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

Ten shin, es una broma de Simpson !

Al margen de barquitos, la gente el dia 3 por la noche estará muy contenta o muy cabreada.

Ah vale soy demasiado credulo,no por casulidad sigo con las acciones

a ver si de aqui al dia 3 sale alguna noticia o analisis que de mas garantia a que se rechace el POR.

El 3 de Junio no es la vista para confirmar el POR,es el hearing para aprobar/denegar el DS,en caso que el DS fuera aprobado la fecha para que la Corte confirmara el POR seria el 20 de Julio y la fecha tope para presentar
objeciones el 25 de Junio

Aprobar el DS, es practicamente aprobar el por, porque saben que van a conseguir los votos.

Saludos

We (several WMI shareholders) have created a donation fund to help with the legal expenses being incurred by the two shareholders who have sued WMI in Washington State to force it to hold a long-overdue annual shareholders' meeting. The two shareholders, Michael Willingham and Esopus Creek Value, L.P., happen to be members of the Equity Committee, but their lawsuit in Washington State is not an Equity Committee action. Therefore, the legal expenses are being paid for by the two shareholders, even though their effort is intended to help all shareholders.

With the "Shareholders' Meeting Action Fund" we will collect donations and then use them to reimburse the two shareholders for documented legal expenses arising from their lawsuit in Washington State. We have put in place a set of controls on disbursements which are intended to insure that the donations are used only as intended. The donation process is being conducted through our shareholder rights web site, WamuEquityRights.org (which was used to conduct the Joinder effort).

You can read more about the Shareholders' Meeting Action Fund and the controls we have put in place, as well as make a donation via PayPal, at the following page on our web site:

Shareholders' Meeting Action Fund
www.wamuequityrights.org/index.php?optio...

Would ask others to add to this thread..I am by no means a legal expert but have been following this closely since seizure and have thousands of pages read on anything related to this case. Oh yeah and I stayed at a holiday inn last night.
1. Susman has requested an appeal to THJMW not approving an examiner from 3rd Circuit Court. He cites existing case law and legal precedent and has routed this through THJMW out of courtesy to allow her a chance to review her original decision.
2. Susman has requested to act on the 2004 Discovery rights granted in lieu of an examiner by THJMW to include depositions and 65 key financial documents from JPM. This includes WMI financial status pre-seizure and JPM activities that may have aided or caused seizure.
3. Susman has now filed an expedited document turnover motion to THJMW for document turnover from WMI (Rosen/Quinn) citing his difficulties in gaining access to court ordered document turnover.
4. Susman has addressed the conflict of interest issue with Weil vs JPM discovery and has laid the ground work to counter Rosen's motion for consolidated discovery -- meaning Rosen gets to be the clearing house for this information.
5. Susman has requested shareholder meeting be addressed by THJMW after Rosen requested from Washington State Court that this be referred back to Federal Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Susman has requested time to be shortened for consideration and for them to be on the agenda for the 3 June hearing.

Rosen has done the following:
1. DS has been produced and POR has been ammended a second time still lacking concrete financial information.
2. Rosen and WMI have failed to produce the court ordered information to Susman
3. Rosen has filed with Washington State Court to move shareholder motion back to Federal Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.
4. Rosen has filed a motion for consolidated discovery meaning he should be the point in all discovery.

Analysis:
1. Shareholder meeting will be approved. Already was by THJMW but was referred to Washington Court as they have jurisdiction. Rosen filing with Washington Court was a delay tactic and Susman immediately countered with an I am fine with that we will let THJMW make the decision and how about you make it on 3rd of June.
2. Susman has asked for discovery of JPM which he states was not finished by Rosen. This will be an interesting argument and Rosen has countered with fine but I lead the discovery. As THJMW has granted Susman the right to "act as its own examiner" not exactly sure how THJMW does not grant some or all of this. IMO worst case is we get access to WMI financial status at time of seizure; might not get access to investigate JPM activities. Not a loss as WMB Bondholders will move that along in the Washington D.C. case.
3. Susman has a better than average chance of getting an examiner. 3rd Circuit Court could overrule THJMW, THJMW could change her opinion on this. A major supporting factor is the fact that the debtors have not supplied the court ordered information and the UST is on our side as well as case law and precedents. Worst case is THJMW will either have to force document turnover or grant an examiner. If she does not grant an examiner 3rd Circuit Court may very well. Either way we will get the information.
4. Consolidated Discovery motion is a tricky subject. In a fair world Rosen should be conflicted out of this but we all know how that has gone so far. I am going to reserve analysis on this only to say Rosen was conflicted out earlier so it would appear that should apply here as well.
5. Exclusivity is ended. Competing PORs may be submitted.

Longs assistance requested in ensuring I have captured all the major points