for the Insurance Company vs. JPM on Friday. not sure if that is this week or next. Either way I'm thinking of attending.