Staging ::: VER CORREOS
Acceder

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

26,5K respuestas
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
3 suscriptores
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Página
2.752 / 3.346
#22009

Re: Consulta para Besugo y Maxi

No es la primera vez que la Juez reprime a Rosen tambien lo hizo cuando aprobó la creación del EC ante sus reclamaciones. Ya te he comentado mi postura de lo que hará la Juez, la clave esta en si hubo o no IT y solo ella puede dar carpetazo al asunto o favorecer a la equidad. Que será será. De todas formas la Juez ha dado sobradas maneras de estar mas a favor de Rosen que de Susman desde la aparacion de este ultimo y no le hizo mucha gracia que le impusiera el examiner asi como que alegara altas instancias. La Juez se la tiene guardada a Susman, si tiene que claudicar y darle la razón lo hara pero si puede enterrarlo lo va ha hacer, los sentimientos de poder en ocasiones se imponen a los de la justicia.

#22010

Consulta Para TODOS que piensan de esta opinión

Very revealing Starke discussion-Does this reveal the Judges mindset on her opinion?

Interesting enough, was Starke’s court room drama with the Judge about TPS “equitable mootness” and whether this Judge has authority to make a decision without “ring fencing” the funds in the event Walrath is overturned on appeal. Without a doubt, this Judge in her mindset wants to equitably moot TPS in the event she approves this POS POR 6+. This in of itself is troubling, because Starke drew her into very clear discussion on what she thought and it would seem to me she talked way too much. What was the point in her arguing with Starke if (1) she already had her mind made up, (2) if she was NOT going to approve POS POR 6+? Yes, it would seem if this Judge was NOT going to move this mess forward, why would she have entered into such discussion with Starke? The more I think about this discussion which I now feel VERY strongly about, it is/was case altering. The Judge argued with Starke to the point as if she already decided to approve the POS POR 6+. This would “equitably moot” out TPS and also been troubling for the court all along and somehow give Equity its own shot with the litigation trust fund after approval.

This Judge was very concerned with Starke as he said his appeal “freezes” this entire case or at least the Judge would have to “ring fence” the funds if she wanted to move this forward. To this point, remember what Rosie changed at the last minute with the POS POR 6+, if there is anything left in the plan it could flow to Equity and when some people on the board saw the plan was not cancelling Equity they got excited. I have not said much about this but I keep going back to the VERY argumentative discussion with this Judge who I think gave away information as to which way she is going with this mess. Take this thought process with the question she asked one of our opposing lawyers about “do you think the insider trading would prevent approval of this Global Settlement/POS POR 6+) and his response was absolutely not. The more I think and read about Walrath’s mindset, the more it appears she wants to approve this POR to equitably moot out TPS, let Equity go after insider trading via the litigation trust fund (very troubling if true) and ignore the Supreme Court (Stern) and ANICO decisions. Do you think that Walrath can approve this POS POR 6+ and give Equity their ONLY shot via the litigation trust fund?

#22011

Re: Consulta Para TODOS que piensan de esta opinión

I agree she wants to because she's lazy and a hack but she is boxed in. If she approves it her reputation will take a huge hit. She knows the attorneys representing TPS and equity are the cream of the elite and they will make her look like a bufoon on appeal if she approves either the GSA or the POR.

#22013

Writ of Prohibition

If Walrath approves this POS POR 6+, the immediate response from Starke and Susman may be this. Read the definition and you will understand what this means. This would REALLY upset Walrath's applecart should she dare approve this against all of our fears and legal evidence put forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_prohibition

writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something that they may not do, according to law, but are doing. In practice, the Court directs the Clerk to issue the Writ, and directs the Sheriff to serve it on the subordinate, and the Clerk prepares the Writ and gives it to the Sheriff, who serves it. This writ is normally issued by a superior court to the lower court asking it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.

These Writs are issued as "alternative" or "peremptory." An alternative Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and "Show Cause" why the directive should not be made permanent. A peremptory Writ directs the recipient to immediately act, or desist, and "return" the Writ, with certification of its compliance, within a certain time.

When an agency of an official body is the target of the Writ of Prohibition, the Writ is directed to the official body over which the court has direct jurisdiction, ordering the official body to cause the agency to desist.

Although the rest of this article speaks to judicial processes, a writ of prohibition may be directed by any court of record (i.e., higher than a misdemeanor court) toward any official body, whether a court or a county, city or town government, that is within the court's jurisdiction.

[edit] In the United States

A "writ of prohibition", in the United States, is an official legal document drafted and issued by a supreme court, superior court or an appeals court to a judge presiding over a suit in an inferior court. The writ of prohibition mandates the inferior court to cease any action over the case because it may not fall within that inferior court's jurisdiction. The document is also issued at times when it is deemed that an inferior court is acting outside the normal rules and procedures in the examination of a case. In another instance, the document is issued at times when an inferior court is deemed headed towards defeating a legal right.

In criminal proceedings, a defendant who has been committed for trial may petition to the superior court for a writ of prohibition, in this case on the ground that his conduct, even if proven, does not constitute the offense charged.

Prohibition is more often used by appellate courts. Most often, these courts issue writs of prohibition to prevent lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction. In some cases, this writ may also be used to prevent an inferior court from acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. The writ of prohibition may not be used to undo any previous acts, but only to prohibit acts not completed.

"Thus it was held that notwithstanding the right to an appeal, if the situation disclosed be such that to take the ordinary course by appeal would of itself subject the complainant to irreparable loss, the writ should issue notwithstanding no objection was made below; that the matter of judicial courtesy should yield to substantial personal rights of litigants, such as a sacrifice of their liberty."[1]

Writs of prohibition are similar to writs of certiorari, as both types of writs allow superior courts to manage inferior courts. However, unlike a writ of prohibition, superior courts issue writs of certiorari to review decisions which inferior courts have already made.

#22014

Resumen de los argumentos de cierre del EC

As we wait .....

Just saw this summary outline of the EC's Closing Argument at IHub again this morning and wanted to post it as a reminder of what all was covered in it. Even though Parker made an amazing oral argument, what they presented in their written is a strong factual case. Winning combo!!

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

II. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. BACKGROUND ABOUT THE FOUR SETTLEMENT NOTE HOLDERS
B. THE SNHs’ UNDERSTANDING OF PROHIBITIONS ON INSIDER TRADING
C. THE DEBTORS’ BANKRUPTCY FILING AND THEIR DISPUTES WITH JPMC AND THE FDIC
D. THE COMMENCEMENT DATE – MARCH 2009
E. MARCH 2009 – MAY 2009
F. JULY 2009 – OCTOBER 2009
G. NOVEMBER 2009 – DECEMBER 2009
H. JANUARY 2010 – MAY 2010
I. ADDITIONAL FACTS
J. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS

III. ARGUMENT
A. The Plan Is Not Being Offered In Good Faith
1. Debtors Must Demonstrate That The Good Faith Requirement Is Satisfied.
2. Challenge To The Good Faith Of This Plan Is Not An Effort To Re- litigate The GSA.
3. Good Faith Of The Modified Sixth Amended Plan Is An Open Issue.
4. The Modified Plan Is Not Being Offered In Good Faith Because The Debtors Unduly Favored Powerful Creditors And Disregarded The Interests Of Equity.
5. The Debtors Cannot Demonstrate Good Faith Because They Ignored Potentially Valuable Claims Against Directors And Officers.
6. The Debtors Have Not Acted In Good Faith Because The Claimed “Reorganization” Of WMI Is A Sham.

B. Settlement Note Holder Claims Should Be Disallowed.
1. Equitable Disallowance Is A Viable Remedy.
2. The SNHs’ Conduct Constitutes Insider Trading.
(a) The SNHs Possessed Material Nonpublic Information.
(b) The SNHs Had The Requisite Scienter.
(c) The SNHs Had A Duty Not To Trade
(i) The SNHs Were Temporary Insiders.
(ii) The SNHs Were Non-Statutory Insiders.

C. Post-Petition Interest Should Be Paid At The Federal Judgment Interest Rate.
1. Debtors Failed To Account For The Possibility That Post-Petition Interest May Be Awarded At The Federal Judgment Rate, Potentially Causing Additional Delay.
2. Post-Petition Interest On All Claims Should Be Paid At The Federal Judgment Rate
(a) Debtors Favored Major Creditors And Ignored Fiduciary Obligations To Equity
(b) Settlement Negotiations Were Driven By The Hedge Funds’ Bottom Line.
3. The SNHs’ Insider Trading Also Supports Payment Of Post-Petition Interest At The Federal Judgment Rate, At Least For Claims Asserted By Culpable Creditors.
4. Objections Raised By The Debtors And SNHs Are Not Persuasive.
(a) The Facts Of This Case Justify Payment Of Interest At The Federal Judgment Rate.
(b) The Court’s Finding That The GSA Was Fair And Reasonable Does Not Preclude The Contention That The Amount Of The Settlement Demonstrates Bias
In Favor Of Creditors And Against Equity.
(c) Additional Arguments Raised By The SNHs Are Not Persuasive.
5. The Federal Judgment Rate Should Be Determined Monthly Or The Rate At Emergence Should Be Used.

Part 2

D. Reorganized WMI Is Undervalued.
1. The Valuation Of Reorganized WMI Must Take Into Account All Assets, Including The NOL.
2. The Debtors Have Intentionally Undervalued WMI.
(a) The Assumptions Underlying Blackstone’s Report Are Inappropriate.
(i) Blackstone’s $127MM Cap Is Wholly Arbitrary And Unwarranted.
(1) The Debtors’ Have Again Imposed Arbitrary Limits On The Value Of Reorganized WMI, As They Did In The Previous Plan
(2) The Debtors’ Valuation Incorporates A Limit On The Investment Of Additional Capital In Reorganized WMI Based On A Vague
And Inapposite Tax Opinion From Another Expert.
(3) Section 269 Has Minimal Importance in Tax Law And Should Not Be Interpreted To Establish An Absolute Limit On Future
Capital Investments In Reorganized WMI.
(4) At Minimum, Blackstone Should Have Applied A Risk- Adjusted Value To The NOL For Investments Above The $127 Million Cap.
(ii) Blackstone Again Assumes No New Business And Debtors Propose No Business Plan.
(iii) Blackstone Fails to Consider Debt Raises.
(iv) Blackstone’s WACC Rates Are Far Too High.
(b) Blackstone’s Corporate Opportunity Valuation Is Flawed And Incomplete.
(c) PJS Shows That The Minimal Value For WMMRC Is $275 Million.
(d) Debtors’ Strong Incentive To Devalue WMMRC Undermines The Credibility Of Their Valuation.

E. The Modified Plan Improperly Conditions Distributions On Claimants’ Agreement To Third-Party Releases.

F. The Modified Plan Distributes Estate Assets To WMB Bondholders Who Are Not Properly Classified As Creditors.

G. The Court Should Reconsider Its Finding That The GSA Is Fair And Reasonable Based On The DC Circuit’s ANICO Decision.

IV. CONCLUSION

#22015

Re: Resumen de los argumentos de cierre del EC

0´071 Ñam Ñam.

#22016

Re: Resumen de Hearing 6 Sept (semana que viene más)

DelShareholder Ilene Slatko
Very short Washington Mutual hearing today, but a couple of interesting tidbits...check out the website within the hour for my commentary.
__________________________________________

September 6, 2011 Washington Mutual

A very short hearing today mostly housekeeping and pre-trial (what has been known as the Broadbill adversary matter) issues in advance of next week's trial.

First, next week...Art Steinberg takes the lead in what was originally filed as Broadbill. The trial may go four days, but only Monday and Tuesday of next week are formally scheduled at this point, the rest will be on an "as needed" basis. Additional arguments may be two or three weeks after the close of the trial...not yet officially scheduled. There will be several live witnesses testifying next week, so another opportunity to get a feel for the real thinking behind some of the decisions...not just the words of attorneys.

Two items of note (to me) that came up in today's hearing. One, the court made a point to comment on the number of additional items/information presented in the oral closing arguments last month, post confirmation hearing. Though JMW joked about it, I believe what she was saying was "these are weighty issues...I will take longer to decide, as I give these proper consideration". So, my guess is that the timing of the POR decision may be slightly longer than originally considered given this statement. Two, the issue of the fees and the attention by the US Trustee. I spoke to the EC local co-counsel after the hearing to get some additional information regarding the fee applications, the US Trustee's comments and shareholder's objections to those fees (previously docketed) mentioned and summarily dismissed by Mr. Rosen.

The primary job of the US Trustee is to monitor the fees, although the office is most concerned with whether those fees comply with local rules. There are some issues the UST has raised with the fee applicaitons submitted by Weil Gotshal, although what they are has not been specified. Mr. Rosen's dismissal of shareholder objections is based on the fact the objections are more sweeping in their argument and not based on specific instances. However, the fee applications can still be objected to, as they will not be given final approval by the court until the end of the trial.

No mention, or hint was given by the court about the leaning one way or the other regarding the POR decision or timing. Having just come back from vacation, and the adversary proceeding looming next week, it will be interesting to watch and see what the court decides...and when.