(1) "In order for shareholders to get something, the examiner's report would have to spark something almost impossibly dramatic, such as unwinding the sale to JPMorgan ..." said the old friend Kevin starke. Come on, Starke, you know better than that. "[U]nwinding the sale"? That's not what the shareholders are aiming at, and clearly not the examiner's focus either. The investigation is about the valuation, tort claims, FC, tax refund distribution, and associated wrongdoing done by various parties (debtors, jpmc, and fdic. etc.) (2) "In the end, what will you do? Sue the FDIC? " said Jonathan Lipson, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison, Wisconsin. Again, this is either misunderstanding or misinformation. We're about the valuations and financial claims at this juncture (such as Fraudulent Transfer and undersold Wamu assets, etc.) (3) "I know Tribune, and this is not Tribune," said the Wamu bondholders attorney Tom Lauria. Yes, there was a division between senior and junior debt-holders in Tribune case whereas there is a "broad support" of the debtors' POR by WMI creditors as he said. However, the thing that busted the Tribune plan is what discovered by its examiner. According to this guy, it seems the examiner's report in WMI case is irrelevant as long as the debtors have a "broad support" for its plan among the creditors even though frauds and financial improprieties are found. If that's the case, the court wouldn't appoint the examiner in the first place.
Tom is right. The professor may be clueless. But Stark and bondholder attorney are certainly not. Wonder who suggested to Reuters to write this piece of misinformation? And why came out at this moment? I think they are trying to give the wrong perception prior to Nov. 1 about the examiner's investigation and its impact, but they're shaking the wrong tree.