El plan de Rosen
Is Rosen going to pull some trick up his sleeve and try to set some new precedent in this case as to the position of shareholders in BK court? This is what we know:
1. Rosen has now put together 5 POR/DS all with the appearance that equity has zero to gain based on the valuation of the estate and that all equity will be cancelled.
2. Rosen has clearly tried not to acknowledge equity throughout this bankruptcy and has never agreed with the judge that he represents equity in any way. He clearly has shown that his interest is only in supporting debtors and creditors and to give them the remaining company and supposedly worked very hard to make a deal with JPM/FDIC just to get enough money to take care of his client.
3. Rosen and gang have decided to withhold just about all documents and surely any of importance related to this case thus implying that equity has no right to see them. See quote from bottom of page (Peg's article) that suggests this to be true.
So, what is Rosen's strategy on the 8th? I am no attorney nor do I clearly understand BK proceedings. However, it looks like Rosen is going to try to come at Walrath to show how discovery should not be allowed since equity is on the outside and can damage all of the hard work just to get a deal done. He will pull some case history from under his hat and do a little hocus-pocus. Rosen will also try to block the examiner by preventing Walrath to rule on it a second time by using some magic tricks with a little smoke for special effects.
Will he be able to bend Walrath to get her to believe that equity should be left on the outside and not be give proper discovery? This is hard to imagine since equity is on the same side as the debtors and creditors and is simply next in line. Will he be able to block decision on examiner by stopping decision by Walrath and force it to remain in 3rd circuit court of appeals? This one I am less sure about, but I bet he will use her previous ruling against her.
I am expecting him to have a big plan. Otherwise, it just would not make sense to act like he does not represent equity. Could Rosen be trying to set a new precedent whereby equity has no say even with an equity committee that is allowed to intervene? How can that even be possible?
"Lawyers for the parent company said shareholders would be entitled to the legal insights if their interests were considered the same as the interests of Washington Mutual. The parent company says shareholders are on the outside, when it comes to cash and information. "