This O/S change doesn't really mean anything until we knows better.
Maybe somebody in the company see the positive outcome and exercise their stock option ,you never know.
It's premature to make a bold statement "something bad happened"

Where do you see a o/s changed?link?anything..OTC market still state 738,685,874 a/o Mar 31, 2013
and
Short Selling Data
Short Interest 1,143 (-94.16%)
Jun 14, 2013

Or u can choose receive pro rate share in litigation fund without release or new co share with release

Wow.this is really interesting,they are not wiping out stuff in computer,they tried to restore some deleted ITem such as Browse History, Cache, Deleted Email ,also including the record of visiting the WAMU related online forum..
Seems they are collecting evidence of some employee unauthroized action, such as posting online or leaking news.Not sure it's good or bad but very interesting.

Where is JW when we need him the most ,lol.

So you "feel" ...

Quite opposite..I think the discovery is the real deal here.

Just read the doc will you...
Judge don't want a ligilitigation continue..
She want to revalue the re-organized company..
she won't decide the FJR now and release is too board..
Wahuq issue

Clearly the Preferred will have a 50% chance to see partial recovery but common doesn't look good because TPS lost their SJ.

Well..actually ...it's sucked to say that...common are doomed..Preferred could get partial return by NOL carry-forward valuation and FJR applied..

Theorically, TPS and DIME SJ can be runled outside the context of POR..
And only if Judge ruling in favour of TPS will have matiriel impact on the POR.EC is also one of the objected parties.
In a nut shell , if things not settle included EC and TPS ,she has no choice but reject the POR.IMO .

I thought you were talking about this that "mistakenly delivery to .."
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100921000000000006.pdf

Apologized if not..
I understand the doc Hoffman try to unseal is about the WMB valuation EC submitted to the court in chamber meeting..only that was protected by confidential agreement.

Not that I don't agree with you.
but "work product that was mistakenly given the EC and forced upon them to seal" I think it was mistakenly given to Taxas Grup aka Anico .not EC. And it's not valuation but settlement term sheet.

TPS version..:)

My observation from the order..TPS will stay with WMI as preferred.that open the gate for FC claim that downstream WMI's asset to WMB ..that's the result we all want to get.

Thanks for the update .

Pacer out ,not POR confirm but some good stuff.

So you mean debtor can drop the release section in POR and still keep JPM and FDIC in the GSA and get the judge approved ..
with this "They made it very clear no releases no deal..."
I am not sure what your logic is ...

Talking about change an Id and coming back..

That's why JPM and FDIC using pay out creditor in GS as a leverage..if cream down happen, they are facing ligitation in DC court .
They want release in exchange of paying out creditor ,blocking potential risk in DC court,otherwise no GSA. Pity for them there is simply too many holes in the POR v6.

I think we already have enough overwhelming proof shows that WMBfsb is a sub of wmb inlcuding the testimony under oath describe the event before seizure,sec info court doc etc.
That's already good enough for me of course won't prevent you to dig deeper and good luck with that.

That already settle WMBfsb is not a direct sub of WMI and is actually a sub of WMB isn't it.
See my stand corrected post.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57428939

Sure JPM has to pay for it sooner or later..but I stand corrected WMB owns pike street holding inc..so WMBFsb is actually a sub of WMB.
"29. As reflected in the "Approvals Required" section of the form, after therequester completes the form it is to be presented via email to representatives of each ofthe following four departments for approval: Legal, Tax, Controllers, and Treasury.30. Upon receiving approvals from all four departments, copies of theapprovals and the fully approved request is to be forwarded to Legal, which then"preparefs] and circulate^] for execution the legal documentation required to authorizethe contribution and will forward the approval to the requesting party, Entity Accounting,Tax and Treasury."31. Per Washington Mutual policy, all of these steps would have beenrequired before processing a capital contribution. Indeed, WMI followed theseprocedures in connection with capital contributions that it made to WMB in December2007, April 2008, July 2008 and September 2008. The Request for Contribution formsand email approvals for these transactions are attached hereto as Exhibit Q. In myposition at WMB, I would have been made aware if these same steps had been taken, andsame forms prepared, in connection with the transfer to WMB fsb of the $3,674 billion.Not one of these steps was taken, however, belying any suggestion that the $3,674 billiondeposit was, or ever was intended to be, a capital contribution.32. A capital contribution would have fundamentally revised the capitalstructure of various Washington Mutual entities, and such a transaction simply would nothave made sense. Prior to the September 25, 2008 FDIC seizure, WMI owned WMB,which owned Pike Street Holdings, Inc. ("Pike Street Holdings"), which, in turn, ownedWMB fsb. A $3,674 billion capital contribution would have fundamentally changed this12A-12
"
Under oath

Don't see any change regarding the structure, WMI own Pike Street holding , Pike Street holding owns WMB Fsb and Pike Street Holding was seised and transfered to JPMC as a banking subsidiaries .

Addtion to that
"
Page 15
capital and ownership structure, with WMI becoming a new partial owner of WMB fsb.There was no plan or effort at WMI to achieve such a result.33. WMI Liquidity Management Policies And Procedures Are InconsistentWith Any Notion That The $3.674 Billion Deposit Is A Capital Contribution. Anotherclear indication that the $3.674 billion deposit was never a capital contribution, and wasnever considered or intended to be a capital contribution, is the "WMI LiquidityManagement Standard" (the "Liquidity Standard"). The stated objective of the LiquidityStandard is to "prudently manage [WMI's] ability to meet its financial obligations." Acopy of the Liquidity Standard is attached hereto as Exhibit K. The Liquidity Standardstates that cash must be maintained at a minimum daily balance of $150 million with an"early warning" limit of $250 million. The Liquidity Standard further states that "n theevent that the WMI cash balance is expected to or falls below $150 million, the Treasurerwill be notified immediately. The Treasurer may approve being below the targetminimum for up to ten days of the month. In the event that the target minimum is notmet for over ten days MRC [Market Risk Committee] chair will be notified and a reportof the daily cash balances will be taken to the next MRC with an explanation for anyapproved variation and an action plan."34. The Liquidity Standard also states that net short term position (liquidassets / short term liabilities) must be maintained at 100% or greater with a "warningtrigger" if the ratio falls below 110%. The Liquidity Standard further states that "[a]nyexpected or actual exceptions to the positive net short term position forecasted within a90 day period will be reported to the Treasurer and MRC chair immediately and to the13A-13
"

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41222443
When arguing if the deposit is part of the captial contribution..

Is it ?I didn't go through the whole file ..if so that's a surprise to me.

http://www.secinfo.com/d19Pg4.u11.4.htm
Search
"that Washington Mutual Bank fsb (“WMB fsb”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank and subsidiaries,"

it had been a dead issue and been descibed in various court doc that wmb fsb is sub of wmb.

For example..in this
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/jp.pdf

This is halirious..
Bank Liabilities is more than only deposit, such as bondholder of the thrift,deposit is really regarding as asset of bank if you know the word levelage.

I believe she just very caution on adding any liability to debtor ..not she agree with debtor or JPM.
Equity is constitution of debtor and she will consider their argument diffently.

Rosen state in the court they won't use any work-product to push the confirmation of POR.

Sorry I stand corrected..
Just saw that.

EC can't reference anything under seal.
Where did you see that ,go read the order again.

How old are you ..

So you forgot the record date is March before the GSA announced.

You also said judge is weak and won't appoint an examiner

No the 1.88 bln doesn't belongs to WMI.FDIC suppose use the money to pay wmb bondholder first.

just a little correction

THJMW: I will not consider any additional revisions. If the Debtor has no further resolution of issues with the parties I will consider the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement as it is finalized by the Debtor.

Just make it clear..Catz.I am talking about large green I think his statement is wrong.
THJMW will address the issue: `Weather the DS should be confirm before the examiner`s report is out",not the DS itself.

It's amazing people make a conclustion base on something he claim to hear but refuse to even do a futhur research.
This might be the script he is referring to .
"Arthur Steinberg: With respect to Mr. Rosen’s last comment a confirmation hearing of December assumes that approval of the disclosure statement before the examiner has actually written a report about the substance of the global settlement and we reserve the right to make the argument that the next hearing date on the disclosure statement that the disclosure statement should not be disseminated until the examiners report has been issued and that the contents of the report and its significance as to the plan is fully disclosed in one document. I think people talked about trying to do this as a parallel track and cited the Tribune case as an example of the benefits of doing a parallel track well after the disclosure statement was out and money was spent to circulate the plan of disclosure statement the examiners report came about and based on the examiners report the fundamentals of the plan had radically changed to the point that the debtor withdrew the disclosure statement and I just think in the context of this case with so many people who have commented on the discloser statement that I think that there are probably 600 filed objections at various points in time that we want to reserve the right to be able to ask your honor not to disseminate the disclosure statement until the examiner has fully commented on the global settlement.

Rosen: Your honor Mr. Steinberg started out {??? 36:18} September 24th and we will be happy to address that at that time.

Judge: Alright I will address it on the 24th,

I don't see Judge say she will rule on DS on the 24th, she will address Arthur Steinberg's issue that `:With respect to Mr. Rosen’s last comment a confirmation hearing of December assumes that approval of the disclosure statement before the examiner has actually written a report about the substance of the global settlement and we reserve the right to make the argument that the next hearing date on the disclosure statement that the disclosure statement should not be disseminated until the examiners report has been issued`

Can we put this to a restÉ

LOL..You do know common can just simply get a pratial stake of new reorganized company without being paid by cash do you?

I can guarantee you that if those assets are hard assets, they are not going to sell them just to pay out the commons
I guess you don't have a single clue here.

I just don`t understand why debtor had to sell some of the asset to pay debtor or common? what's the logic behind it?
Have you ever look at the other bankruptcy case ?