Acceder

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

26,5K respuestas
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
3 suscriptores
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Página
2.419 / 3.346
#19345

Re: EC resignation-- Las ratas de ghost of wamu, las primeras en abandonar el barco

En la situacion actual de prevision de eliminacion de todas las acciones, todas las ratas pumperianas simpson-bopfanianas utilizan la tactica de ocultarse hasta desaparecer o vienen con el cuento de que las comunes no pero las preferentes si. Valiente desverguenza la de todos los que magnificaron las acciones engañando a pobres inversores que creian se iban a hacer de oro cuando van a perderlo todo. Lo del EC y sus nuevos miembros es una parodia mas no saben como seguir apoyando que las acciones recibiran algo, empezando por el presidente que es un corrupto (el si ha hecho el negocio). PATETICO.

#19346

Re: EC resignation-- Las ratas de ghost of wamu, las primeras en abandonar el barco

esta claro que ni las preferentes van a reciber 1 solo dolar.
¿por cierto? ¿quien ese toneti del que tantas veces habeis nombrado en este foro?
Saludos

#19347

Re: EC resignation-- Las ratas de ghost of wamu, las primeras en abandonar el barco

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2011/05/wamu-case-hedge-funds-face-questions.html

Tal como dice el articulo la manipulacion de los Hedges SINVERGUENZAS fue clave para engañar a los accionistas, pero la colaboracion de los pumpers SINVERGUENZAS (2) en los foros fue vital para mentir y captar mas incautos que quedaron pillados y arruinados sin posibilidad de recuperar el capital.

#19348

¿Me echabais de menos?

Para empezar no me he ido a ninguna parte... estamos de FERIA !!!

Jaysenese se ha marchado porque la tarea del EC es mucho más de 6 horas a la semana y esta persona tiene su propia empresa a la que dedicar su tiempo por lo que al no percibir un duro es totalmente aceptable. Entendedlo o adornarlo como querais pero yo haría lo mismo.

Nueva objeción al POR
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110506000000000019.pdf

Y por último ya estamos a muy pocos días de la Objeción de Susman que es donde estarán todos los ojos puestos. Ala que me marcho a desayunar para reponer fuerzas que aun nos quedan 2 dias de FIESTA!!

#19349

Puget Sound - El articulo completo (bastante interesante)

Four hedge funds based in New York and New Jersey are being questioned in response to an accusation that they used insider information to trade Washington Mutual Inc. securities after the bank failed.

At least one official from one of the funds, Aurelias Capital Management, was deposed this week in New York City in relation to the accusation, according to court documents and people familiar with the situation.

Similar depositions are scheduled later this month for the other funds — Appaloosa Management, Centerbridge Partners and Owl Creek Asset Management.

The accusations arose in January during a hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on the proposed global settlement with creditors that would distribute the remaining WaMu Inc. assets of approximately $7 billion.

Nate Thoma, an independent investor, said in court that the funds used confidential knowledge they gained by helping draft WaMu Inc.’s reorganization plan to trade securities. It isn’t clear what specific securities might have been traded.

Judge Mary Walrath considered Thoma’s claim and granted “equity security holders” — a term that appears to cover security holders in several categories — the right to investigate Thoma’s allegations. According to court documents, in February she authorized depositions and subpeonas aimed at looking into the accusations.

A deposition of at least one Aurelias executive was taken in the New York City offices of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, the counsel for Aurelias, this week.

The hedge funds have firmly denied wrongdoing and called the accusations “defamatory,” according to court documents. The court docket shows that depositions for each of the four funds have been pushed back at least once.

If impropriety is found, the hedge funds could lose their share of WaMu’s assets being distributed as part of the bankruptcy process. That money, potentially a large slice of WaMu Inc.’s $7 billion in assets, could then be placed in the hands of WaMu equity holders, according to a person familiar with the case. If the windfall is big enough, it may even trickle down to common shareholders, though preferred shareholders’ claims are first in line.

I made a call Wednesday to Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, the counsel for Aurelias, who said there was no deposition of an Aurelias executive on the firm’s schedule. However, court documents indicate at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, there was an Aurelias deposition scheduled in the company’s office.

Others familiar with the case confirmed the deposition had occurred. Topics of the deposition included the fund’s trading of “WMI or WMI Investment debt or equity securities” and “confidential information” that Aurelias received during negotiations on WaMu Inc’s proposed settlement to distribute some $7 billion in assets to its creditors, according to documents filed in court.

The next related deposition is of Appaloosa Management on May 12. The other two funds are currently scheduled to be deposed the week after that.

Since these allegations surfaced, all four funds dropped out of their roles in organizing the settlement plan, which has already been rejected once in the Delaware bankruptcy court because of what Walrath called “inappropriate releases.” I reported last week the case has already cost more than $400 million.

Washington Mutual Inc. was once the holding company of Washington Mutual, a bank based in Seattle that was closed by regulators on Sept. 25, 2008 and sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co., of New York.

Walrath is scheduled to make her decision on whether to approve the current settlement plan in early June.

#19350

Re: Puget Sound - El articulo completo (bastante interesante)

No te apures nadie te echa de menos y mucho menos te echaran, ya queda un telediario para que dejes de bombear informacion capciosa e interesada en cuanto la Juez sentencie el caso. Sigue de fiesta con el dinero que has ganado bombeando los precios, que esto si que sabes hacerlo muy bien a costa de los que has dejado en la cuneta maltrechos y arruinados.

#19351

Acumulación de Preferentes

I've also seen a number of blocks from 1000 to 5000 shares of WAMPQ trade, so I think someone is quietly accumulating. I think they believe they have plenty of time since the confirmation hearing isn't until June, and that they don't want to signal their intentions so are taking their time, slowly buying up what retail is selling.

Certainly they'd want to be careful to avoid the suggestion that they might be purchasing on insider information, so they may want to spread their purchases out over a long period of time as well.

#19352

La estrategia de Susman - B 3 y D 3

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule60.htm

"(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions.
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing.

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

(2) Effect on Finality.

The motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.

(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief.
This rule does not limit a court's power to:

(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;

(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or

(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

(e) Bills and Writs Abolished.
The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela."

Umm, b...three
and uhhh d...three?

IT's A MATCH!

Te puede interesar...
  1. Primeras dudas sobre la 'Trumponomics', ¿corrección o toma de beneficios?
  2. Nvidia bate expectativas pero decepciona. Insiders reafirman su posición