Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
SEC charges 4 with insider trading
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer Marcy Gordon, Ap Business Writer – 46 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Federal regulators on Monday charged the co-founder of a New York hedge fund and three other individuals with insider trading, the latest action in what the government has called the biggest insider-trading case in U.S. history.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced it filed a civil lawsuit against hedge fund Trivium Capital Management, its co-founder Robert Feinblatt and analyst Jeffrey Yokuty. The SEC also filed charges against Sunil Bhalla, a former senior executive of tech company Polycom, and Shammara Hussain, a former employee at a consulting firm that did work for Google. The agency said Bhalla and Hussain provided confidential information that enabled Feinblatt and Yokuty to make about $15 million from trading on the information.
So far the SEC has filed civil charges against 27 people and hedge funds in a wide-ranging probe of the Galleon group of hedge funds and its founder. The government says Galleon funds made about $69 million in illegal profits. Raj Rajaratnam, the one-time billionaire founder of the Galleon funds, has pleaded not guilty. Federal authorities have arrested 23 people on criminal charges in the case; 14 have pleaded guilty.
The SEC alleged in its suit that Feinblatt and Yokuty traded using confidential information they received from Roomy Khan, a Florida investor who pleaded guilty in 2009 to conspiracy and securities fraud in the Galleon case. Khan has been cooperating in the government's investigation.
The SEC said that Bhalla gave Khan inside information on Polycom's fourth-quarter earnings in 2005, and that Khan traded on the information and gave it to others, including Feinblatt and Yokuty. The SEC also alleged that Hussain gave Khan confidential information about Google's second-quarter earnings in 2007.
Feinblatt, Yokuty, Bhalla and Hussain couldn't be reached for comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_bi_ge/us_insider_trading_hedge_fund
fsshon,
"I expect JPM to just completely "Paper" this deal and walk away with all cash and pay settled creditors."
What does this mean in laymans terms?
aladin61
Catz,
Can the EC sponsor it?
Washington Mutual Inc.’s Chapter 11 plan
promised releases to third parties that exceed what bankruptcy law permits, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath ruled on Jan. 7 in refusing to confirm the reorganization for the bank holding company.
Walrath, while saying WaMu’s global settlement is acceptable, found multiple defects in the plan beyond the over- broad releases. It is unclear whether the plan can be amended, some creditors given the opportunity to opt out of granting releases, and the plan confirmed by the Jan. 31 deadline contained in a global settlement. It is therefore possible the settlement may unravel.
Some third parties that would no longer receive releases also might withdraw their support for the settlement, unwinding compromises that underlie the reorganization more than two years in the making.
Walrath didn’t say in her 109-page opinion whether the changes she demands will require another vote by any creditor classes. She also didn’t rule on whether a revised plan will satisfy all requirements for confirmation. Her opinion did make enough findings to suggest that the plan can be confirmed using the so-called cramdown process, even though six classes voted “no” on the reorganization. Four creditor classes voted in favor of the plan.
Four-Day Hearing
Walrath held a four-day confirmation hearing concluding Dec. 7. She devoted the first 60 pages of her opinion to explaining why it is proper to approve the global settlement cobbled together by numerous parties including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. She concluded that the settlement is “fair and reasonable.”
WaMu said the settlement will enable distribution of about $7.5 billion to creditors. According to Walrath, proponents of the settlement believe it will bring full payment, plus interest, on “all creditors’ claims, except the lowest class of creditors, which are expected to receive approximately 74 percent of their claims plus the right to participate in an offering of stock in the reorganized debtor.”
With regard to most of the claims that WaMu agreed to compromise, the judge said the holding company was unlikely to achieve a better result through continued litigation.
Legal Arguments
One point of contention was whether WaMu could win approval of the settlement without revealing advice received from company lawyers. Walrath said it was “sufficient” to present legal arguments on both sides along with the relevant facts. Walrath said she could then “evaluate the likelihood” of success through continued litigation.
Walrath reasoned that the settlement properly grants releases to JPMorgan, the FDIC and the bank subsidiary. She found the settlement and plan defective in giving blanket releases to the creditors’ committee and its members, noteholders who negotiated the settlement, indenture trustees, the liquidating trust, and the liquidating trustee.
Walrath noted that the liquidating trust hasn’t even come into existence and hasn’t yet done anything to merit a release. For the creditors’ committee and its members, she said it is only appropriate to give them exculpation for the “role they played in the bankruptcy process.” They also won’t be released from claims for willful misconduct or gross negligence.
‘No Basis’
The judge found “no basis whatsoever” for giving releases to current or former WaMu directors, officers or professionals. She nonetheless said it was proper under case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to release those who “served during the Chapter 11 case.”
Walrath said that the plan must be revised so that the plan, not the settlement agreement, controls who receives releases.
The judge agreed with an objection from the U.S. Trustee and said WaMu made material changes in the plan in November, one week before the confirmation hearing began. Walrath said it was improper to change the plan so that a creditor not granting a release to third parties wouldn’t receive a distribution under the plan.
Walrath said it is acceptable under bankruptcy law for a creditor to receive no distribution under the plan if the creditor is unwilling to grant releases to third parties. Creditors must be given an opportunity to elect whether to give releases to third parties in return for receiving a distribution, Walrath said.
Improper Discrimination
It was an improper discrimination for the plan to deny the right to participate in a $100 million rights offering to a holder of a so-called Piers claim if the creditor has a claim for less than $2 million, Walrath said. She said that administrative convenience in not having small holdings isn’t permissible in bankruptcy law, even though it may require reorganized WaMu to be a reporting company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The ruling in this respect may be important in other cases where the right to participate in a rights offering is limited to creditors with larger claims.
Walrath ruled that all unsecured creditors must be paid in full before interest can be paid on any unsecured claims. Even late-filed claims must be paid fully before unsecured creditors can receive interest.
The judge said further hearings must be held before she can determine whether holders of the Piers securities are entitled to classification as a class of creditors ahead of equity security holders.
Unsecured Claims
Holder of notes issued by the bank subsidiary have unsecured claims, although the claims are subordinated under bankruptcy law to all other unsecured claims, Walrath said. She said classification in Class 17 was correct.
Walrath left open the rate of interest that unsecured creditors are entitled to receive.
Walrath issued a separate 20-page opinion on Jan. 7 concluding that alleged holders of trust-preferred securities no longer have any interest in the securities because they were automatically converted into preferred stock of the holding company when the bank subsidiary was taken over by regulators.
Walrath said the record wasn’t yet complete enough for her to rule on whether the holders should be treated as creditors or equity holders.
Disputed Facts
With regard to the lawsuit brought by holders of so-called litigation tracking warrants, Walrath said there are disputed issues of fact precluding her from ruling. So long as $347 million is set aside to abide the outcome of the litigation, she said the property at issue can be sold because there is a dispute about ownership.
Click here to read the May 18 Bloomberg bankruptcy report for a summary of WaMu’s original plan. To read about the settlement before it was modified, click here for the May 24 Bloomberg bankruptcy report. For a summary of changes WaMu made to its plan in October, click here for the Oct. 7 Bloomberg bankruptcy report.
The WaMu holding company filed under Chapter 11 in September 2008, one day after the bank subsidiary was taken over. The bank, once the sixth-largest depository and credit- card issuer in the U.S., was the largest bank failure in the country’s history. The holding company filed formal lists of assets and debt showing property with a total value of $4.49 billion against liabilities of $7.83 billion.
The holding company Chapter 11 case is In re Washington Mutual Inc., 08-12229, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Analysis
The Implications of Walrath’s Opinion
Walrath’s opinion is a lengthy and lucid summary of all parties’ arguments for and against the plan. It is also a dissection of numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities in proposed releases and other provisions in the plan that could have resulted in later disputes even if the plan were confirmed.
For those who believe bankruptcy judges in Delaware and New York will approve any major initiative by a large company in reorganization, the opinion shows Walrath’s independence and willingness to rule against a debtor even at the risk of upsetting the underpinnings of a reorganization.
In this writer’s judgment, Walrath’s opinion is a turning point in the history of Chapter 11. It reflects a growing tendency on the part of bankruptcy judges to push back against increasing control of Chapter 11 cases by investors who purchased debt at discount.
How do you order dimeq in a Schwab account?
I thought I might buy some dimeq this morning in my Schwab account, But Schwab does not seem to recognize Dimeq? What am I doing wrong?
Interesting,
Two weeks before Christmas, I received an email from the Security dept. where I work stating that "Due to my security clearance,it is illegal for me to go on wikileaks website at work or from home".
A really interesting thread on the Y presently
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=655738&mid=-1&tof=4&rt=2&frt=2&off=1#-1
So what do you think it will settle at?
Equity commitee member reimbursement:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110104000000000004.pdf
I wonder what is with all the calls from Chile?
Catz,
you definatly have a lot a patience...
By the way Happy New Year.
Thanks Catz...
Quick question,
What is a warrent and if they offered us warrents, who would it be from, JPM?
Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Request to Unseal Documents
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101227000000000020.pdf
Made it back from Texas safe and sound to bring in the New Year! The wife and I stayed at a hotel last night on the River Walk in San Antonio. What a cool place. Anything good happen in the last week that I should know about?
Merry Christmas all...
I'll be gone for a week, Heading to Killeen TX. Helping move my niece there for when her husband gets back from Iraq soon.
JPMorgan Chase ought to pay employees of the former Washington Mutual the retirement benefits they have earned
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008220763_edit02chase.html
I would put money on it, that Rosen doesn't think you are old and feeble.
Thank you Ilenes for all that you have done.
Merry Christmas!
Posting for patience..
Theme Two: Work Product Dilemma
In short, the EC closing argument presentation illustrates with Martin Factors (legal standards) in mind and debtors’ testimonies (factual evidence) on display that the debtors have failed in presenting any credible evidence/analysis as to the likelihood of success in litigation claims, one way or the other.
This is my reading of EC closing argument and my assessment of our strength in the confirmation battle. I won’t dwell upon EC presentation Pt. 3 further , which is pretty straightforward, and everyone can understand it. I won’t speculate on the Judge’s decision either. My comfort zone lies not in more speculations, but in understanding the strength and merits of our arguments as presented to the court. I believe this is the sensible way to deal with uncertainties and be prepared for unpredictable outcomes.
On a final note: Eyes on the prize, don’t be distracted by sideshows.
Patience360
end of message
Posting for patience..
Theme Two: Work Product Dilemma
On_ the_ other_ hand, according_ to_ testimonies, the_ debtors_ indeed_ relied_ upon_ the_ counsel_ in_ litigation_ analysis_ and_ evaluation_ but_ such_ 'factual_ basis', or_ 'analysis', or_ 'discussions'_ are_ 'privileged_ and_ confidential'_ [slides_ 42-44, 46-52, 56-57]. Then_ how_ can_ any_ reasonable_ person[s]_ make_ proper_ assessment_ that_ the_ debtors'_ counsel_ provided_ the_ Estate_ with_ the_ credible_ analysis_ as_ to_ the_ likelihood_ of_ success_ in_ litigations, especially, given_ the_ magnitude_ of_ the_ stake_ and_ the_ incredible_ imbalance_ between_ claims_ compromised_ and_ claims_ received? Slides_ after_ slides_ re-enforce_ such_ suspicion_ in_ any_ objective_ and_ reasonable_ readers'_ minds. Furthermore, "Q. ... And_ again_ I_ just_ want_ to_ confirm_ that_ nowhere_ in_ this_ section_ of_ your_ declaration_ do_ you_ [Kosty]_ provide_ any_ testimony_ as_ to_ the_ likelihood_ of_ success_ of_ those_ claims. Is_ that_ fair? A. That's_ fair. Yes" [slide_ 45]. And_ "Q. Okay. So_ whatever_ WGM_ had_ to_ say_ when_ it_ came_ time_ for_ you_ to_ assess_ the_ weaknesses_ and_ strengths_ of_ the_ claims_ for_ the_ purposes_ of_ evaluating_ a_ settlement, you_ [Kosty]_ erased_ anything_ that_ they_ told_ you_ from_ your_ mind_ ... Is_ that_ fair? A. I_ don't_ think_ you_ can_ erase_ it_ from_ your_ mind." [slide_ 48]. So_ what's_ going_ on_ here? A_ total_ confusion_ and_ double_ talk.
A posting from patience360 from yahoo
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=645373&mid=645373&tof=4&frt=1#645373
had to start again.. censors butchered the last attempt..
Posting for patience..
Theme Two: Work Product Dilemma
In retrospect, debtors might have done themselves a disservice by claiming attorney-client privilege during the examiner motion debates in early June. This was one of the issues, if we recall, that pushed the Judge to lean towards EC’s position for the examiner if the debtors cannot or would not share their work products with other interested parties. Even though the ER in the end turns out more in favor of the debtors’ position, it was timely enough tossed out by the Judge based on (1) hearsays of ER without sworn depositions, and (2) heavy reliance on debtors’ work products which the court said they cannot be used in Plan confirmation if not shared (those are EC’s arguments too in objection motion). Given the conditions that (a) the debtors cannot and would not share attorney-client privileged information, and (b) those information are therefore prohibited by the court from being used in Plan confirmation, it’s therefore no small wonder the Judge was curious that how can you (the debtors) prove the reasonableness of GSA and Plan? and subsequently observed that the debtors “are walking a fine line”.
So here is the dilemma. If the debtors worked out GSA/POR without relying on their legal counsel’s advice, is it credible their judgment of complicated litigation issues? For instance, what’s the value of IP? They don’t know (slide 53: Goulding “I wouldn’t be able to testify the value of IP”). Or what about tax refund claim? Another vague response by the debtors (slides 54-57, Kosturos and Smith testimonies)? Here comes Spanision decision: “Incredibly, [Restructuring Consultant] Brincko testified that in reviewing the Settlement Agreement and making his proposal to the Board of Directors, he did not rely upon advice received from counsel.” (slide 40)
I like your optimisum.
some of us are awake in Calif. I normally go to work at this time but am off till next year.
I hope so too.
Not sure if this has been posted...b4
BILLABLE HORRORS
By Celia Cohen
Grapevine Political Writer
A lawyers' bill for $25 million -- that is not a misprint -- has a Delaware bankruptcy court judge chastising two major law firms for "contentious, disorganized and wasteful" conduct and ordering the legal charges be reduced, although it remains to be seen by how much.
This unusual expression of judicial displeasure came from Mary F. Walrath, the chief judge of Delaware's respected U.S. Bankruptcy Court, one of the nation's busiest for the corporate mega-cases that can involve billions of dollars in claims and millions of dollars in legal fees.
Walrath's biting, 33-page opinion about the billing was directed at two firms -- Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub and Kirkland & Ellis.
Pachulski, which is headquartered in Los Angeles, is a national player in bankruptcy law. Its Wilmington office is anchored by Laura Davis Jones, a star bankruptcy practitioner who was named "Deal Maker of the Year" by The American Lawyer magazine in 2002. Jones was mentioned by name in Walrath's opinion.
Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based firm also recognized for its bankruptcy work, is home to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who pursued President Clinton. Locally it is recognized as the law practice retained by New Castle County because of its experience with libel law. The firm represented Chiquita in winning a front-page apology and $10 million for reporting by the Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper owned by the Gannett Co. Inc., also the parent of The News Journal.
The two firms represent Fleming Companies Inc., a Texas-based supplier that counted the troubled Kmart chain as a customer. Fleming filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 1, listing assets of $4.2 billion and debts of $3.5 billion, according to Food & Drink Weekly.
The firms filed what should have been a routine quarterly application for fees and expenses, covering the charges from April 1 through June 30, but the filing was challenged by the U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department that monitors billing as the designated "watchdog" of the bankruptcy system.
Walrath took a look at the bills totaling $25 million herself, citing case law that says the court "must protect the estate, lest overreaching attorneys or other professionals drain it of wealth." She clearly did not like what she saw and wrote in the tone of someone who has seen enough.
The judge issued her opinion on Dec. 23, the eve of Christmastime vacations, admonishing the lawyers. She scheduled a hearing for Feb. 10 to deal with her concerns.
"The overall conduct of this case has been contentious, disorganized and wasteful of the time and efforts of both this court and other counsel involved in the case. The warnings of the court have gone unheeded by counsel for the debtors as the same 'mistakes' continue to be made time and again. The court has no other alternative but to reduce the fees requested," Walrath wrote.
"The problem the court has with the fee requests is that many of the actions taken by debtors' counsel in this case were improper or appeared to be designed to frustrate the legitimate rights of the other parties in this case. The court has advised counsel for the debtors, on numerous occasions, that it considered their actions inappropriate," she added.
Walrath questioned whether the number of attorneys was excessive and top-heavy with senior personnel and whether some travel expenses, which totaled more than $100,000, were unnecessary. She even challenged copying costs, noting that document binders were stuffed with irrelevancies that increased charges and wasted the time of the court and staff reviewing the material.
"We continually reprimanded counsel for the debtors for this. In several instances, we handed counsel from Pachulski the excess binders at the beginning of the hearing. The practice ceased only recently after we advised Pachulski that we would not reimburse them for this," Walrath wrote.
This is not the sort of treatment that top lawyers are accustomed to receiving. In fact, just as the Fleming bankruptcy case was commencing, Pachulski -- in large measure because of Jones -- was being awarded an extra $1 million by U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. for what he called the firm's "skill and expertise" in handling a corporate bankruptcy case involving $3 billion in claims.
Jones did not have much to say about the Fleming case, beyond noting that the lawyers were preparing for the upcoming hearing. "The judge has given us an opportunity to file a response," she said. "I'm looking forward to the opportunity."
Not surprisingly, Walrath's opinion has caught the attention of the state's bankruptcy lawyers. "Everybody needs to read this. It's a primer on how not to manage a case before Judge Walrath, or any other judge, for that matter," said James L. Patton Jr., a leading bankruptcy attorney with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington.
Despite the high profile of the bankruptcy bench and bar here, Walrath's opinion appears unlikely to spill into the political arena, where Delaware's congressional delegation has been working for years to have the court expanded to deal with an overloaded docket. Currently there are two judges, the delegation would like four more, and in the meantime the court is making do with visiting judges.
The delegation's efforts are being led by U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He does not believe Walrath's opinion has bearing on the central reasoning, which remains unchanged, according to Margaret Aitken, the senator's press secretary.
"It's always a battle, but Sen. Biden has said many times that he feels the caseload more than justifies the need for additional bankruptcy court judges," Aitken said. "It's tough getting it through, but he's going to continue trying and doesn't think this will have much of an impact."
New stuff from kccllc...
Response of Daniel Hoffman to the Motion of the Equity Committee Granting Relief from the Confidentiality Agreement Governing Confirmation Discovery to Permit Reference to the Debtors' Work Production Upon Closing of the Courtroom
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101215000000000007.pdf
Notice of Withdrawal of Document re: Response of Daniel Hoffman to the Motion of the Equity Committee Granting Relief from the Confidentiality Agreement Governing Confirmation Discovery to Permit Reference to the Debtors' Work Production Upon Closing of the Courtroom [Docket No. 6347]
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101215000000000008.pdf
Supplemental Memorandum of Daniel Hoffman to His Request to Unseal Documents that Were Filed with the Court Under Seal on July 7, 2010 [re: Docket No. 5753]
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101215000000000009.pdf
Item #42 - Request to Unseal and Post Documents for Public Viewing -- Hoffman Motion
:o)
AP Enterprise: FAA loses track of 119,000 aircraft
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_misplaced_planes
NEW YORK – The Federal Aviation Administration is missing key information on who owns one-third of the 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. — a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers. "Or JPM"
This is entertaining: Escondido bomb house burning:
http://www.10news.com/video/15013365/index.html
How come the clip for Ilene has been removed? She must have done even better than we imagined.
OT but very interesting
This is about 3 miles from me, ought to be cool to watch.
Featured story
The largest amount of homemade explosives ever found in one location in the United States will be destroyed on Wednesday,
Authorities will attempt to burn an Escondido-area home that is packed with crates of shrapnel grenades, jars of white explosive powder and jugs of volatile chemicals. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the ranch-style home belongs to accused bank robber George Djura Jakubec, and has been described by prosecutors as a virtual bomb-making factory. Police were called to the house on Nov. 18 when a gardener scuffed his foot in the backyard, which caused an explosion.
The planned demolition will involve dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts, but can only take place if weather conditions allow. In preparation for the highly controlled fire, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency, and hospitals have been placed on standby in case people become sick. Eighteen sensors that will measure the amount of chemicals in the smoke have been installed, and a 16-foot-high fire-resistant wall has been erected between the property and the nearest home.
WaMu, Madoff, Point Blank, Abitibi, GM: Bankruptcy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/wamu-madoff-point-blank-abitibi-gm-bankruptcy-update1-.html?cmpid=yhoo
Did Hoffman get to speak yesterday?