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

Pues lo tendreis pero sed pacientes...
Ya he explicado pq no suben.

- $50B en claims aun por lidiar
- A < P
- El mercado no ve más allá de lo que hay.

Hay que esperar al MOR de febrero

Al final no me ha tocado llamar al monasterio. Pero bueno, lo mejor del día sin duda ha sido que hoy en el juicio no a ocurrido nada malo para wamu. Al contrario, el tono de la juez con Weil y la Fdic, ha sido un poco de "vamos a ver dejen ustedes ya de marear la perdiz" no querían sentencia?? pues aquí la tienen o es que ahora no la quieren?? (esto último va por weil).

Por cierto los abogados del EC ya cuando estarán presentes para la proxima cita a finales de febrero?? porque estoy ya harto de escuchar la voz del Rosen este...

Saludos

NUEVA YORK (Reuters) — Las acciones estadounidenses pasaron a positivo a ultimo minuto de la sesión del viernes, recuperándose de caídas de más del 1%, debido a la demanda de títulos de tecnología y materias primas.
El promedio industrial Dow Jones sumó 10.05 puntos, o un 0.10%, para un cierre en 10,012.23 unidades.

El índice Standard & Poor's 500 ganó 3.08 puntos, o un 0.29%, a 1,066.19 y el Nasdaq Composite trepó 15.69 puntos, o un 0.74%, a 2,141.12.

Tu lo has dicho no ha ocurrido nada malo para Wamu y baja la accion un 7%, si alguien entiende esto que me lo explique, yo pensaba que estaba descontado el precio de la acción antes de hearing, no sobrecomprada.

http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-2321.pdf

http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-01743/09-01743-0101.pdf

Indicates why JPM cannot escape liability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code by claiming it didn't know it would be pursued by WMI:

"The trustee may not recover under section (a)(2) of this section [(which provides for recoveries under Section 548)] from—
(1) a transferee that takes for value ... in good faith, and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer avoided...."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_00000550----000-.html

"Was JPM a good faith transferee?"

Had circumstances been different where the FDIC had run a proper auction, and JPM were just one of the bidders in that auction with no other contact prior or special contact with the FDIC, then JPM may have been a good faith purchaser.

However, given JPM's wheedling and conniving to encourage the government to seize WaMu, along with its broken confidentiality and non-purchase agreement, makes the idea of a "good faith" purchase laughable. So I, at least, am of the opinion that JPM did not act in good faith in their purchase.

Also, if they did not purchase in good faith, the $500M indemnity goes out the window.

1) Jamie don't want to be in bad spot light and legal quagmire like his nemesis Ken Lewis of BAC.

2) WAMU equity holders are not alone in the fight ; Mainstream media also jumping in on the band wagon.

3) JPM/FDIC would not want to open the can pf worms regarding their secret dealings leading upto the wamu seizure because many other fallen financial institutions also will start questioning "illegal seizure" by FDIC.

4) HJMW has given a fair warning to JPM/FDIC. Approval of EC was the first step.

5) Just imagine when JPM/FDIC tells Venable & EC that they are ready for negotiations to settle with wamu stake holders, especially equity holders.

Please feel free to chime in and include your reasoning. Bottom line is, buy more wamuq because payday is coming soon..

Also, Senate/Congress has sought the documents from FDIC related to wamu & jpm.

Any sensitive document in favor of the wamu equity holders will get leaked and will soon become public

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20100205&id=11096134

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2010/02/01/daily48.html

http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/08-12229/08-12229-2321.pdf

I said in '08 that this court wanted the parties to work things out. The few rulings she has made have been to nudge the parties (particularly JPM and the FDIC) into settlement posture. Today's ruling won't surprise any long time board readers because in '08 she told the attorney for the WMB noteholders that they were in the wrong court; that they'd have to seek relief from the FDIC. (They eventually took the ingenious route of going after JPM for alleged infractions leading up to the seizure.)

Anyway, what the judge held was entirely expected due to her previous admonition to WMB noteholders as well as the settled law of corporations that they are not liable for debts of affiliates unless (1) they have expressly assumed them OR (2) there is commingling of assets or other behavior that makes affiliates' respective assets indistinguishable. Neither is applicable to the WMI/WMB/WMB fsb family.

This is why I have never been worried about the multi-billion $ claims filed against WMI that I knew belonged to WMB. Weil knows this too, which is why I kept saying he was full of it when he kept alleging 'hopeless' insolvency. He knows WMI's obligations are about $8 billion and, at a minimum, its assets are about $6.3 billion. In fairness to Weil until the claims are formally denied, they're still lurking 'out there', though the court (and people like me) know better.