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

¿Y esto de dónde te lo has sacado?

Lo de las comunes no es creíble...

Para que las comunes reciban algo las preferentes deberian recibir el total. Los que tengan preferentes ahora mismo no creo que vayan a hacer tampoco de hermanitas de la caridad.

Solo los Billones pueden ampliar el horizonte para las comunes

¿alguien las ha recibido de su broker?

Dirección de envio:
Washington Mutual Ballot Processing
c/o Kurtzman Carson Consultants
2335 Alaska Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245

Hay que empezar a pedirselas a nuestros brokers esta semana y votar NO!!! al DS/POR

No necesariamente, si hay un acuerdo low-ball y aceptan todas las partes, preferentes y comunes podian repartirse el dinero de forma pactada.

Si el EC ve peligrar el proceso podría aceptar cualquier cosa, no olvidemos que el POR puede aprobarse a falta del informe del examinador.

La gente se empieza a rendir...

Por lo que tengo entendido, mandar la papeleta sin decir si es a favor o en contra del POR, se toma como un voto a favor. No votar se toma como en contra al igual que decir NO

Creo que te equivocas.

A mí me suena que por defecto si no se vota cuenta como un voto a favor del POR.

April 18 2010: We first hear of Susman/Godfrey, as they write a response regarding the shareholder meeting.

April 21 2010: Steve Susman makes his first appearance in JMW's court, and tells her that the equity committee will be filing for an examiner.

April 26 2010: Susman/Godfrey files a motion for an examiner with a motion to shorten.

May 5 2010: JMW denies the examiner motion, and says that all information should be available to the EC.

May 19 2010: EC files appeal to denial of the examiner, and motion to shorten.

May 25, 26, 28 2010: EC files for 2004 examination of JPMC, FDIC, & WMI and motions to shorten.

June 3 2010: JMW gets upset with everyone not cooperating with the EC in turning over requested documents, and inquires what the EC would prefer.

Taken from about the 1:31:25 point in the June 3 2010 hearing:
Justin Nelson: "If the issue is a trade, for the getting this analysis and work product for the examiner motion, we're happy to take that trade, your honor. This court…"

JMW: "Which side do you want?"
(background laughter)
Justin Nelson: "No, we'll..."

JMW: "Would you take either?"

Justin Nelson: "We will, your honor, we would prefer an examiner that was our original motion! "

JMW tells the EC to submit a new motion for an examiner, which is submitted June 8.

July 7 2010: EC files something under seal to support their motion for an examiner

July 8 2010: Instead of the planned hearing, the attorneys meet for 2 hours in the judge's chambers. According to shareholders in attendance, the WMI/creditors/JPM/FDIC attorneys were in good spirits before the meeting, but were visibly shaken and upset after the meeting.

After July 8 2010: All but the WMI noteholders' objections to the examiner are withdrawn. Also, according to the Susman/Godfrey July billings, there was a settlement offered the EC. Steve Susman himself spent 6 hours between July 8 and July 20 talking with the EC about the offer. They obviously decided that they could get more money with going ahead with the examiner.

My conclusions, and please post your own or anything I might have missed or misinterpreted, is that the centerpiece of Susman/Godfrey's strategy to win our case was getting an examiner. Some people here are getting very skittish about what will be in the examiner report, but seeing the above, why? Susman/Godfrey didn't get to be an 800 pound gorilla of a firm by throwing anything they could up and hoping something sticks. They became one by having clear, precise game plans to win, and I'm sure this is yet another one. Not only did other committees strongly object to an examiner, they were finally willing to negotiate with the EC a settlement to keep one from being appointed!

I think we'll be okay later this week.