Examiner cometh - "Lore" and "Myths".....
This is my opinion on some of what I have read. Some is "lore", and some is misguided "myths", and some is just basher-fodder repeated to confuse. All IMHO.
In no particular order... Xs) = Statement read, Xo) My opinion
________
1s) The Examiner's full report will go out early on Oct 25th to all parties. Those parties will learn what the others provided/know, and what is coming out on Nov 1st.
1o) NO! The Work Plan from the examiner states that he will provide BACK to the party that provided CONFIDENTIAL information that information ONLY, and ONLY back to the party that gave that info. Eg, they get back what they gave. Only their info. But with the Examiner's specific input on that info (presumed to be that part of the report related only to that confidential information). The period between Oct 25th and Nov 1st is to resolve what the Examiner thinks on ONLY that confidential information, to see how to make it public, and if no resolution, that CONFIDENTIAL part would be redacted. In any case, the FULL report, unredacted does go to THJMW. And in any case, NOBODY gets to see the report in advance, and NO party gets to see anything they didn't CONFIDENTIALLY provide + the examiners input on just what they provided.
A comment on the "leak" speculations -- Unless somebody wants to leak what they provided CONFIDENTIALLY, I don't see a leak from that. They could have leaked that long ago. But regardless, they key point here is nobody gets to see the entire report in advance. And in fact, not even the entire portion of even "their" parts. It's a highly specialized part that the originating party gets to see. Leaks are, of course, subjective. But since the entire report isn't going to end up in the hands of any of these parties in advance, the source of 'leaks' is restricted.
________
2s) The Examiner is charged with providing us what we were missing, the equivalent of a 3.1a, and the report will have a full listing of all assets, and everything we've wanted to see.
2o) No. The Examiner will make many upset here with this one. I AM confident that there will be substantial "valuation" information for us to enjoy reading, but I am EQUALLY confident that it will not be all that many expect. The Examiner will identify the 'colorable' asset values for things like Fraudlent Conveyance, the $4b deposit, Torts put forward and settled for $0 currently, new Torts (like their investigation of Bid-Rigging) and their potential value, and similar issues. Tax Issues are likely to also be covered and 'colored', and many things we want want to to see, aren't going to be in the Examiner's report, but will be alluded to, for others (EC, Solomon, etc) to be empowered to file motions to get, etc.
In short, "It's the "we don't know" factor combined with the "some expect more than will come out" = "loud screams" ;) ". If you have very finite expectations on what should be in the "valuation", you owe it to yourself to read the Examiner's "Work Plan" and confirm those expectations are there.
________
3s) The Examiner's report will also show that the bank was stolen, and disclose the full path of how that occurred, nail Paulson, Bair, Diamon, etc.
3o) While SOME of this may come out, and any emails, etc that they acquired that we haven't seen may or may not be in the report, or in the report but redacted because of #1. In any case, THJMW will get to see them fully. That which was innuendo, phone calls, etc can't be fully documented, and will remain such. But such a paper-trail, that can be reconstructed, should be in the report. Redacted or not. But I don't see the Examiner laying that whole "how this really went down" out. Because, IMHO, a lot can't be proven by law, just by innuendo. It's circumstantial evidence in many cases, and does help us, but I don't think the Examiner is going to "jump the chasm" into speculation for that he doesn't have hard facts in his hands and can 'prove' in his report.
________
4s) The Examiner's report will be filed under seal, like other bankruptcies, and nobody but the Judge will see any of it.
4o) Nothing to-date of this writing, says anything about the report being filed under seal away from all eyes. Certain portions, see #1, may be. But in all cases THJMW sees the full report. Both THJMW's order for an Examiner, and the Examiner's SIGNED (By THJMW) Work Plan says that Nov 1st will be the release date for the Report. She gets the full report, and the redacted version will be filed "on the public record" on Nov 1st.
________
5s) There is a timetable for the Examiner's release on Nov 1st.
5o) Nope. We don't know. Just like his "Work Plan" it should hit PACER first, then KCCLLC later. Could be from 12:01am through 11:59pm on Nov 1st. We don't know. And nothing has been said, and we're in the dark on if that's during the trading day or not.
________
6s) We won't see the report for 3 days after Nov 1st
6o) Based on the Examiner's work plan, the redacted public report should hit PACER on Nov 1st. The Examiner's work-plan says it will be "file[d] on public record" on the 1st. The 3 days mentioned, in WMI separate filings, is for the report to show up on KCCLLC to be viewable. This is noted by the DS letters sent out, that prior to DS voting, no later than 3 days after Nov 1st, the redacted public report would be up on KCCLLC for "free".
________
7s) The Examiner's reports findings, anything the Examiner says is the end of the story. For example, if the Examiner says that Tax Refunds belong to WMI, that's it
7o) No. The Examiner will state their opinion, on what is 'colorable', and it is still up to filings and arguments to make any opinion convert into a ruling by THJMW. Certainly, the Examiner's opinion carries great weight. But just because the Examiner thinks "one way", it does not, by itself, become an un-opposable and un-challengable fact. This works both ways though, if the Examiner doesn't agree with us on an issue, or calls it a 'close call', etc, we can also challenge that finding also.
________
8s) Once the Examiner's report comes that makes A>L
8o) No. The Examiner will likely state, that based on 'colorable' items, that A may be greater than L, or the Examiner may state just what they feel is 'colorable' and leave it to further litigation to prove A>L to occur.
________
9s) The Examiner will be asking for a Trustee.
9o) No. The Examiner will likely create enough grounds for the EC to make the trustee motion.
________
10s) Sometime in the near future, the full report will come out, unredacted.
10o) The Examiner's plan doesn't give a timeline, nor the details, only that work would occur to conform a version of the report, to future Court final orders concerning it's release. And that future final released report, can - per Examiner's work plan, continue to have redactions.
