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.
Can anyone figure out all those notice of service documents by Carlos I. Lara (anyone know his background)? This one from AT&T, if I remember correctly is from May. Are thaey that far behind in sending out paperwork, or does that mean something is about to occur with this document (The AT&T motion to seal)?
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100727000000000016.pdf
VooDoo -- Since we all believe there are billions lying around waiting to be counted, either we are wrong or they are there. If they are not there, isn't a listing of all assets going to still have to be part of a report? They will have to either match pre-seizure or account for what happened to them.
As far as criminal charges or reprimands for gross neglignece, I guess that will be determined. Hochberg may go easy on them in that area.
Going to be a boring few months, then all of a sudden, when this report comes out, all of our lives are going to be changed forever in one of three ways. (or somewhere in between) --
1. We get what we feel we deserve, both justice and financial satisfaction.
2. We get nothing. We can then decide within ourselves if justice was not served, or we were wrong. Our whole attitude towards many things, including life itself can be impacted.
3. Lots of protests, appeals, etc and then we sit and wait and wait, yet again.
RR82 -- Sorry I don't have Private reply. I think her lee-way means that examiner can start as soon as appointed and approved (which again I think took place at conference call) and signature can come at any time. Either that or she signed it already and it hasn't been filed yet.
UZ -- Don't know how important an immediate signing is. Basically, from the last court hearing, it sounds like the judge has quite a bit of lee-way here. She must approve examiner, which more than likely occured in a phone conference. I'm sure she will sign at her earliest convenience. All my opinion of course.
fixed -- Maybe they got a preview of the 6th revision of the POR, with the tax refunds being donated from JPM to FDIC in exchange for 1.4 billion of the money that FDIC was getting in in 5th revision.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did they "drop" it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News to me....Must be misprint.. Unless somebody knows something thats going to happen...
Fish,
I was hoping you could comment on my reply to Bop (copied here below)
Bop -- Weil has explained the following from you post:
Without more WMI and Weil are hung because there is no way they can explain why without discovery they could forfeit claims the estate has under the avoidance powers and FIRREA.
They explained it by saying FDIC and JPM had infinite resources to fight, but WMI does not. I think that is a bunch of crap, but will Weil, Rosen, etc be punished for that lame excuse, or will Hochberg come back and say, that it was a very weak, but not criminal not to pursue battle against JPM/FDIC
UZ -- BAsed on that timeline, I don't really see how Rosen can hope to get his POS POR/DS through in November. The way THJMW appears to be very methodical in her rulings, I don't see this probe by the examiner ending before the end of next year, barring a settlement somewhere along the way.
I still believe we will prevail and our accounts will be rewarded for our patience, but I can't help think that I could be earning more in a regular savings account right now and probably for the next 18 months.
Whoever stated that Hochberg traded in his $12,000 in JPM stock for $1.2 million in fees, definitely hit the nail on the head.
Voodoo -- I don't know. I pulled this from the Lehman's Examiner Report (foget which post from this board has the link), in relation to request fo SEC documents, so I don't know if THJMW can say, you don't have to hand over something specific, but anything related that can be turned over better be. IMO that leaves a lot of wiggle room. Or does the examiner just do his best and fills in the gap, by saying something like" Washingtom Mutual should not have been sold for 1.9 billion. JPM and FDIC won't provide documentation to show how they came up with that number. SInce I don't believe 1.9 billion, my number based on my facts is ......"
233
(a) SEC
In February 2008 the SEC commenced a special project to review the CSE’s price
verification processes for their CRE portfolios.805 Lehman cooperated with this process,
as did the four other CSE firms.806 The SEC did not produce a formal report for this
project and declined to provide the Examiner any formal conclusions produced in
connection with this project.807 However, the SEC provided the Examiner with its
informal analysis and comments during an interview.808
The SEC’s inspection included a review of the materials Lehman used in its price
verification process, and was initially focused on the marks reported as of January 31,
2008, and then as of February 29, 2008.809 The SEC began meeting with Lehman in
805 Memorandum from Raymond Doherty, SEC, et al., to Erik Sirri, SEC, et al., re: Scope Memorandum for
the Consolidated Supervised Entity (“CSE”) Commercial Real Estate (“CRE”) Price Verification
Inspections (Feb. 27, 2008), at p. 1 [LBEX-WGM 001752]. An e-mail widely circulated within Lehman
stated that “[t]he intent of the inspections program . . . is for the SEC to conduct meaningful and focused
inspections of the five CSE firms.” E-mail from Laura Vecchio, Lehman, to Christopher M. O’Meara,
Lehman, et al. (Jan. 22, 2008) [LBHI_SEC07940_068584]. The SEC’s letter to Lehman describing the scope
of the review stated that it would:
[F]ocus on (1) gaining a general understanding of the CRE products held in inventory by [Lehman],
including the related hedging strategies, (2) reviewing the price verification policies and procedures to
determine if appropriate valuation controls have been designed, and (3) testing the price verification
process to ensure that the controls are operating as intended. Ultimately, the staff will compare and
contrast the various CRE-related price verification policies and procedures across the five CSEs.
Memorandum from Raymond Doherty, SEC, et al., to Erik Sirri, SEC, et al., re: Scope Memorandum
for the Consolidated Supervised Entity (“CSE”) Commercial Real Estate (“CRE”) Price Verification
Inspections (Feb. 27, 2008), at p. 1 [LBEX-WGM 001752]
806 Examiner’s Interview of SEC staff, Aug. 24, 2009, at pp. 3-4, 13-14.
807 Id. at p. 14 (noting that the SEC never released its findings formally). The SEC expressed its concerns
informally throughout its inspection but no formal presentation was made .
808 Id. at passim.
809 Id.; Letter from Raymond Doherty, SEC, to Laura Vecchio, Lehman, re: Commercial Real Estate Price
Verification Inspection – Initial Document Request (Feb. 27, 2008), at p. 1 [LBEX-WGM 001754]; e-mail
from Thomas O’Dougherty, SEC, to Abebual A. Kebede, Lehman, et al. (Apr. 11, 2008)
Catz -- So even with examiner, the ball is contiually in THJMW's court. She ultimately will decide what is allowed and not allowed. We all know that JPM/FDIC will file protective orders against anything substantial that Susman doesn't already have.
After reading a good portion of the Lehman examiner's report, it is my belief that our examiner has to get an accurate valuation of assets before anything else can happen. Hopefully he can get all the information to do that. I would like to believe that most of that is public record.
My question is, can anyone argue the examiner's findings. Let's say after examiner is finished, he says the holding company has $15 billion in assets after paying all debt. Can JPM say that that money is really part of the bank, not the holding company?
UZ -- Do you know how the examiner compiles the data? Aren't examiners mostly attorneys who get the people they need to do the work they need to have done? Can they use Solomon to get their numbers or is that a conflict?
tunit123 -- I believe in simple (from a simple man) terms:
When the request for an examiner was originally made, it was based on criteria, like a 5 million dollar threshold and basically that it would be beneficial. The law says an examiner MAY be appointed. When it was originally denied, the big question became should MAY mean MAY or should MAY mean SHALL. Since debtors didn't hand over documents, THJMW decided to revisit the original request and elected to appoint one. Since there is no longer a question of what MAY means, there is no appeal.
Fish -- Don't want ANY connections for examiner. That gives other parties appealable capabilities.
Hammer -- Did Obama mention what he would use all that Stimulus money for, if not justice for the WAMU shareholders?
Windfall --
A little info on one of Hochberg's cases as examiner in DBSI bankruptcy:
Summary:
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2009/08/06/dbsi-investigator-issues-first-report/
Entire report:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DBSI_examiner.pdf
Haven't had time to read it all, but at least it gives some clue what we can expect from a preliminary report.
Chiron -- Agreed. What I'm wondering is if examiner finds damning evidence, if the parties can come to an agreement without evidence being sumbitted. Otherwise, either someone would have to make sure examiner doesn't find anything (bribe) or they know either any proof has already been destroyed, or there is no proof, which I then agree that we are screwed. I can't believe Susman is HOPING an examiner finds something. Doesn't seem his style.
On a side note, looks like we might be stuck for a few more months speculating about what an examiner may/may not find if there will or won't be settlement, etc. I think that answers the questions as to why pps is not skyrocketing.
NurseJEff --You are making the assumption no settlement can occur after examiner begins work. I believe numerous people on this board have posted otherwise. I myself am looking for that exact answer, because I agree with you that it is a very important detail as we move on here.
From article found on yahoo:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2026582720100720?rpc=44
The shareholders could complicate the case further. They want permission from the court to hold a shareholder meeting to elect a new board. To counter that risk, creditors have asked the court to convert the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation under the direction of a court-appointed trustee.
Walrath said she would also take up on Sept. 7 the issue of an annual shareholder meeting.
Did anyone hear this at the hearing yesterday? I didn't, but I was listening off and on. I don't think with an examiner appointed, at this point THJMW will go with a Chapter 7, but I am looking for opinions of those that are more legal savvy than myself.
VooDoo -- Just shows how powerful judges are. If we eventually get settlement, THJMW will get us untold wealth. If we get nothing, her EC and examiner rulings will still have close to 1/2 billion dollar effect in costs of all lawyers since her rulings.
Supra -- I must admit that I don't know all the fine lines that are now in play here. If you do, maybe you can enlighten the board, like the following:
1. What type of discovery / negotiations can still take place while examiner is at work?
2. How does examiner address issues if someone doesn't comply with request for information?
3. Is examiner allowed to take depositions?
4. At hearing today numerous parties stated that the agreement in place won't last forever. Why would anyone who agreed at this point back out if they are afraid the longer it takes to settle the less they will get? I would assume from debtors standpoint, the only issue would be if legal fees accumulate, the pots might get somewhat smaller. The only thing I see possible is that they turn on each other, like JPM wanting FDIC to give up everything, etc.
Anyone on board feel free to reply also. Thx.
I agree with earlier posts that this will still take a while and many won't invest in these types of stocks long term. Most here are relying on settlement, not pps increase day by day, and are willing to win big or lose it all if necessary.
Give you credit, Supra, for livening up the board with your adveserial remarks. If parties didn't want examiner, why didn't they allow it months ago? By now, they could be done, instead of whining that this is a delay and may cost them money.
Dude -- This piece from your link is interesting:
In most cases, examiners perform their investigations under less than optimal circumstances:
* Available information can be incomplete, disorganized, inaccurate, or nonexistent;
* The debtor is usually understaffed, and the staff available is not competent to handle the conditions; and
* Because of concern with the potential for unfavorable findings and conclusions, the debtor may be reluctant to provide certain information.
An examiner has no direct authority to compel a debtor to furnish information. He or she should attempt to make the debtor aware of the potential benefits to be gained from the work to be done. Among a debtor's motivations for cooperating with the examiner are:
* To influence the examiner's findings and conclusions;
* To avoid incurring the displeasure of the court for appearing obstructive; and
* To end any disruption, caused by the activities of the examiner, as soon as possible.
If the debtor refuses to cooperate, the examiner can report this intransigence to the court. The court response can range from compelling the debtor to produce documents, imposing a trustee, dismissing the case from Chapter 11, or ordering that the bankruptcy be converted to Chapter 7. A capable examiner will seldom, if ever, need to rely on the court to compel the debtor to cooperate. Generally, the examiner's best ally, if the debtor is unreasonable, is the debtor's attorney. The attorney will normally counsel his or her client vigorously against any actions likely to prejudice the court.
I hope JPM or FDIC pi**es of THJMW.
UZ -- Is this in addition to the sealed document that I think it was Rosen mentioned today about something like scope of the examiner being sealed?
Can FDIC/JPM appeal examiner? I assume Rosen would not.
I think it was FDIC's attorney saying Nelson was blowing smoke about $30 billion +. Question to board. If Nelson had such proof, should he have submitted it? Is that part of Solomon's work to come later? Or is FDIC attorney just throwing things out there, knowing documents exist, and hoping something sticks?
Scope is very critical here. Can't see THJMW allowing DS to move forward in parallel. Any opinions on that?
Susman????????
Lots of stuff to cover, since last one was adjourned without doing anything. Plus Rosen requested it.
ROCKIE -- I think in one sentence it means Susman if moving on with the business at hand in case settlement talks fell through/ never happened.
cheech -- It sounds like some of the documentation related to the motions is what was discussed in chambers. Susman believes since it wasn't discussed in public, it should be sealed.
Does he get an advantage by doing that is the question I can't answer. Since all the attorneys were in chambers and at least Rosen would have rights to document. Is this something that JPM can't see, since they are considered a third party here?
Fish -- I thik most of us were hoping it wouldn't get this far, as far as a shareholders meeting goes. HAs anyone been able to determine what materials will now be filed under Seal, or will it be pretty much everything?
Aladin -- At this point in the game, I would think that JPM would pay dearly to avoid a reversal, which would basically force them out of many western markets. Hopefully, they'll pay soon :}
emailjanum -- Can you give a brief summary of what happend to Lehman's in the settlement phase before court, leading up to the $8.6 billion dollar suit? Not a whole lot of detail needed. I'm just looking to see if a logical comparison could be made for the scenarios to attempt to make a speculation if JPM would even settle at this point or just let this thing go to court, figuring in another 2 years, they will have made an large amount of money thanks to the WAMU assets. Or if this is in addition to a fair settlement and this case is being brought on by the equivalent of our pre-seizure holders.
Thanks.
Steel58
UZ -- I guess the masses are just waiting until 9:30 for the real fun to begin. Would you happen to know if anyh paperwork get filed with court about depositions actually being taken?
longhaulq -- I really hope we get this thing over with soon. I'm sure Rosen still has few tricks.
Hopefully Susman reminded her of the fact that no ruling had been made on that (JPM providing asset list) while they were in chambers.
On a side note... Thanks to all who do the awesome DD for this board. I have to believe that there are some attorneys in this case browsing this board and using some posts to do further research.
Fish -- Your speculation seems logical to me. One question I have, if that is the case:
What can the resolution be?
Can it be anything other than Weil being conflicted out? I don't see how the judge can even allow a settlement at this point if Weil/JPM broke any kind of law?
Long-- I would think if Susman had a paper like that, he wouldn't have sealed it. Instead he would have whipped it out in open court and said:
"Your honor, we did get one piece of discovery I would like to share" -- then read the email. The next thing he would have said
is:
"Mr. Rosen , would you rather talk settlement or disbarrment and prison now?"
UZ -- If these are truly number crunching sessions, wouldn't it make sense for there to be only one offer that covered evrything? As others have theorized, JPM/FDIC can actually come out of this somewhat clean with a creative press release, like "there was confusion when the WAMU deal went down. In light of the circumstances, a complete good faith evaluation was done and we came up with X" "This should complete the transacation and JPM looks forward to continue to be the fine outstanding institution we have always been"
If there is any haggling (at least in the public eye) then any settlement is a judgement as opposed to a settlement offer.
They can't offer $2, then go to $12, then $20 and make it look like anything but lowball, weasel, or whatever. They would have to ALL come up with a fair number, say they agreed, and present it to the judge.
Anything else, we have a PO'd judge, a PO'd Susman and a long, long wait for the examiner's findings.
All my opinion of course.
Fish -- Can a resolution of a conflict of interest mean a settlement offer to end it quickly? I don't know that JPM or FDIC would like that very much. Wouldn't it almost benefit Rosen/Weil to be conflicted out, as long as there were no penalties/forfeiture of fees/ or possible prosecution associated with being conflicted out. If none of those things were attached, Rosen could get off the hook, some new attorney would have to start over and this would take for ever. If Weil had to give all the money back they made, then that would be a different story. If prosecution were involved, I would see Weil just begging to end it quickly. They would have to convince JPM and FDIC that the case couldn't be won, or else why wouldn't JPM/FDIC say screw you to Weil, let them suffer, get new attorneys and keep on fighting?