España
Te equivocas Maximunae, Simpson ya las ha vendido todas mientras bombeaba informacion interesada, aqui teneis al amigo de usuarios del foro. Justo en la debacle se nos va, que casualidad, parece que si conoce informacion privilegiada pero no la comparte con sus amigos del hilo, al contrario anima a mantener o comprar mientras se sale. En marzo fue la misma historia. Esto es un montaje desde el principio.
Y el EC con artilleria pesada . Jejeje
Short data for Friday, July 22, 2011
DIMEQ: 78.36 % (25,000/31,904)
WAHUQ: 30.00 % (300/1,000)
WAMKQ: 14.86 % (11,575/77,917)
WAMPQ: 58.96 % (17,477/29,640)********
WAMUQ: 26.92 % (1,153,923/4,286,105)
El Juez writes:
Although tea-leaf reading is a well-established past time in this case, I think I disagree with most of what Mayadad1 speculates on today. (Be kind: He's just thinking out loud. ;D ;D) As I've opined for a long time, JPM has no claim at all to tax refunds or NOL's, never did, never will. Their "claims" have no more legitimacy than the idiotic MARTA or WMB claims, or JPM's cynical claim to the $4B in deposits. As Observer demonstrates, the FDIC's seizure killed WMB and the tax-sharing contract it was a part of before it was destroyed by JPM's conspiracy and appropriation of its assets. JPM is entitled to nothing, and the FDIC, even as WMB's receiver, is at most entitled only to "assets" that existed on 9/28/08, or at most at the end of the tax year 2008, but certainly not to any assets that devolved upon WMI as a result of legislation that wasn't enacted until 2009. Any other conclusion is illogical and irrational.
So, was too busy at work and the dentist's office to catch all of it, but from what I heard this last week I believe the EC made a lot of incremental progress in creating a factual basic in actual testimony for the arguments they are going to make in closing argument. I know it all seems pretty boring in real time, but the EC effectively impeached the credibility of each of the debtor and SNH witnesses, and, perhaps more importantly, peeled back the layers of b.s. for the judge to actually see how the GSA came into existence and how inconsistent it is with the debtor's duty to maximize estate assets. (Reminds me of the old story about meat eaters not wanting to see how sausage is made.) Keep in mind that, although the "trial" seems to have been pretty minimal in the large scheme of things, there are thousands upon thousands of pages of documents (emails, contracts, term sheets, etc.) and depositions of witnesses (some called at trial, some not) that form the admitted "evidence" in this case (mostly by stipulation) for the judge to consider.
Now it's up to the parties' arguments and the judge's conscience. The necessary evidence to make our points is now in the record and is ready for Judge W's decision. Judge W, like any judge, is constantly faced with the tension between practicality ("let's just get this job done and move on to the next case") and idealism ("what is actually the right and just thing to do, and to hell with the practical consequences?"). This establishes a continuum between one extreme and the other, and pretty much every judge falls somewhere on the scale. If Judge W says "screw it, I'm tired of this case" she'll buy the party-line B.S. from Rosen and approve the POR. If she thinks EC has scored major points but still wants to get it over with, she'll "cut the baby in half" (a la King Solomon), and maybe disallow the 4 SNH claims completely and impose FJR on other note holders, etc., enough to put preferreds in the money but still screw commons, but still approve a watered down POR. If she's alert, aware, honest and idealistic (which, honestly, I think she is trying to be when she's not conned and manipulated, but maybe I'm a Pollyanna), she'll be righteously pissed off at all the lies she's been fed, see the process as entirely flawed, and deny the POR in it's entirety, appoint a trustee (and/or solicit new, competing POR's), and authorize the EC to pursue all appropriate litigation.
Everyone should try to spend at least 10 minutes or so and listen to that again. It was amazing how he worked to get the WMI claims datapoints from the Senate hearing admitted to the Judge so she would have an approximate value to consider for those claims since Kosturos and Goulding both testified they didn't know how much they are worth. Coffey -- totally relentless.
Rosen about had a cow when Coffey asked Kosturos if there was enough claims to get the $97MM shortfall covered. In other words, if there is enough money in the D&O from those two years of funds that Kosturos mentioned and WMI can collect that and pay the creditors/SNHs the $97MM, they are OUT of the game!!! The control then belongs to Equity.
Is that what others understood?
Coffey's cross begins at @ 4:50 and gets really heated at @ 5:00 when Coffey tells Rosen he took that Marta claim out at that certain Omnibus hearing and his still claiming it is "cute"!! Just too funny!! Total Rosen slap down!!
One other thing ... listen to who Kosturos lists as potential lawsuits using the litigation trust funds? No one with much money compared to JPM or FDIC!! But then he doesn't value litigation claims!!