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

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100830000000000002.pdf

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100830000000000007.pdf

Importante: 23 Julio EG Sargent
Preparando draft memorandum para el Examiner sobre los claims de BUSINESS TORT contra JPM.

Creo que el mensaje está bastante claro y esto lo ponen para que sepamos por donde van a ir los tiros. Solo nos queda esperar al examiner.

Si leeis hasta el final de la factura a partir del día 23 Julio la comunicación es constante con el examiner y completamente dirigida a BUSINESS TORT CLAIMS.

Solo nos toca esperar hasta que se destape la caja de los truenos.

Hay que añadir que el Examiner ya tiene las valoraciones de PJ Solomon tak y como indica las facturas.

Esta espera es la más desesperante porque estamos un poco más cerca del día en que se debe destapar lo que llevamos ya casi 2 años luchando.

7/7/10 EG Sargent
Reviewing and revising sealed court filing re review of WMB documents.

07/07/2010 P.C. Folse
Conferring with SG Attorneys and co-counsel re disclosure to the court information in debtors documents.

07/09/10 E.G. Sargent
Conferring with P.J. Solomon re JPMC's document disclosing accounting treatment of WMB assets(.60).

07/12/10 J.A. Nelson
Conferring with opposing counsel on meet and confer (8.00).

07/12/10 S. Ard
Meeting at Weil on scope of examiner 6.80

07/22/10 E.G. Sargent
Researching pOints of law re preemption of claims under FIRREA. 5.00

7/23/10 EG Sargent
Researching points of Law re FIRREA preemption.

07/23/10 E.G. Sargent
Preparing draft memorandum for the examiner on business tort claims against JPMC. 7.20

07/26/10 E.G. Sargent
Conducting research re legal and factual issues in business tort claims against JPMC. Drafting memorandum for the examiner on same.

07/27/10 E.G. Sargent
Reviewing P. J. Solomon draft presentation to the examiner (.50).

07/27/10 P. C. Folse
Conferring by phone with Examiner J. Hochberg and examiner's counsel to respond to questions relevant to examination (2.20).

07/29/10 S. Ard
Preparing and editing summary of JPMorganChase hot documents for E. Sargent.

En su moción les hace las mismas preguntas tanto a Weil como a Quinn por lo que una vez se reciban las respuestas será evidente quien miente o quien es responsable.

Probablemente resulten los 2 como responsables en una primera ronda de acusaciones. Al final TPS se está convirtiendo en un excelente aliado haciendo honor a la premisa "el enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo".

Yo ya no puedo más por hoy, ha sido un día bastante movidito referente a papeles y al menos tenemos más piezas del puzzle que ya falta menos para que encajen.

Hasta mañana.

Gracias por tus esfuerzos Mr Simpson.

Wow, wow, wow!

Weil is really trying to hide something here and as a result is willing to go so far as insulting the court's processes in order to try to avoid answering these questions for as long as possible, hoping to settle before they have to answer.

Although WMI's response to these simple questions is typical of the kind of obfuscation and stone-walling involved of discovery battles when I was a young lawyer (several decades ago), these days, after discovery law has evolved toward greater transparency, this kind of thing is not supposed to happen any more. The TPS lawyers are absolutely correct in their legal arguments, and their request for monetary sanctions should be granted. I urge any who are interested to actually read the Requests for Admissions (attached as an exhibit to the motion) to see how simple the questions are, how they in no way ask for privileged communications, and how they are carefully constructed by the TPS attorneys to focus on the issues of Weil's double-dealing, conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice. They are focusing like a laser beam on exactly the issues that Bopfan and Mordacai have been hitting on.

(Pedantic aside, for purposes of context: The "Requests for Admission" used here by TPS are one type of discovery tool (in addition to depositions, subpoenas duces tecum for documents, etc.) created and intended as a tool not only to obtain evidence (facts) but also to help narrow the factual and legal issues that need to be addressed at trial. The questions are addressed to the party (WMI), not the party's lawyers. The idea is to try to save the court's and the parties' time by obtaining admissions of facts that would otherwise have to be addressed by testimony at trial. Typically the ROAs will begin by focusing on the most non-controversial facts and then proceed to address the actual facts in dispute. By this means the parties are forced narrow the issues that actually have to be addressed and proven at trial, saving everybody time and expense. When a party resists forthrightness like WMI has done here, it really makes the judge grumpy, and sanctions are definitely called for. By the way, the lawyers pay the sanctions, not the client, so it won't come out of the estate.)

From this episode, I take away the following impressions:

(1) TPS is truly our strategic partner and friend, at least at this point. They are well-financed and motivated to press their adversarial action aggressively, and are doing so. Moreover, Judge Walrath has already said that TPS's action gets to go first. TPS has obviously thrown down the gauntlet. They are not backing off. This can only help the EC at this point, as they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for us. As Observer says, we get to "read their putt". It also sets up a "good cop - bad cop" scenario, where the EC gets to be the good cop and play the mediator.

(2) As we have all speculated for some time now, Weil and the WMI BOD really do have a lot to hide: Is it conflict of interest, incompetence, collusion, breach of fiduciary duty, or worse, conspiracy? I'm not sure yet, but TPS is clearly focusing on these scenarios. At the very least, if Weil had a conflict of interest sufficient to justify hiring Quinn as Special Litigation and Conflicts Counsel, then Quinn should be calling the shots on the litigation issues highlighted by TPS's Requests for Admission, not Weil. The very fact that they refuse to answer the questions implies that Rosen has been calling all the shots (as is obvious in court), that Quinn has had no actual say, and that Weil has breached it's duties to shareholders.

(3) Weil and WMI are truly frightened now, and should be in a mood to settle in a way that makes everyone happy. Of course, JPM and FDIC will never be happy with anything that would make EC and TPS happy, so Weil is really stuck in the middle right now. Ironically, that means that Weil might be able to use adverse findings in the examiner's report(s) (public or not) as leverage to bring JPM and FDIC to a resolution more acceptable to allstakeholders. Don't hold your breath, but the endgame may be in sight.

¿Cómo se llamaba el abogado de las TPS? Creo que cuando comenté algún hearing ya dije que me gustó mucho ese tipo. Iba al grano, hablaba muy clarito y no se andaba con rodeos.

Yo también creo que Rosen está un poco entre la espada y la pared, porque aunque representa a los debtors y ahora mismo es quien corta el bacalao, en realidad los que tienen el $$$ para llegar a un acuerdo son JPM y FDIC (a los cuales Rosen no controla).

Yo no soy tan optimista como El Juez y pienso que a Rosen le van a dejar con el culo al aire y le van a echar a los leones antes que soltar un puñado de dólares por las buenas. Además hay sospechas de que los debtors no hicieron el discovery apropiadamente, probablemente por un exceso de confianza de que iban a llegar a un acuerdo enseguida (engañados seguramente por JPM).

A ver qué pasa... mi sentimiento es positivo... creo que vamos por el buen camino...

Impresionante.

Sinceramente espero que los debtors estén respondiendo de igual manera al Examiner.