Ilene posted a summary. She did not post an item she was asked not to.
I've been waiting for it.
can you provide a summery of what you heard or witnessed at the June 2 hearing. Did you talk with any counsel?
According to the court clerk, the case was recorded. There may be a way to listen to the audio or at least print a copy. It may be expensive.
You need to go to http://www.pacer.gov for Delaware and register for a Pacer account. Once you sign up and agree to the terms, you can print the pages at a cost. I'm not sure if the recording can be listened to, but I'm trying to determine that.
court audio? No at least not that I know of.
I only got update from someone present. That was socked that Brian Rosen was present as he was the one that drafter most of the agreements in the WMI bankruptcy.
She explained that he seemed on-edge, even asking her why she was there.
I was there and everything was recorded.
Is there a Court audio of the June 2 hearing?
She was paid off, IMO.
Rosen was paid off, IMO.
No Asset list? Really?
There isn't a BK court in the Country that would allow it, except for Walrath.
How much did it cost Jamie to buy her/them off?
I posted this on the WMIH site as there has been talk about this Contempt of court statement:
As for Judge Walrath letting JPM drafted her strong June 2nd. order stating That Plaintiff’s ( Which is counsel for the LTW holders) filing of the Complaint was in contempt of the Confirmation Order.
Judge Walrath is the one in Contempt of Higher Court Judge Block’s Opinion
This order will backfire at her!
Judge Walrath did say at the June 2 hearing that the Anchor Litigation was an asset of WMI in bankruptcy this is a contempt of Judge Block's Opinion - which ruled that ownership of the Anchor Litigation transferred to JPMC by way of the PAA on Sept 25, 2008. The US Court of Appeals had exclusive rights to determine when and what party owned the Anchor Litigation.
- Judge Block stated, “JPMC did not acquire the Anchor litigation piecemeal, at a specific price; rather, it acquired Anchor’s assets (including the Anchor litigation) as part of a package that was sold by the FDIC Receiver, under the terms of the purchase and assumption agreement. See Anchor V, 121 Fed. Cl. at 314-18.”
It was Brian Rosen who changed the wording in the GSA to make it sound like WMI owned that asset and gifted it to JPM free and clear. Brian Rosen breached his fiduciary responsibilities to the debtors WMI.
Can anyone tell me why WMI would just give JPMC a 538 million asset free and clear – and the judge signing off on it? Is this even legal in bankruptcy – a judge should also not be gifting assets away from the estate free and clear with no benefit to the estate.
If David's last effort fails, then the best thing to do is get her ass impeached.
Well Mr IMO.
I've seen courage and Balls on the battlefield, but you my Friend must have some fine brass ones that "clank" loudly when you skydive or bungee!
That was excellent and courageous.
Good for you for sending a copy to the
Objection to court ruling.
Court Docket: #12261 Email
Document Name: Objection to Confirmation of Plan Objection of David Shutvet, and along with all other DIME LTW holders that have no legal representation, file this Objection Against the "ORDER" enforcing the Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order confirming the seventh amended joint plan of affiliated debtors Filed by David Shutvet (LAM)
Thank you for your reply.
Sorry I don't know what options the Ohio group has -
other than to appeal the Order.
JPMC filed Judge Walrath's Order - for the Lawsuit
to be withdrawn within two weeks - in the Ohio Case.
Will watch for a response from the LTWs to be filed.
This has been painful no doubt, is there any hope? What are potential options the Ohio group or anyone could exercise?
I wouldn't bother with a Demand for
Plus JPMC's Executive Office is referring
any Demand For Payment to its attorney - who
has already rejected our Demand for Payment.
If the Ohio Atttorneys are unable to get Judge
Walrath's ruling overturned then I think that
could end the LTWs.
Is it too late to send a Demand for Payment letter? I only had a small amount of DIMEQ but would like to recover something if possible. I did not opt-in for the new company shares. How can I get my info to you for the letter? TIA
I think I hate this order and how it is written
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
L. The Motion is GRANTED as set forth on the record of the Hearing.
2. The Confirmation Order included the transfer to JPMC of the Anchor
Litigation free and clear of any liens, Claims, interests and encumbrances of holders of Litigation
Tracking'Warrants ("LTWs") pursuant to section 363(Ð of the Bankruptcy Code.
3. The Confirmation Order precludes assertion of claims against JPMC
concerning, relating to, or arising from purported rights as LT\ù/ Holders.
4. Plaintiffs' Complaint and the claims asserted therein are all barred by the
Confirmation Order, and the filing of the Complaint was in contempt of the Confirmation Order.
5. Plaintiffs are directed to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice within
Yes agree very nasty court. I would hope they appeal, but may not know for two weeks.
Nasty ruling from a nasty Court.
A Contempt of Court
if the LTW Holders do not withdraw
their Lawsuit within 2 weeks?
And the Lawsuit was just following
the directives set in the
US Court of Appeals for the
Is her ruling appeallable?
This is a report from Ilene Slatko Re: (June 2nd Hearing)
Today’s hearing was a surprise in many ways. I walked in and saw Brian Rosen and his right hand counsel. They both greeted me, and Brian asked why I was there. He not only knew that I had been at the shareholders meeting, but knew something else shared in confidence at the S/H meeting. He was certainly nervous to see me there, and sat right in front of me, no doubt knowing I was tweeting and taking notes the entire time. His presence was a huge red flag to me...in the intervening years since the BK was ruled on, not one time have I seen him in court. It was always an underling that was sent in his place. This was different, right off.
JMP’s corporate counsel from Cromwell and Sullivan presented their case against Anchor. He barely came up for air, again, a bit unusual, sort of ramming the information through, was how it felt.
Two attorneys working on the Anchor LTW cases filed in Ohio, both from different firms. First one up was not prepared for Judge Walrath. She caught him in round one. The second one was more forceful in his arguments, but wasn’t set up well by his co-counsel. At issue was not simply the LTWs, but also whether pressing forward with these cases was considered contempt of court, since at least on the surface, this had been decided previously, in Walrath’s 2/2012 ruling. However, the more the plaintiff’s attorneys spoke, the more agitated BR became. He’s a master at controlling himself, but at one point I watched him shake his head side to side and become fidgety. They mentioned the P&A Agreement, the timing of it and how it didn’t line up with the BK filing. At this point Judge Walrath spoke up and reminded them that she did have jurisdiction over these cases, since they arose out of BK. No doubt she was protecting her turf...maybe more?
She announced she was making a bench decision (more on that later) and told the Anchor attorneys that they had 2 weeks to withdraw their cases or face contempt charges.
We were dismissed. I approached the attorneys and asked what their next move was...expecting to be told MYOB! Instead, we ended up (2 Anchor attorneys, an LTW holder and myself) talking for the better part of 30 minutes.
Because they were informative and talking through how they might continue these cases, and because he asked me, I am not at liberty yet to fully disclose the conversation. Hopefully tomorrow. BUT, in speaking with them (and the LTW holder and I spoke for another 30 minutes without the attorneys), I realized exactly what Walrath, and BR were protecting.
THE ENTIRE CASE!
These attorneys, and these cases, are pulling at a loose string
on the GSA and PAA...the missing documents, the inconsistent document dates...all of this is what they’re tugging at. In fact, Walrath said as much. In making her ruling, she said that it was the fault of the attorneys for not pushing harder during the BK trial. Wonder if the statute of limitations has run out on this?
I have sat in a number of these hearings, post BK decision, both for WMI and for other companies. I’ve never heard or FELT being this close to watching everything come unraveled. Whether it will or not, who knows...but both Judge Walrath, JMP and Brian Rosen are pushing to keep it together.
As always, the foregoing is just my opinion, based on what I’ve seen and heard.
Looks like Judge granted the Motion.
This is from tweets from that court room.
She may not give her ruling today.
we should know soon how Judge Walrath feels about this JPM motion. Wish there was a link to listen to the court. Start soon and I will look for any new documents of rulings posted on court document site.
The complete statement is not helpful
to the plaintiff JPMC -
" As plaintiff points out, these ownership
interests in the Anchor litigation were
actively traded on the NASDAQ market
on the day that JPMC acquired them. "
One of the Judges in the US Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit mentioned
in the Hearing that the Bankruptcy Court
stated in its Opinion the Anchor Litigation
was an asset of WMI - to which both the
DOJ and JPMC disagreed.
Obviously then the Judge must have
been considering if the Bankruptcy Court
was the correct jurisdiction in which
to adjudicate the claims of the LTWs.
We could probably all pitch in and ask Ilene to attend for us.
She is doing that for the WMIH stockholder meeting tomorrow.
Just a thought?
Yes those are good points and I hope the Judge understands she must deny that JPM motion. Even if she did rule for it - it would get Appealed, and just make her look bad.
Hearing Date: June 2, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. (ET) - I would think that hearing is open. Is any DIME LTW holding going to be there?
If not we should see her ruling posted shortly after.
"Ownership interests in the Anchor litigation", that is a statement JPMC does not want to touch. The legal counsel for the plaintiffs needs to convey the reasoning in Judge Block's decision.
Another point that needs clarification is the LTW's were not allowed to intercede in the Anchor Litigation simply because they were not a direct party in interest. They were a derivative party whose interest lied with whomever received the award from the Anchor Litigation. JPMC is wrongly trying to infer that the LTW's lost all rights because the LTW's were denied the right to intervene in the Anchor Litigation.
Did you notice that JPMC does not
address Judge Block's statement
that the LTWs are " ownership
interests in the Anchor litigation "?
Thank you for the explanation.
I understand that reasoning....but, still disagree with it.
I thought adversaries always take positions that they can negotiate down from!
The LTWs Holders who opted in to WMI 's
POR exchanged their LTWs to WMI for
new WMIH stock and/or cash.
So I think that legally the LTWs which were
exchanged for WMIH stock/cash belong to
WMIH and we cannot claim any of WMIH 's
The COMPLAINT filed in Ohio only claims
about $ 3.75 an LTW - so the Atttorneys in that
Case do not think we can legally claim the
portions of the LTW Holders who opted in.
I am saying that the full 85% should be divided amongst only those that did not Opt In to the agreement.
I believe you are dividing the 85% award by the full number of LTW's prior to the Opt In ....which reduces the potential award substantially. Or, are you saying that JPM gets to keep the value that was given up by those LTW's that took the stipend.
I am not sure what you are trying to
When Judge Block stated in his final
Opinion that the LTWs were trading
on the NASDAQ when JPMC " acquired
them " I think he is meaning that
JPMC also acquired the obligations
to the LTW Holders - who owned the
The LTWs were registered to and owned
by the LTW Holders and not WMI, and so I
don't think the FDIC could legally transfer
ownership of the LTWs under the PAA to
JPMC if WMI did not actually own the LTWs.
I suppose that WMI could assign ownership
of the LTWs - of the Holders who opted in
and exchanged theIr LTWs for WMIH - to
Thanks for finding that release. I believe it shows that it did not give JPM any of the LTW's...it just was a release of the rights of those who agree to settle per the bankruptcy.
So, we must still get past this June 2 battle before the value of the 85% to us is determined.
I had to look it up, but I received 3761 shares, i received divd checks and i sold at various prices; as low as .54 and as high as 3.48. but i always felt i was robbed and was entitled to over $100,000. I kept 3500 warrants that were in a separate account and thought it didn't pay to opt-in with those. So now if i get $3,17. it will be another $10,000. But if all those who did not opt-in share the 85% i would get the $100,000 i was entitled to. Que va?
Marty, is this what you were looking for?
It's the election form to opt-in for the Feb 29, 2012 deadline.
found it in post #6305 by linda
The Opt Out..
I tried to find the agreement. I could only find some messages on this board dated 2/24/12....#6767-6770 that discussed the agreement.
It doesn't appear to me that the opt out LTW's were OBTAINED by ANY party. It was just part of an agreement in the bankruptcy agreement that opt outs could accept some value to give up their rights to suit at some future time. I don't see where JPM gets retention of those LTW's.
Please correct me if I am wrong!
yes, but good luck with that. I chose not to opt-in because of what they where giving in WMIH shares was not worth it plus I always felt those that did NOT opt-in would get paid someday when ever that award was paid.
I think the whole deal was worked in the P&AA and they just spent millions litigating it just to make more attorney $$. WMI estate paid for all that attorney cost.