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.
Sounds like they are expecting a clawback with that amount.
With all they have done illegal, why would they try to be legal now?
Strike
The way I read that, is JPMC is to furnish that to FDIC, who knows where its at/or if they ever did one.
Page 46
Execution Copy Washington Mutual Bank
Whole Bank P&A Henderson, Nevada
The Assuming Bank, as soon as practical after Bank Closing, in accordance with the
best
information then available, shall provide to the Receiver a Proforma Statement of
Condition
the Failed Bank as shown on the Failed Bank's books and
records as of Ban Closing and reflecting which assets and liabilities are passing to
the Assuming
Ban and which assets and liabilities are to be retained by the Receiver. In
addition, the
Assuming Bank is to provide to the Receiver, in a standard data request as defined
by the
Recei ver, an electronic database of all loans, deposits, and subsidiaries and other
business
Bank Closing. See Schedule 3. la.
indicating all assets and liabilities of
combinations owned by the Failed Bank as of
WMI Closing book Sept. 25th 2008.
http://wmish.com/docs/gib/Washington_Mutual_Bank_Closing_Book.pdf
That is when Rosen said there would be a 30 million burn rate, next to last hearing I believe.
Jed Clampet had oil coming out of the ground with a shot gun.
Just got another KCC packet, Notice of agenda.
Pretty good dip, hope its just profit taking.
Either that or someone who can read lips.
Dan B --- will donate to your cause if you have addy to send to.
EC needs to depose B.Rosen, J.Dimon, and S.Bair.
Anyone know if B. Rosen deposed anyone on the EC?
Thanks that is a great read.
posted by Bopfan on another board.
No Retroactive Bar to WMI's Claim Against the FDIC 48 minutes ago Yesterday there was a post suggesting that Congress would retroactively amend the FDIC statues to have the effect of undoing WMI's claim.
This is preposterous. In the first place changing or enacting a law to punish a specific person (WMI) is prohibited under the Constitution's ban against Bills of Attainder.
In the second place, it would likely violate the Constitution's ban against ex post facto laws, which are prohibited in criminal cases and disfavored in civil law where the retroactive legislation would punish.
Finally, the reason Congress enacted legislation that allowed claims was to give recourse against FDIC mistakes that resulted in losses. To close this window would mean the FDIC (a government agency) would face no liability for incompetently handled seizures resulting in losses. This is impermissible under the 5th Amendment which requires that the government compensate people whose property it has seized. WMI-punishing retroactive legislation would be unconstitutional if done only in WMI's case, but anyone can see how it could be done over and over again to limit the 5th Amendment's applicability to all sorts of takings.
I wouldn't worry about this; any legislation limiting claims would most likely be drafted to apply only to future FDIC claimants.
Posted by: mordicai Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:44:38 PM
In reply to: errett who wrote msg# 23959 Post # of 23962
And the actual bill:
http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/Financial_Regulatory_Reform062410.html
Just skimming the document, it still requires that fair value be received, it requires a finding that the financial institution "would have" an adverse affect on the economy as opposed to "has had" . So I don't think it could apply retroactively. Moreover, the fdic has entered into an agreement with the debtor. Sure this agreement can go out the window if there are changes made to it i.e. money to equity, but why do the agreement in the first place if this act has retroactive possibilities. Because of the fair value aspect I suppose... the new act doesn't get fdic off the hook for fair value. jmho.
Posted by: mordicai Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:44:38 PM
In reply to: errett who wrote msg# 23959 Post # of 23962
And the actual bill:
http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/Financial_Regulatory_Reform062410.html
Just skimming the document, it still requires that fair value be received, it requires a finding that the financial institution "would have" an adverse affect on the economy as opposed to "has had" . So I don't think it could apply retroactively. Moreover, the fdic has entered into an agreement with the debtor. Sure this agreement can go out the window if there are changes made to it i.e. money to equity, but why do the agreement in the first place if this act has retroactive possibilities. Because of the fair value aspect I suppose... the new act doesn't get fdic off the hook for fair value. jmho.
Posted by: mordicai Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:45:09 PM
In reply to: bluebird50 who wrote msg# 23961 Post # of 23962
I don't think any federal judge can uphold this. After filing the petition, a court has 24 hours to rule thereon. If not ruled on, it is deemed granted. What happened to due process? The bank would have no time to even retain an attorney, yet alone object. Obviously those that drafted this have never read the constitution.
posted on p bpard
Didn't the commoms have to reach $8.77 before the P's could be converted?
We do live in the boonies, but fed-ex has delivered here before, our address is clearly marked, the last time the hearing was already in progress 30 minutes, when fed-ex truck drives up with por.
Just recieved 2 package's (4 POR) that was delivered (by fed-ex)to a house a 1/4 mile from us, that was left on a neighbor's porch. Does Weils have stock in fed-ex and KCC?
FF up 11% - .1710= .209 usd.
Fed-ex truck drives up with second notice 30 min.s after hearing had started.
Posted on P board by Trailblasen.
Posted by: trailblazin Date: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 6:58:19 PM
In reply to: mordicai who wrote msg# 23265 Post # of 23270
good question....history gives us some clues as to how she might view this..maybe Rosen didn't get the memo:
Posted: Jan. 6, 2004
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.
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/jan04stories/1-04%20walrath.htm
Looks like they have unlimited supply @ 33.50 (shorting maybe ?).
I'm showing T/S last @ 34.00 scottrade, scottrade streamer shows 32.20, what do ya'll have as close?
Mine still the same, b .153 a .139.
Scottrade shows same all morning.
He was just on the wampq board.
First in first out, unless they are in another account.
I missed that part, is that your words or Hers? tia
I think the OTS has already given documents to WMI, but Roaen won't give copies to Susman.
I just got the same thing, what a waste.
Link below could be away to get info on copy & fax machines.
Maybe we will see those days again SOON.
Remember last year P's stayed at same price for quite awhile (AROUND $5.00) when they finally started to move, they moved fast.
Makes sense.
I feel we will come smelling pretty good, it's just hard to set back and watch, with volume, and all the buys this morning, and they drop the ask, maybe I should just go mow the grass.