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

Venerando:

por lo que he entendido referente a los 40billones del fondo de pensiones es:

(1) en realidad no son 40 billones que reclaman, sino que es menos (la cantidad exacta creo que no la he visto), pero los abogados ya sabes, que si daños y perjuicios, etc, etc

(2) que la reclamación la tendrían que hacer a la FDIC+JPMC ya que si la FDIC valoró en 1.88 billones sus '40 billones' de inversión se suponen que van dentro.

(3) que sea un fondo de pensiones, no les diferencia del resto de accionistas de EC, es como si un jubilado, a título personal, planta una demanda también por haber perdido sus ahorros, de hecho se supone que la defensa de sus intereses debería de ir incluída en la defensa que haga el EC (al fin y al cabo son meros accionistas).

No me preocuparía mucho; si acaso somos más a repartir, pero nada más.

Part 1:

Hey all. I've not been posting much recently because of other commitments, but the Weil argument against EC citing $50 billion in unsecured claims got my attention, so I thought I'd weigh in on the biggest one of those claims, the MARTA claims:

Thanks to Ghost for posting a thread with links of this claim. See http://ghostofwamu.com/forum/index.php?t...

This $39 billion dollar claim represents fully 80% of the $50 billion in unsecured claims cited by Weil in its objection to the EC. This issue has been floating around since April 2009, but to my recollection nobody has addressed it in detail yet, so let me take a stab at explaining it for those who don't want to read the 100+ pages of relevant filings:

On 8/4/08 the law firm of Kipling Law Group LLC filed a class action suit in State Court (not federal) in King County, WA, on behalf of two employee retirement plans (MARTA and New Orleans Employee's Retirement System) against WMI, WMB, WMAAC, et. al., alleging securities fraud in the marketing and sale of certain collateralized debt obligations (CDO's), specifically several separate mortgage backed security offerings (MBS's) based on mortgages originated by WMB and marketed by and through WMAAC, a Delaware Corporation which is a wholly owned subsidiary of WMB. WMB "sponsored" these securities. WMI's liability is based solely on the fact that WMAAC was a subsidiary of a subsidiary (WMB) of WMI, and that therefore WMI was a "controlling entity" under the Securities Act. No fraud by WMI is alleged. The lawyers (Kipling) are a small "boutique" law firm (5 partners) in the Fremont district north of downtown Seattle, who style themselves as sort of counter-culture complex-litgation specialists. ( See http://www.kiplinglawgroup.com/)

The complaint contains a very thorough explication of what MBS's are, and how WMB collateralized and marketed them. It extensively piggyback's onto some of the more sensational disclosures regarding WMB's alleged unethical practices ("liar loans", etc.), focusing on the unholy relationships with property appraisers uncovered and publicized by New York Attorney General Cuomo. It alleges numerous misrepresentations of fact by WMAAC (and, impliedly, WMB) in the marketing of these securities. Finally, it alleges that, based on these misrepresentations, the plaintiffs and others bought the securities, to their financial detriment, and claims up to $39 billion in damages. The plaintiff's seek class action status in order to represent the claims of "thousands" of potential purchasers of these MBS's. It is important to understand that the causes of action alleged to not allege fraud, but merely alleged nondisclosure of relevant information under the Federal Securities Act. More specifically, it is claimed that the loan-to-value ratio of these various MBS's was not 64% to 73%, as advertised, but at a much higher (and riskier) ratio, because of inflated appraisals

Part 2:

Later, on 12/16/08, for reasons I can't understand at all, Kipling filed a "First Amended Complaint", which appears to me to be identical to the original complaint in all particulars: Same parties, same factual allegation, same causes of action. The only difference I see is that they have deleted WMI as a party defendant. Why? Perhaps, at that point, they bought the Weil/Rosen line and believed WMI was judgment-proof and so abandoned that particular "deep pocket" defendant as an empty pocket.

However, still later, on 3/30/09, Kipling, through local counsel in Delaware, filed a claim in the WMI bankruptcy proceeding for the $39 billion. (Maybe by then they figured WMI might have something left in its pocket after all.) This was initially set for hearing on 7/27/09, but was continued by agreement of the parties. It is still pending. Before the hearing date, WMI filed a response alleging the claim was no good because it had been "removed" as a defendant by the First Amended Complaint and therefore could not be liable because it had been "dismissed" from the lawsuit. (This is nonsense: Even if this was a "dismissal", which it wasn't, that doesn't mean a claim can't be filed in bankruptcy.) On 8/12/09, Kipling's attorneys in Delaware responded, saying it dropped WMI from the amended complaint because of the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court, and instead pursued its remedies by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.

(Along the way, Kipling appears to also have sued the FDIC in Federal Court in Washington. See See New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al., No. C09-134RSM (W.D. Wash.). I Googled this with no results.)

La buena es la tercera parte:

Part 3:

So what's it all mean? What is this $39 billion dollar "claim" worth? In my opinion, as a practical matter, nothing as far as WMI is concerned. If anyone is liable it should be FDIC, because they stupidly gave JPM all the assets and kept all the liabilities (less a $500,000,000 indemnification clause) for themselves. And, since JPM is WMB's successor in interest, it should have primary liability on any under-performing mortgages unless the FDIC does. After all, the alleged reason JPM got WMB so cheaply is because of all the "bad loans" it would have to absorb. Also, I don't know anything about how a "controlling entity" might be vicariously liable under the Securities Act, but under standard legal principles a parent corporation is not liable for the misdeeds of its subsidiaries. That limited liability is the whole purpose of having separate corporations: to limit liability.

Moreover, the claim itself is wildly inflated. If you look closely at the complaint you'll see that the total value of all the MBS's together was $39 billion. To have $39 billion in damages all those mortgages would have to be worth nothing at all. That's preposterous. (Heck, one of those mortgages is mine, and I paid a 40% down payment and have made accelerated principal payments for six years.) At worst mortgage defaults would impact those MBS's by about 10 to 20%.

Pues que la juez rechaze la demanda si no procede y no nos tenga con la incertidumbre de que va a pasar.
A parte que aqui no hay quien se aclare ya que hablan de CDOs y de hipotecas para liarla más.

Maximun tampoco es que yo quiera aqui abrir un debate sobre Bopfan es mejor o peor, o quien tiene mas razón, en general estoy totalmente de acuerdo en lo que dices, quizas lo unico en lo que discrepo es en el 50% de oscuridades, esta claro que con la defensa a ultranza de Weil y la falta de necesidad de un EC metió la pata hasta el fondo, pero mucho mas no creo. Pero vamos lo dicho, no es mi intención crear una polemica de esto, porque en la mayor parte de las cosas estamos totalmente de acuerdo.
Joyce se merece todo nuestro apoyo y fuerza, porque sin él esta claro que el EC probablemente no habría salido adelante, y por supuesto con el esfuerzo de todos los que enviaron sus cartas apoyando la formación del EC.

http://www.deraktionaer.de/xist4c/web/Washington-Mutual--0-12-Euro-Zombie-Zock---Entscheidung-am-Donnerstag-_id_201__dId_11460219_.htm

Ya estan mareando la perdiz Alemania + 5%.
A ver que pasa hoy
Esto huele a que se estan metiendo los que han visto el articulo en Alemania a probar suerte mañana, porque el volumen no mata.

WMI.DE y WMI.MU a 0.13€ (0.182974 USD)

El volúmen es absolutamente despreciable, pero bueno...

Hoy creo que (sin pena ni gloria) cerraremos en 0.18$