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

"¿Si tan mal estuviera saliendo los Hearings los precios ya se habrian desplomado no?"

Dejate de boberias Simpson los precios se iran al suelo en cuanto la Juez confirme el POR no antes, asi funciona la valoracion de las acciones, nunca en un hearing POR - Confirmation han caido a cero antes de sentenciar. La cuestion no es si hubo IT o no lo hubo como planteas, la cuestion es si la Juez es CORRUPTA O NO. Aqui esta la clave del proceso. Un juez imparcial no hubiera permitido que los NOL fuesen repartidos entre JPM y FDIC delante de sus narices sin hacer nada, un ejemplo mas de la debilidad de esta juez, asi que no te hagas ilusiones porque el pescado esta vendido por como se ha manejado hasta ahora el caso ni ilusiones a nadie mas de los que hasta ahora estan pillados esperando recuperar el capital, gracias a tus antiguas recomendaciones.

La Juez aun no ha hecho nada más que beneficiar el computo total de los NOL al esperarse hasta 2011 por eso debido a su importacia para la Reorg. se ha empezado ahora a tratar en Hearings.

Las pruebas estan en los documentos, en lo que se ha testificado y en los argumentos finales. De ahí se deben sacar las conclusiones no solo de lo que se escuche en el Hearing.

Te vuelvo a repetir que estoy tranquilo, creo que la Juez ya sabe que le han tomado el pelo...

Respecto a JPM es como si deseara que los Hedge Funds caigan, así ya no se meteran en su terreno para BK futuras. Lo que aun no sabemos es que va a pasar en estos días finales y cuanto más se va a demorar esto.

Repito que el reparto de los NOL es un insulto a la inteligencia de cualquier persona y esto la juez pudo evitarlo porque hay docenas de objeciones reclamandolo y se lo ha pasado por el forro de sus faldas.

La Juez debe estar muy presionada (de eso no me cabe duda) pero si ANICO y Stern pueden aliviarla de la carga del peso de su decisión estoy seguro que lo enviará a instancias superiores para quitarse el muerto de encima.

Hace mucho tiempo que no aparezco por aquí, estoy usando la cuenta de un colega que le he pedido que abriera, tuve un rifirrafe en otro foro y me largaron pero os he seguido leyendo.

A ver si tengo un poco de tiempo y digo algo aquí, pq. ya veo que la cosa está bastante degenerada, de todos modos un saludo a todos, especialmente a imigrante que mucho hablar de kinshasa pero no lo he visto ningún día por la Gombe.

saludos.

Quote from: Patience360 on July 19, 2011, 07:50:50 PM
To be brief, (1) I thought the reason for EC asking for “investment model” in the Compel Motion was to connect the information passed on from their attorneys to Hedge Funds trade decision making processes. It’s tough to crack open the attorney-client privileges wall and the defense of often one-sided story of no influence whatsoever of settlement negotiations knowledge on trade decisions. However, no trading models will be useful unless they incorporate all available pertinent information. It’s inconceivable that Aurelius will ignore the information from settlement negotiations if there was such a model existed. If we can disassemble that “investment model” and show part of its inputs were from on-going settlement negotiation communications, no amount of defense/denials will hold water. I’m glad that Parker Folse forced the guy from Aurelius to admit (knowingly or unknowingly) their investment model regarding WMI was constantly updated with information including settlement negotiations (Did I read this part of exchange correctly?).

(2) sleepless was right when he said last night “It looks like one big fight in this confirmation hearing is going to hinge on the definition of ‘material’.” It’s common sense that the determining factors in BK case on debt values or equity appreciations are court proceedings and outcomes including litigation or settlement outcomes. To say emails and term sheets about settlement proposals are “non-material”, and such information is not important to reasonable investors is unreal. Those hedge fund people are living in a different world.

(3) The last exchange on WMMRC/NOLs between D. Walker and Owl Creek guy reinforced Maxwell’s valuation theory that no one will sit on WMMRC doing nothing. There are “opportunities that the Settlement Note Holders could realize in Reorganized WMI beyond run-off scenario”, and the “possibility that Reorganized WMI will be operated as a going concern, …” Owl Creek didn’t even bother with checking up with Section 269. I don’t think they overlooked that. Those guys live and die on manipulating distressed assets. They certainly know the way around IRS rules.

(4) Like I said, another key point (out of two day IT cross examinations) is did the Court know about JPM's real position on $4B deposits early on? Were those funds (deposits) truly disputed as displayed in public or the whole turnover issue was just theatrics? This goes to the core of "good faith" issue. Even though the Court acknowledged there is a high likelihood the debtors would prevail on the turnover issue, I believe the appeared-to-be highly contentious nature of the issue had some influence on the Court's view of GSA in general. She might view the settlement of deposit issue among GSAs as a good (reasonable) bargain for the debtors' estate for mitigating some of JPM and FDIC claims. If the turnover fight was just an illusion, the Court should feel outraged at deceptions and reconsider her "fair and reasonable" opinion.

Respuesta de El Juez:

All good points with good analysis, but I've highlighted (4) in red because if I were Judge W I'd be "seeing red" right about now and this point really hits home with me. She's been manipulated and she knows it and she won't forget it. Back over two years ago when Judge W was just about to rule from the bench on the summary judgment issue, we all knew that WMI would win, she knew that WMI would win and so did everybody else involved (including the heggies). Yet just as she was about to rule she was deterred by a wink and a nod from the parties with the implication that if she held off it might encourage a global settlement. I said then that this was contrary to my common sense judge rule #1 to really encourage settlement: "divide and conquer" by promptly ruling on issues that are ripe for adjudication. The more issues you can help take off the table, the more likely it is that the parties can resolve the remaining issues amicably. Had she done so, the pressure would have been on JPM. She was duped by the JPM/WMI/Heggie cabal then, and now she (and equity) is paying the price. Meanwhile JPM gets to use and leverage all that money virtually for free, and to the detriment of the estate. Although lawyers are always poseurs, she now sees that JPM et. al. totally, cynically conned her. This could very well be a conscious and/or subconscious tipping point for her as all the heggie dirt is unearthed this week, and could cause her to revisit her "fair and reasonable" finding, especially in light of the Stern and ANICO decisions and the stench of IT.

Law360, Wilmington (July 19, 2011) -- Washington Mutual Inc. shareholders said Tuesday at a hearing in Delaware bankruptcy court that Aurelius Capital Management LP’s counsel facilitated improper trading during WaMu’s bankruptcy, keeping the hedge fund abreast of settlement talks as it traded freely from the sidelines.

The hedge fund — one of four accused of insider trading by shareholders in an effort to derail WaMu’s reorganization plan — drifted in and out of settlement negotiations to resolve the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. But its law firm, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, passed along critical details from the talks to Aurelius, enabling the hedge fund to trade on material nonpublic information, a shareholder committee attorney said.

Committee attorney Parker Folse of Susman Godfrey LLP made the allegations during a withering cross-examination of Aurelius managing director Dan Gropper, which spanned two days during WaMu’s Chapter 11 plan confirmation hearing. Gropper bristled at the idea that Aurelius and Fried Frank, which also represented three other hedge funds implicated by shareholders, were anything but meticulous in their compliance with securities laws and confidentiality agreements.

“You can’t do this halfway,” Gropper said. “This doesn’t operate on a wink and a nod. What you are suggesting would not be appropriate.”

Shareholders have tied their hopes of a recovery in the case to insider trading claims against Aurelius, Owl Creek Asset Management LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Centerbridge Partners LP, which stem from the hedge funds’ involvement in settlement negotiations between WaMu, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The settlement, cleared by the court in January, splits $10 billion in assets between WaMu and JPMorgan, and releases billions in claims among the three over the FDIC’s seizure of WaMu’s affiliated bank after it failed in 2008 and the subsequent sale of the bank to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion.

Fried Frank remained at the negotiating table to represent the hedge funds, which hold $2 billion in WaMu securities, after they ceased direct involvement in the talks and resumed unrestricted trading. But the firm was on strict instructions not to discuss the substance of settlement proposals with Aurelius, Gropper testified, unless the hedge fund agreed beforehand to limit its trades.

Folse pointed to major movement in Aurelius’ position in January 2010 toward WaMu’s subordinated bonds as evidence that the hedge fund knew a deal was near, even though the debtors and JP Morgan maintained an outwardly litigious posture at the time.

The shareholder committee also produced emails between Fried Frank and the debtor suggesting that the hedge funds were directing the firm in the talks based on the specifics of one settlement proposal that had not been disclosed to the public.

Daniel Krueger, a managing director at Owl Creek, took the stand after Gropper and testified that his firm operated under the assumption that settlement proposals could never be considered material nonpublic information.

“Only when a deal is reached,” Krueger said.

Witnesses for the remaining hedge funds will take the stand Wednesday and Thursday as WaMu rounds out it plan confirmation hearing.

The insider trading allegations, if substantiated, could convince U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath to impose the lower, federal judgment interest rate on the hedge fund’s claims, rather than the contracted rate — which the shareholders hope will free up value for their own claims.

The shareholders have also moved for standing to sue Centerbridge and Aurelius and potentially disallow their claims in the bankruptcy entirely.

WaMu is represented by Brian S. Rosen of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP as well as Mark D. Collins, Chun I. Jang, Travis A. McRoberts and Julie A. Finocchiaro of Richards Layton & Finger PA.

The equity committee is represented by William P. Bowden, Gregory A. Taylor and Stacy L. Newman of Ashby & Geddes PA as well as Edgar Sargent, Stephen D. Susman and Seth D. Ard of Susman Godfrey LLP.

The case is In re: Washington Mutual Inc. et al., case number 1:08-bk-12229, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Mas vale que la juez no confirme el POR y os paguen aunque sea algo por las acciones, porque solo el tiempo que se emplea en seguir esta novela por capítulos ya vale un buen dinero, vamos que si confirma el POR se os quitaran las ganas de comprar acciones BK de por vida. Jajaja