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.
____________________________________________
Better have a real dam tight contract drawn up!
_______________________________________________
Research Coram. Here is a slight start. It is worth a gander.
http://www.secinfo.com/dvjdn.21m.d.htm
JMFW was overseeing the Coram case.
http://homecaremag.com/mag/medical_judge_appoints_trustee/
Yes,i gotta admit he has been busy.
Found this interesting, especially the billing.
__________________________________________________________
Originally published March 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM | Page modified March 22, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Comments (9) E-mail article Print view Share
Sunday Buzz
Do WaMu logo and trademarks have value?
WaMu, mired in Chapter 11, pursues trademark and domain-name protections — even in Canada and Mexico. Also: construction drought idles Seattle's neighborhood design-review boards.
By Rami Grunbaum, deputy business editor, and Seattle Times staff
PREV of NEXT
TED S. WARREN / AP
The bank may be gone, but the fight over WaMu's logo and trademark goes on.
Washington Mutual's logo was pulled down last year from thousands of bank branches across the United States.
But Seattle law firm Perkins Coie is still pressing to win trademark protection for it in Canada and Mexico.
Customers, employees, stockholders and creditors all might think the value of that logo was severely tarnished — if not vaporized — when WaMu became the nation's largest bank failure and its Washington Mutual Inc. holding company fell into bankruptcy.
Yet even in Chapter 11, the company and its local law firm have kept up a surprisingly wide-ranging effort to protect and expand its intellectual-property rights.
This year Perkins Coie, on behalf of Washington Mutual, filed for trademarks on such lines as "The card that rewards you and your pet" and "Your Pet. Your Card. Perfect Together," according to billing records in the bankruptcy. Last fall it sought protection for the much mocked phrase that WaMu introduced not long before its September 2008 demise (and takeover by Chase): "Whoo Hoo."
Perkins Coie has also challenged other companies' trademarks, causing some hard feelings.
"I guess attorneys need to create work," says John Santarpia, CEO of Magnify Credit Union in Lakeland, Fla., a three-branch operation that wants to trademark the slogan "Simplify banking. Magnify life."
Perkins Coie opposed the trademark, arguing it's too similar to a phrase WaMu claims: "Simpler banking. More smiles."
"Not even close, but anyway, that's the world of corporate finance, where attorneys make money, including the attorney I had to hire," Santarpia fumes.
The payoff for the zeal of WaMu's attorneys remains uncertain. Last fall WaMu told the court it expects to get less than $1.5 million for its "non-core" intellectual property: trademarks and domain names that don't mention Washington Mutual or WaMu.
Those 400-plus domain names include obvious ones (friendofthefamily.com, tied to WaMu's old slogan), strategic ones (providiansucks.com, to lock up a reference to WaMu's credit-card company so no one else could use it), and completely inexplicable ones (percivalsluxurymonocles.com). The approximately 135 non-core trademarks range from "The power of yes" to "America's lending leader."
Meanwhile, billings for the IP work are adding up. According to a filing this past week in Delaware bankruptcy court, a top intellectual-property attorney with an hourly rate of $615 was the highest-billing Perkins Coie lawyer working on WaMu affairs in January.
Work related to disposing of the intellectual-property assets represented nearly half of the $65,575 Perkins billed for its January services to WaMu.
In all, the firm has billed Washington Mutual more than $1.5 million since the bankruptcy for a range of services involving everything from regulatory filings to employee benefits and business litigation.
Of course, that looks like chump change alongside the tab for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which billed WaMu $549,691 for January alone. Akin Gump led the negotiations that this month landed WaMu a $6 billion settlement from JP Morgan Chase and the FDIC.
WaMu said in a written statement that Perkins Coie is working with court approval "to protect and maximize the value of Washington Mutual Inc.'s assets, including its valuable intellectual property, to benefit the company's bankruptcy estate and its creditors." It declined to discuss any specifics.
Perkins Coie also wouldn't comment on its work.
The question that may not be answered until WaMu's remaining assets are sold to satisfy creditor claims of $7 billion or more:
Is the WaMu name and logo, with or without Canadian and Mexican trademarks, worth more or less than the clutch of Internet domains that WaMu owns for another well-known name — kerrykillinger.com, -.net and -.org?
I can not disagree with your statement.
Bankruptcy Law: U.S. Supreme Court Bankruptcy Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice Areas > Bankruptcy Law > U.S. Supreme Court Bankruptcy Cases
Sponsored Links
FindLaw > Practice Areas > Bankruptcy Law > U.S. Supreme Court Bankruptcy Cases
Selected U.S. Supreme Court Bankruptcy Decisions
Katchen v. Landy , 382 U.S. 323 (1966) (Bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to order the surrender of voidable preferences asserted and proved by the trustee in response to a claim filed by the creditor who received the preferences).
United States v. Security Industrial Bank , 459 U.S. 70 (1982) (Section 522(f)(2) was not intended to be applied retrospectively to destroy pre-enactment property rights).
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co. , 458 U.S. 50 (1982) (Section 1471's broad grant of jurisdiction to bankruptcy judges unconstitutionally conferred Art. III judicial power upon judges who lacked life tenure and protection against salary diminution).
Central Trust Co. v. Official Creditors' Comm. of Geiger Enterprises, Inc. , 454 U.S. 354 (1982) (Rule 11-42(a) must be read in conjunction with 403(a) to permit dismissal and refiling in certain cases, and that the operative test was whether the estate's interest would be served by such a procedure).
United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. , 462 U.S. 198 (1983) (Reorganization estate includes property of the debtor that has been seized by a creditor prior to the filing of a petition for reorganization).
National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco , 465 U.S. 513 (1984) (Language "executory contract" in 365(a) of the Code includes collective-bargaining agreements subject to the NLRA, and the Bankruptcy Court should permit rejection of such an agreement under 365(a) if the debtor can show that the agreement burdens the estate and that the equities balance in favor of rejection).
Ohio v. Kovacs , 469 U.S. 274 (1985) (Respondent's obligation under environmental cleanup order is a "debt" or "liability on a claim" subject to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code).
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub , 471 U.S. 343 (1985) (Trustee of a corporation in bankruptcy has the power to waive the corporation's attorney-client privilege with respect to prebankruptcy communications).
Midlantic Nat. Bank v. N.J. Dept. of E.P. , 474 U.S. 494 (1986) (Trustee in bankruptcy may not abandon property in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Congress did not intend for 554(a) to pre-empt all state and local laws. A bankruptcy court does not have the power to authorize an abandonment without formulating conditions that will adequately protect the public's health and safety).
Kelly v. Robinson , 479 U.S. 36 (1986) (Section 523(a)(7) preserves from discharge in Chapter 7 any condition a state criminal court imposes as part of a criminal sentence. Thus, restitution obligations, imposed as conditions of probation in state criminal proceedings, are not dischargeable).
Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers , 485 U.S. 197 (1988) (Absolute priority rule did not bar respondents from retaining their equity interest if they contributed "money or money's worth" to the reorganized enterprise, and that their yearly contributions of "labor, experience, and expertise" would constitute such a contribution, therefore permitting confirmation of a reorganization plan over petitioners' objections).
United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. , 484 U.S. 365 (1988) (Undersecured creditors are not entitled to compensation under 362(d)(1) for the delay caused by the automatic stay in foreclosing on their collateral).
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. , 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (Section 506(b) entitles a creditor to receive postpetition interest on a nonconsensual oversecured claim allowed in a bankruptcy proceeding).
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg , 492 U.S. 33 (1989) (Provided that Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder, the Seventh Amendment entitles a person who has not submitted a claim against a bankruptcy estate to a jury trial when sued by the bankruptcy trustee to recover an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer).
Langenkamp v. Culp , 498 U.S. 42 (1990) (Trustee's preference action became an integral part of the claims-allowance process, which is triable only in equity. As such, there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In contrast, a party who does not submit a claim against the estate is entitled to a jury trial as a preference defendant, since the trustee could recover the transfers only by filing what amounts to a legal action).
Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport , 495 U.S. 552 (1990) (The Code's language and structure demonstrate that restitution obligations constitute "debts" within the meaning of Section 101(11) and are therefore dischargeable under Chapter 13).
United States v. Energy Resources Co. , 495 U.S. 545 (1990) (Bankruptcy court has the authority to order the IRS to treat tax payments made by Chapter 11 debtor corporations as trust fundpayments where the court determines that this designation is necessary for the success of a reorganization plan).
Begier v. IRS , 496 U.S. 53 (1990) (Trust-fund tax payments from general accounts were transfers of property held in trust and therefore cannot be avoided as preferences).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. MCorp Financial, Inc. 502 U.S. 32 (1991) (Litigation is controlled by 1818(i)(1)'s plain, preclusive language: "[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction . . . the issuance or enforcement of any [Board] notice or order." That language is not qualified or superseded by the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay [502 U.S. 32, 33] provision, 11 U.S.C. 362).
Farrey v. Sanderfoot , 500 U.S. 291 (1991) (Section 522(f)(1) requires a debtor to have possessed an interest to which a lien attached, before it attached, to avoid the fixing of a lien on that interest).
Owen v. Owen , 500 U.S. 305 (1991) (Judicial liens can be eliminated under 522(f) even though the State has defined the exempt property in such a way as specifically to exclude property encumbered by such liens).
Toibb v. Radloff , 501 U.S. 157 (1991) (Bankruptcy Code's plain language permits individual debtors not engaged in business to file for relief under Chapter 11).
Johnson v. Home State Bank , 501 U.S. 78 (1991) (A mortgage lien securing an obligation for which a debtor's personal liability has been discharged in a Chapter 7 liquidation is a "claim" within the meaning of 101(5), and is subject to inclusion in an approved Chapter 13 reorganization plan).
Holywell Corp. v. Smith , 503 U.S. 47 (1992) (Trustee is required by the Code to file income tax returns and pay taxes on the income attributable to the property of both corporate and individual debtors. Trustee is an "assignee" of "all" or "substantially all" of the "property . . . of a corporation," and therefore is required by 6012(b)(3) of the Code to file returns that the corporate debtors would have filed had their property not been assigned to him).
Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz , 503 U.S. 638 (1992) (A trustee may not contest the validity of a claimed exemption after the Rule 4003(b) 30-day period has expired, even though the debtor had no colorable basis for claiming the exemption).
Dewsnup v. Timm , 502 U.S. 410 (1992) (Section 506(d) does not allow Dewsnup to "strip down" respondents' lien to the judicially determined value of the collateral, because respondents' claim is secured by a lien, and has been fully allowed pursuant to 502, and, therefore, cannot be classified as "not an allowed secured claim" for purposes of the lien-voiding provision of 506(d)).
Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain , 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (Interlocutory order issued by a district court sitting as a court of appeals in bankruptcy is appealable under the unambiguous language of 28 U.S.C. 1292. That section provides for review in the courts of appeals, in certain circumstances, of "nterlocutory orders of the district courts," and does not limit such review to orders issued by district courts sitting as bankruptcy trial courts, rather than appellate courts).
Patterson v. Shumate , 504 U.S. 753 (1992) (The plain language of the Bankruptcy Code and ERISA establishes that an antialienation provision in a qualified pension plan constitutes a restriction on transfer enforceable under "applicable nonbankruptcy law" for purposes of 541(c)(2)).
Pioneer Invest. Services Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. , 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (An attorney's inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim by the bar date can constitute "excusable neglect" within the meaning of Rule 9006(b)(1)).
Nobelman v. American Savings Bank , 508 U.S. 324 (1993) (Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits a Chapter 13 debtor from relying on 506(a) to reduce an undersecured homestead mortgage to the fair market value of the mortgaged residence).
Rake v. Wade , 508 U.S. 464 (1993) (Chapter 13 debtors who cure a default on an oversecured home mortgage pursuant to 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(5) must pay postpetition interest on the arrearages under 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) of the Code).
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 514 U.S. 300 (1995) (If an order remands a removed bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the order under 1447(d). That section, a provision of the general removal statute, bars appellate review of any "order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed.")
Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf , __ U.S. ___ (1995) (Petitioner's refusal to pay its debt to respondent upon the latter's demand was not a setoff within the meaning of 362(a)(7), and hence did not violate the automatic stay).
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards , ___ U.S. ___ (1995) (Well-established rule that "persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to that order," applies to bankruptcy cases.)
Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School
Recent Supreme Court Cases on Bankruptcy Law
.Latest Blog Posts
25 Greatest Fictional Lawyers
Lawyer Who Masterminded Vioxx Defense Named Merck CEO
Despite Big Risks, Firms Settle Massive Ground Zero Workers Case
Apple Threatens Suit Over Steve Jobs Action Figure
FindLaw's Video Editor Team
View More »
FindLaw Career Center
Search for Law Jobs:
Attorney Corporate Counsel Paralegal Judicial Clerk Investment Banker
Post a Job | View More Jobs
Tabs3 and PracticeMaster
Reliable billing and practice management software for law firms.
www.tabs3.com
ForensisGroup, Inc., Expert Witness
Not sure what type of expert you need? We'll help you figure it out.
www.forensisgroup.com
USLegalForms.com
More than 50,000 state-specific legal documents for your business.
www.uslegalforms.com
Ads by FindLaw...
It could reach the point of being settled before a group of judges.
Keep milking.......
Yanik;Have to agree,i am sick of the whining .
That would work.
Have music playing now.
Ilenes; YOUR HIRED !
Funny....Sad....But true
EXACTLY Up and Up.
After arguments so whatever is said will not be hashing over items that have already been brought to courts attention.
And i believe as Mr. Sussman said,the judge knows what she is doing.
Ilenes left a little early and i assumed she would realize i was talking about late tomorrow.
Ilenes;
Comment made after you left,shareholders speaking to the court will come later in day after oral arguments.
Thank you for all you do and good luck.
Steelheader7
I would like to know who went with him!
Very well said Tularay [THAT'S NOT FREEDOM. IT'S SELECTIVE OPPRESSION]
Thank you DanBB!
Ilenes,
Just got in and playing catchup on message and i am probably the last one to wish you a very HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
AGREED!
Excelent letter!
Great job!
The reason I posted the listings last evening of what banks received TARP funds is this. We were all told that the reason for the TARP funds is so the banks could stay solvent. Especially the large ones, "Too big to fail" is what I seem to recall here. But somehow WAMU 100 years in business unlike many on the list I posted did not fall into the "Too Big to Fail" list?
C'mon they did this right out in the open, they wanted JPM to own WAMU it's that blatantly simple. JPM gets what WAMU would have gotten for TARP monies, should it have needed it. Look at the list of small banks on this TARP list. Plain as the nose on my face anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If it could be proven that tarp funding program was in the works at the time of the theft of Washington Mutual.............
And i believe jpm had people inside WAMMU. Need some depositions on the right people... IMO
Took me awhile to copy ,and GLYA.
CONFIDENTIAL
March 19,2008
Stephen Dannhauser
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
JPMorganChase 0
Re: JPMorgan Chase Request for Proposal for Legal Services 200812009
Dear Mr. Dannhauser:
On behalf of Legal & Compliance department of JPMC, thank you for expressing interest in
participating in the JPMC 2008/2009 Legal RFP. JPMorgan Chase is acknowledging your
response to our RFP and confirming that we will accept the terms agreed upon and set forth
below, the terms of which will govem our relationship for the next two years along with the
200812009 Legal RFP and the Outside Counsel Manual. You may receive assignments from time
to time consistent with the substantive work you have historically provided or where in the future
your expertise is particularly relevant to a JPMorgan Chase issue.
We want to confirm the key standard terms that must be agreed upon between JPMC and your
firm, which agreement Signifies that your firm is considered a "sourced" law firm eligible to receive
JPMC own-account engagements.
NY2\187343TIOH145JXOI f DOCI99980.0001
Restricted For Use in Connection with Plan Confirmation Only WMI_PC_701361067.00002
CONFIDENTIAL
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
March 19,2008
The following details the agreement between your firm and JPMC regarding certain
representations by your firm of other clients who may have interests adverse to JPMC:
• JPMC will grant waivers to permit the firm to represent entities in
financial distress or classes of creditors in such situations, including in
bankruptcies, where JPI\I1C mCiy~av~.Cin adv~rse ... il1t~.r~l)t ..... W(3&M \Viii
obtain such a waiver from JPMC promptly after it becomes aware that
JPMC may have an adverse interest to WG&M's client (except where
WG&M's ethical and other obligations of confidentiality owed to the client
that is or is potentially adverse to JPMC require a delay in contacting
JPMC, in which case WG&M will use reasonable efforts to bring such
NY2:\J873437\OJII45JXOJ'DOC'.99980.000J 2
Restricted For Use in Connection with Plan Confirmation Only WMI_PC_701361067.00003
CONFIDENTIAL
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
March 19,2008
matter to JPMC's attention and obtain such waiver as soon as WG&M's
obligations of confidentiality to the other client no longer requires such
delay). Notwithstanding the foregoing, JPMC's waiver in such matters
will provide that the firm cannot be involved in any of the following
without a specific waiver at the relevant time:
1. The assertion and prosecution of any lender liability or similar
claim or allegation of JPMC misconduct or wrongdoing;
2. Subject to the provisions of the last bullet point of this section,
any attack on the validity or priority of JPMC claims, liens and/or
security interests asserted in the case; and
3. The prosecution of any proceeding to recover any monies or
other consideration paid or transferred to JPMC by or on behalf
of a debtor as a voidable transfer under the United States
Bankruptcy code or other applicable law or any such other
avoidance theory.
• If any claim or proceeding arises as described in paragraphs 1, 2 or 3
above, WGM would be proscribed from representing such party in
connection with such claim or proceeding unless JPMC gave a new
consent (which JPMC is under no obligation to give). Of course, the
above proscriptions are without prejudice to the ability of such party to
engage other or special counsel to pursue and prosecute any claim or
proceeding. In addition, such proscriptions would not preclude WGM
from representing such party in the negotiation with JPMC as to the
provisions of any restructuring or plan of reorganization, taking adverse
positions to JPMC with respect to such plan, or from objecting to any
proof of claim filed in the bankruptcy case by JPMC based upon the
calculation of amounts due in accordance with the applicable governing
documents; provided, however, to the extent that WGM attorneys or
personnel involved with the representation of any above-described
parties have participated or currently participate in any WGM
representation of JPMC, WGM will take appropriate measures to ensure
that no information gathered in the course of such representation of
JPMC is used to JPMC's disadvantage.
• The firm can represent opposing parties to JPMC in commercial
situations (i.e., representation of a borrower where JPMC is a lender, an
issuer where JPMC is the underwriter, a purchaser or seller of assets)
provided clearance is obtained from a lawyer at JPMC.
The Outside Counsel Manual in Section 4.4.2 requires your firm to provide quarterly reports
concerning diversity spend, customer or third party paid fees received by your firm and business
referrals to JPMC. Attachment B to this letter contains the reporting template for these quarterly
reports, along with a reporting schedule for 2008.
If members of your firm need to travel on JPMC business, please enroll all such professionals in
the Travel Online program. The enrollment process takes a minimum of 72 hours, so please
proceed to enroll those professionals who anticipate traveling for JPMC in 2008 now to facilitate
timely use of the Travel Online program. In order to enroll, please contact the following individual:
SahdySfldams
NY2:\1873437\OII145JXOI'DOCI99980.0001
Sandy.SUdams@JPMCliase.c::om
(614) 248-6528 Direct Line
3
Restricted For Use in Connection with Plan Confirmation Only WMI_PC_701361067.00004
This statement is meant to create the impression that the estate's best interests are served best if they do not disclose all assets!
How can that work in a bankruptcy court?
Is that even a possibility for the court to take seriously?
I hope not.
That's like me saying, sure I filed for bankruptcy but I didn't really mean it... not all of it... I mean, can't we keep some of our money for us... because we want it... ?
LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's exactly what there doing ,HIDING ASSETS.
IMO
on a sidenote:
wouldnt the debtor announce a positive ballot via press release?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
---------------------------------------------------------------
Have not heard that terminology used in a long time!
Cultural Dictionary
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark definition
A line from the play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. An officer of the palace guard says this after the ghost of the dead king appears, walking over the palace walls.
Note : “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” is used to describe corruption or a situation in which something is wrong
you mean in chamber?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Only matters that require confidentiality should be debated in camera and the Municipal Act clearly states what those matters are.
Matters concerning the security of property of the municipality. We don’t want everyone to know where we keep valuable equipment or how we protect our computer systems. A municipality might hire a firm to test its security systems or emergency measures without alerting staff or the public so that the test would truly reflect its state of readiness.
Personal matters about an identifiable individual including our employees or members of our boards should be discussed in camera. This section prevents us from discussing in public who owes taxes and who does not. It allows individuals to come to council in camera with plans for investments in the community without any competitors learning details. It prevents us from revealing any information about the suspension of employees, reasons for employee absences, such as illness or family crisis, in order to protect their privacy.
If the municipality is acquiring or disposing of property those discussions and negotiations can take place in camera.
Labour relation issues and employee negotiations are considered confidential.
Legal matters or potential litigation and advice from our lawyers are discussed in camera.
Any matter that is covered by another act such as the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act must be discussed in camera.
These are the only matters that may be kept from the public and they are the only matters that were by the outgoing council. Many seem unaware that we hold regular working meetings to discuss matters before we vote on them at regular meetings.
For example, at our working meeting, two weeks ago, we had an interesting presentation on replacing our street lights for a potential savings of one million dollars or more over the next fifteen to twenty years. We also discussed our project to install solar panels on municipal buildings to generate electricity to sell to the province for the next twenty years. Staff brought in samples for new street signs. Down the road, these topics will come to council for resolution having already been discussed . In policy meetings which are open to the public we review new by-laws and policies. During these less formal meetings, taxpayers are invited to ask questions or give pertinent information.
The next council needs to find more ways to make citizens aware of how it operates. Citizens must make an effort to inform themselves. As mayor, I would welcome phone calls and be ready to meet with you to answer your questions or resolve your concerns
Only pump and dump i can find........
Company: Mobil Media Un Ltd. Holdings Inc ( MMUH ) Promoter: shamrock stocks
11/16/2010
End of Day: Close: 0.0001 Volume: 100,314,999
Change: 0 % Change: 0
3 Month : High/Low: 0.001 / 0.0001 Volume 3m : 51,424,589
Compensation: $6,000 from Mobile Media Unlimited Holdings, Inc. for coverage on MMUH.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2010/11/wamu-shareholders-allege-fraud.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mehdi , considering what we normally get from the press that was a well written article.
I like your statements ,funny but true!
-------------------------------------------------------------
well, you can look at it two ways:
1) they have had 2 years to get their stories straight
or
2) they have had 2 years to forget what they are supposed to say
Something is abound in mamby pamby land does Rosen need a tissue?IMO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go Knick,i just love that commercial.
Good read for everyone!
EC OBJECTION
http://wmish.com/EC/obj/ec_obj.pdf
Agreed , everyone should read!.....Well , except JW
McCurry Objection: Another very good read.
11/17/2010 5965 Shareholder's Objection to the Confirmation of the Debtors Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Filed by Charles S McCurry (MEB) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101117000000000044.pdf
Thank you WithCatz ,everyone should read!
http://wmish.com/sh/101117_porobj.pdf
EXACTLY!
4:41PM Washington Mutual filed a supplemental notice regarding solicitation and election procedures for WMB Senior Note Holders (WAMUQ) 0.05 -0.01 : Co filed a supplemental notice regarding solicitation and election procedures for WMB Senior Note Holders with respect to the Company's proposed Plan of Reorganization.