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

puedes definir aquello de que consiste lo de "medio bien"???

Good evening all!

So tomorrow one of the many items to be addressed will be the DSv3 that the debtors have submitted to the courts for review.
Tomorrow only one thing is going to happen and that is the Judge will rule on if she feels the DS provides "ADEQUATE INFORMATION".

From the government's website:

"Adequate information" means information of a kind, and in sufficient detail, as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor's books and records, that would enable a hypothetical reasonable investor typical of holders of claims or interests of the relevant class to make an informed judgment about the plan . . ."

So a question I had was, "In comparison to other DS that have been submitted to the courts, how does this DS look?"

Interestingly enough I found a website that lists common factors taken into account by the court when reviewing a DS.
http://delawarebankruptcy.foxrothschild.com/2009/06/articles/bankruptcy-law-basics/what-information-is-required-in-a-chapter-11-disclosure-statement/

***Warning this may upset some people***
Quote
Factors Considered by the Court

Bankruptcy courts exercise broad discretion when deciding whether to approve or reject a disclosure statement. In making a determination, courts often look at whether the disclosure statement contains the following types of information:

1. the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the bankruptcy petition;
2. a discussion of assets available and their value;
3. a summary of what the debtor anticipates to do going forward;
4. where the information used in the disclosure statement came from;
5. a disclaimer stating that no statements or information regarding the debtor, its assets or securities are authorized, other than those included in the disclosure statement;
6. the debtor's condition during its bankruptcy proceeding;
7. claim information;
8. an analysis showing what creditors would receive from the debtor were it liquidated under chapter 7;
9. the accounting and valuation methods used in the disclosure statement;
10. information regarding the debtor's management going forward;
11. a summary of the plan of liquidation or reorganization;
12. a summary of the administrative expenses, including bankruptcy professional fees;
13. a review of the debtor's accounts receivables;
14. financial information necessary to allow a creditor to decide whether to approve or reject the plan;
15. information regarding the risks being taken by the creditors;
16. the amount expected for recovery through avoidance actions;
17. a discussion of nonbankruptcy litigation;
18. tax consequences of the plan; and,
18. the debtor's relationship with any affiliates.

Now it is my personal opinion that the DS does not meet the requirement of providing adequate information. The question I have is how is the Judge to make a decision on what is adequate when major items have been ignored or intentionally left out. The debtor's counsel has made claim that the AL discussions, MORs, missing 3.1a, etc... From what I understand the Judge can only base her approval or rejection of the statement on what has been discussed before her and what information is available to her. In my honest opinion I think this may be difficult for her to do unless she is presented with 'financials' that contest the validity of the financials being presented by the Debtors.

Sorry if this sounds like 'soft' bashing. I do feel that we are at a disadvantage having had Weil discount any chance of a recovery for equity from the start. The motives to unearth the truth were never there and because of that we are late to the game. I hope that Susman has the opportunity to slide into the closing window with relevant information. I hope that the Judge has some information that will allow for her to reject the DS.

I am on the east coast and must turn in. My initial interest in creating this thread was not only to temper expectations relating to the ruling on DSv3 but also to determine if anyone has had any experience with DS that have been rejected and on what grounds. Please feel free to share.

Thanks and GLTA
~BIG

Según los mínimos requerimientos para el DS y las modificiaciones presentadas ayer por weil al DS, parece bastante probable que la juez lo apruebe teniendo en cuenta lo favorable que se ha mostrado a Rosen en todo el proceso.

Saludos

Pues entonces habria que venderlo todo nos van a llevar al matadero.

saludos

Title: Everyone Else Tells WaMu Shareholders: Please, Stop It by Zach Lowe

The committee representing Washington Mutual shareholders has managed to do something pretty extraordinary: unite almost every other party in the case against its request for discovery and an extended investigation into WaMu's collapse, according to court records.

As we reported last week, the committee of shareholders (represented by Susman Godfrey after previous relationships with Venable and Dewey & LeBoeuf apparently didn't work out) asked Judge Mary Walrath of federal bankruptcy court in Delaware for permission to conduct wide-ranging discovery into WaMu's collapse. The bank's estate, represented by Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, started an identical round of discovery last year in an attempt to see whether it could go after JPMorgan Chase for damages related to WaMu's demise. The estate argued that JPMorgan sabotaged potential bids for WaMu in late 2008 by leaking confidential WaMu data and spreading rumors about WaMu's financial condition. The FDIC eventually placed WaMu in a receivership and sold it to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion.

But the estate cut its investigation short after striking a preliminary deal with JPMorgan that would end the potential litigation, return most of about $4 billion in deposits to WaMu's estate, and govern the distribution of tax refunds to various entities in the case. The estate was satisfied that the deal, which needs approval from the court and the FDIC, would bring in a decent chunk of money for creditors.

The shareholders disagree, and they want to conduct the same broad discovery the WaMu estate started as part of its investigation into JPMorgan. The response of the other parties has been unanimous: They all want Judge Walrath to shoot down the request. The estate claims in court papers filed today that shareholders are asking for attorney work product, including internal deliberations among Quinn lawyers in which they debate how to proceed against JPMorgan. The FDIC, represented by DLA Piper, says in papers filed Wednesday that the shareholders are "an out of the money constituency that has every incentive to continue litigation regardless of how remote its chance for success and regardless of the impact on other parties." In other words, the shareholders will recover nothing under the proposed settlement and are flailing away to try and recover something. The Federal Reserve, which would have to turn over documents if Judge Walrath grants the shareholders' full request, also objected, as did the creditors committee in the case. All of those parties agree that the matter has been adequately investigated, and that it is time to move forward on the proposed settlement and bring the estate out of Chapter 11.

A massive hearing is scheduled on the proposed settlement and the WaMu reorganization plan for Thursday. We'll let you know how it goes.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/06/wamushareholdersdiscovery.html

Pd. Mas estiercol de la prensa para el EC

Quien piense que hoy la juez va a rechazar el DS y nos va aprobar el discovery ampliado tiene más moral que el alcoyano¡¡. Aunque ojala me equivoque y sea así.

Mi predección viendo volumenes y cotización, hoy la juez aprueba el DS, nos deniega los discoverys porque ella considera ya está todo investigado hasta la muerte, y como mucho dará otro toque de atención para que la rosen proporcione documentos. Me imagino que Susman seguira apelando el Examiner al siguiente circuito y el ust también, pero de mientras la votación estará en marcha para en 60 días poner el sello de la juez.

Saludos

Y que estrategia sigues no deberias venderlo todo y entrar mas tarde????porque si dan tus predicciones la accion se ira a los infiernos

¿Y como queda el asunto de los bonistas WMB? FDIC no lo votará sin la firma de los bonistas a la oferta que le hicieron, quiero decir que DS aprobado pero el POR no.