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

De esta manera llegaremos al 8 de octubre sin equipaje que falsee A > P

Tic toc tic toc para Rosen

Esta gente de TPS vemos que van en serio para que alguien les pague jpm, fdic o wmi, porque no hace Susman EC, lo mismo deposiciones y que pregunte los que todos deseamos saber de una vez???.

Saludos

Susman no desea hacer nada de momento porque ya tiene a TPS y el Examiner que se van a encargar de hacerlo por el para destruir el POR e intentar quitar a Weil de en medio.
En cuanto eso se logre via libre y control de WAMU por parte de los accionistas.

TPS y Examiner van a hacer todas las depositions que haga falta hasta destruir el POR y después ya veremos que pasa.

Existe la clausula de confidencialidad cliente/abogado así que Weil no puede contestar preguntas directas sobre WAMU a no ser que otra tercera parte pruebe que hubo fraude.

Os recomiendo ver la pelicula La Tapadera de Tom Cruise para entender y ver similitudes sobre como funcionan algunas firmas de abogados y el caso WAMU.

Poli bueno, poli malo y creo que nosotros por nuestra actitud de momento somos poli bueno.

September 3, 2010: This week has had just a few significant filings as we approach next week's very important hearing, on Tuesday, September 7, at which the Examiner is scheduled to present his preliminary report. We will provide an update on the hearing after it concludes (it does not start until 3 PM Eastern).

Yesterday the Equity Committee filed a statement about the status of the shareholders' meeting lawsuit with a request for a final hearing to resolve this matter "within the next thirty days". Given the clarity of the law regarding a shareholders' meeting, WMI's only real hope of derailing this lawsuit has been to attack the Equity Committee's motive for filing the lawsuit and try to show "clear abuse" on the part of the Equity Committee, "which is defined as 'bargaining in bad faith' based on 'some secret desire to destroy all prospects for reorganization' or otherwise 'torpedo' the reorganization process." From the filing: "WMI apparently intends to attempt to prove that the Equity Committee's motive in filing [its lawsuit], and the motive of Mr. Willingham and Esopus Creek in filing [their lawsuit], were "clearly abusive"... WMI has already seized upon this issue as the purported justification for an excessive and harassing discovery campaign, which far exceeds the discovery taken by [WMI] before they decided to settle their multi-billion dollar claims against JPMC and the FDIC. For example, WMI has served forty-five separate document requests (many of which sought privileged discussions between the Equity Committee and its counsel) and has scheduled full-day depositions of all four current members of the Equity Committee... Despite this almost absurdly wasteful amount of discovery, if the Court believes that a material fact issue on "clear abuse" has been presented, the issue is a narrow one and can be presented to the Court at an evidentiary hearing in no more than an hour's worth of testimony... As the members of the Equity Committee have now repeatedly explained in depositions, the requested meeting is justified by the failure of WMI's board and legal representatives to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the company's shareholders. For example, WMI has argued that the board owes no duties to shareholders whatsoever because the company is hopelessly insolvent, an argument that the Court rejected in finding that WMI's solvency could not yet be determined... It is hardly surprising that shareholders whose interests have been repeatedly ignored by the current board would seek an opportunity to consider the election of new representatives who would advocate for the interests of all stakeholders, including both creditors and shareholders." This matter is on the agenda for Tuesday's hearing, but only as a "status conference", and the Equity Committee is clearly pushing to get a ruling from the judge as soon as possible; the judge, however, may have her own reasons for wanting to delay a ruling (for example, in the hope that through negotiations a compromise can be reached).

The Trust Preferred Securities (TPS) group (see August 26, below) is still on the attack, apparently looking for evidence of conflict of interest on the part of some of the WMI law firms. The TPS group had submitted to WMI "requests for admission", which seek an answer of "admit" or "deny" to simple questions such as "In connection with the Proposed Global Settlement Agreement, you received advice from Counsel on which you relied in entering that agreement." From the filing: "As the Court knows, [WMI has] refused to tell any party whether they intend to assert advice of counsel or the substance of counsel's investigation to prove the reasonableness of the proposed settlement. Because [WMI] refused to so inform the parties and the Court, and because such reliance results in a privilege waiver, the TPS Consortium served [WMI] with the Requests for Admission, which consisted of fifty-seven requests focused on (a) the issue of advice of counsel regarding the Proposed Global Settlement Agreement and (b) who engaged in the negotiation of the settlement. [WMI's] response is wholly inadequate because it is riddled with boilerplate objections that cannot be sustained. In particular, [WMI makes] fourteen general objections to every request and further object to every request as 'vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome'." The TPS group asks the court to deem the requests for admission admitted, or in the alternative order WMI to actually answer the questions by September 14. The trial on this issue is currently set for November 1.

http://madblab.com/post/tag/project-west-2

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=544829&mid=544829&tof=2&frt=5#544829

TPS filings, the timeline is very clear.

"Someone" at WMI "transferred" the TPS to "WMB" on the 25th sept 2008, NOT the 26th.

The problem with this is that a) it was done later in the day of the 25th, AFTER OTS/FDIC had seized/sold WMB to JPM, and b) WMI only "got" the TPS on the 26th, per its own documents.

AND couldnt transfer the TPS to WMB because a) WMB didnt exist as a sub any more on the 26th, and b) it filed for BK that day, and you cant transfer $4B in assets out of a company on the day it files for BK.

This means that (even going by WMI/WGM POS POR numbers) the Prefs (P's, K's, TPS) are WAAY in the money.

Here is a copy of the assignment.

http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-50551/09-50551-0001.pdf

Starts on Page 224. Says it's "Effective as of September 25, 2008"

and a little later it states: "Delivery: Is deemed to occur as of September 25, 2008."

I'm going to assume that one of the TPS questions in the deposition will be... "Who directed you to execute the Assignment Agreement and on what date did you sign the Assignment Agreement?"

Simpson, ro19ro19 en yahoo creo que es Joyce, no? Echadle un vistazo a este post...

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=544943&mid=544943&tof=1&frt=2#544943

Por cierto, menudo follón con lo de los 24 B esos, os aclarais? Cada dia salen billones nuevos, esto parece ya el monopoly...

Saludos.