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.
Strike -- I am not an impatient man (pushing 2 years waiting for my money!). Maybe you are right. It will be nice to see his expression when he is forced to offer a fair settlement. Then once everything is concluded and THJMW goes back through billings to determine accuracy, I will gladly send my letter then for his disbarrmen!
SLYONE -- I am definitely not an attorney. I think that the FDIC being a government agency may be able to use protective order to a point. Rosen howerver, may not. Some quick DD found me this case.
http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/900
In it, a debtor's attorney was not allowed a protective order.
In general, I would think that an examiner may not find every piece of information, but would be able to find enough smoking guns to force a settlement that is fair.
ILoveStocks -- I will gladly use your DD as my template to notify THJMW of my disgust towards Weil, etc, especially Rosen. I also intend to copy and insert the letters Rosen wrote to McMahon regarding the Weil, etc. stance that there was no need for an EC. The letters signed by Rosen say that they are doing everything possible for all equity holders. Those letters and the rest of the motion to disband the EC are 50 pages worth of lies. He needs to held in contempt, disbarred and prosecuted.
Also, I was thinking about this as I work on my letter to THJMW. If every objection, statement of support, etc that we send gets entered into the docket, that is free DD for Susman, etc.
Thanks again for your contribution to the board.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100111000000000033.pdf
Hotmeat -- If you happen to have access to the document where Rosen said that they were representing shareholder, ILoveStocks may be able to incorporate it into his latest objection document he is creating. If not, I will try to find it later this week.
DanBB -- That would also give Rosen time to mail us all some more crap. Maybe his new plan is to totally wipe out equity by spending billions in legal fees!
william -- what you say makes sense. I just have one question (probably more1). WHere does the meet and confer fit in here? Come the 17th, if Susman doesn't already have quite a few documents, I would think examiner would be appointed. If that happens, could Rosen still promise documents or is discovery then done until examiner is finished?
Does anyone on board think Susman has at least some type of POR/numbers ready if need be? Or is it now pretty much that since examiner/discovery needs to be worked out, that no one will submit POR (other than Rosen's of course) for quite a while?
Chiron -- If I remember correctly from last meeting, didn't THJMW want the appeal to be heard to more clearly define shall. Does it mean must or may?
I think she stated that with a new motion, shall becomes irrelevant to her because she knows that the reasons she denied previously no longer exist. (has NOT been investigated to death), so she can appoint an examiner with a new motion while letting another court decide for all-time what shall means.
eet2 -- I would say that Rosen and his buddies spent well over $250,000 mailing us theose agendas (I got 2 copies), as well as notifications that we must submit objections, in addition to the cost of processing all the ones we sent them. THJMW will hopefully comment on that.
boarddork --#3 on that objection should make THJMW happy. I would also assume that if the meet and confer go well, the EC could withdraw motion to shorten, so if I was judge, I would not agree to the objection.
JHDF51 - I don't have time to go back through the transcript, but I thought THJMW said if she ruled for an examiner brought up by a new motion it would not be appealable, because the meaning of shall becomes irrelevant and the $5 million minimum had been met. I could be wrong though.
If we get an examiner through appeal, who decides scope that examiner may look into -- 3rd Circuit or THJMW? Either way, until we get better picture of scope, examiner not very helpful
What I don't understand, if Susman is attempting to maximize assets and Weil is not, shouldn't Weil be repalced by Susman, so the estate doesn't have to waste all Weil's legal fees? If Weil wants to represent JPM and fight against having over certain documents, so be it, but shouldn't JPM pay for that defense, not WMI?
Interesting discussion on the Y board about the thoughts of Rosen pitting preferred against common by giving preferred something (maybe 20%) and still saying common nothing. I beleive many of us on this board have at least some of both. Any thoughts thoughts on if Rosen could successfully make commons and preferred enough at odds to have offer pass and screw commons?
As far as whether the EC and WMI are on the same side or advesaries, isn't it true that EC will only get paid AFTER everyone else, so how can we be anything but trying to maximize assets? That by default should automatically tell THJMW that Rosen should be ousted, disbarred and imprisoned. If those things don't happen very soon, Susman better find a way to make it so.
Lex -- Would Rosen really appeal? I would think they would have to offer a settlement before this thing is concluded. If they appeal, everything would be out in the open already an criminal probes will start, I would think.
IF E/C can be deposed, can Rosen? eom
Dude -- I voter for getting rid of the EC. I'll gladly leave for $50 a share!
NT7110 -- Thanks for sharing the article. Whoever wrote that has no clue what they are talking about. Just the two paragraphs below show the author has done absolutely no research:
That number won't sit well with anyone who lost a job or a retirement fund when
Washington Mutual collapsed. But that money would not otherwise flow to such
victims; it comes from the pot that will almost certainly go only to the former
bank's many classes of creditors.
Who says there will be no money for those that lost retirement money (hopefully they kept their shares, or are buying now)
The bankruptcy, now 20 months old, is a multi-front war where alliances
sometimes shift and new battlefields erupt frequently. But one thing doesn't
change_the hired guns are paid extraordinarily well to fight over a company that
has insufficient funds.
Nobody knows what funds are available because our teammates (weil - either don't have any numbers or are hiding them), so how can this bozo say they are insufficient.
VooDoo -- Hope you're right!!! EOM
STRIKE -- I would assume that all paperwork would be turned over, other than the work-product and third party stuff (subject to other hearings), unless at some point after meeting next week that Susman files emergency order to get documents that they aren't given at meeting (or at least a schedule of when documents will be turned over). Don't think judge wants to hear that stuff weasn't turned over. I'm sure there will have to be requests and fights with FDIC, JPM until examiner appointed, otherwise this stall can go on endlessly.
Hopefully JMW keeps court presence she had yesterday, so hopefully we win soon.
Climber ---
From the transcription Fish so kindly provided:
THJMW: But it can be invaded by an examiner? So maybe I should reconsider if you’re not going to produce that for one of your constituents, then why should I not appoint an examiner to whom I will direct that you give everything which I thought I had directed May 5th that you give everything to the committee.
Your Honor The reason not to do it, would be the same reason that your honor previously articulated I believe the words were “this has been investigated to death.” And your honor just like “cut-off again thjmw”
THJMW: If it has been investigated to death, my suggestion was the fruit of that investigation should be produced to the parties. “It hasn’t been!”
That is why THJMW will hopefully appoint examiner (unless we get our $24.00 settlement first!)
I may wait until the weekend, but out of curiosity, went to one of first few months Weil was on payroll:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090313000000000021.pdf
That month (page viii) they ran up over $1.2 million in litigation fees. I would hope they have some documents from all that work. Wonder if Susman will go through all their bills and ask for what was produced in all those hours.
PickStocks -- I think the JMW is now very aware of waht you describe in your first paragraph and don't think she is willing to have things go that way anymore. She knows Rosen is not on our side, though it apepars to me she thinks he should be. I don't see any way that DS /POR passes now or that Rosen keeps control of proceedings.
What I would have like to have heard THJMW say yesterday to the piece of the transcription Fish provided (in red below):
JMW should have said: What do you mean this is the way you understood it --- You are a world-reknowned law firm. I have over 500 objections to your DS (because of you Mr. Rosen). The vast majority of those objections are not from attorneys, but common shareholders that care about their investment and justice. If they all can state that Weil, JPM and FDIC are not handing over documents even though you (JMW) told them to, so we need and examiner, it must be fairly obvious what I meant by handing over all the documents. Are yiou lying to me Mr. Rosen? Do you think I am that stupid, not to be able to see through your games?
Your Honor The reason not to do it, would be the same reason that your honor previously articulated I believe the words were “this has been investigated to death.” And your honor just like “cut-off again thjmw”
THJMW: If it has been investigated to death, my suggestion was the fruit of that investigation should be produced to the parties. “It hasn’t been!”
Your Honor let me just be clear about, I hear I hear what you’re saying about giving them the fruits and let me just explain what we understood it to mean and what I think is a reasonable understanding and proposal. What the court has said the supreme court all the cases that talked about work product, they all said hey look of course you could say it would be more convenient if you could get the analysis, but your honor what they , they will do their own analysis, I would love to think that Quinn Emanuel internal memos and research is such hot stuff that without it they can’t do their own analysis, but of course they’ll do their own analysis, they need to do their own analysis, so your honor what do they need, what are the fruits of the investigation that they need, what they need are the underlying facts and when they get the underlying facts of these investigations that have been investigated to death, they take all that factual info and they can draw and they will draw their own opinion. Now in their justification your honor even if garner did apply one of the prongs in garner is need and by the way under the work product doctrine which is nearly absolute you have to show a far stronger showing than just Need and substantial hardship, look at the part of their brief when they talk about what is their supposed need. Your honor what you see is they don’t say they really need to look through my files, my legal analysis. What they say is we can do, they say they can do these analysis, they never say they can’t this isn’t like a dead witness, that’s when the courts have found on rareability, they say they can do it, but it might cost more and take a little more time. That is a plea of convenience, it’s not a showing of need. Your honor is there were an order here where you were requiring us to turn over work product materials it would go against what the 3rd circuit has flatly said which is work product is not subject to the garner exception and it is a near absolute protection “cut-off thjmw”
THJMW: It’s a protection from 3rd parties, not from your client, your client
Question about documents -- AS was mentioned in an earlier post, I'm sure there are shredding of documents parties going now at Weil, JPM, FDIC, OTS and other places. If there are no documents that can accurately track what happened to all WMI's assets, would they have to use the last documents available, most likely some of Washington Mutuals 2008 filings before seizure to see what all they had?
Or can THJMW force those documents to be "found" by forcing Dimon, Paulson, Bair, etc to testify to ANY questions asked by EC?
To those board members in court room today - 2 things:
1. Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Did anyone from Susman's team happen to mention what the data room looked like?
Fish -- If JMW believes what yuo say to be true, that Debtor and EC's are now advesaries, then coould possibly this document have some value? It's in regards to Wachtell work-product that was mentioned today.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/04/articles/litigation/news/three-ways-to-lose-your-business-lawsuit-wachtell-and-the-failed-hexion-huntsman-merger/
Dual role can cause loss of work-product.
From article:
The blurry line between Duff's consulting and opinion work would later come back to haunt Wachtell in Delaware. Vice-Chancellor Lamb ultimately concluded that Duff's consulting assignment cast doubt on the objectivity of its solvency opinion. Moreover, the dual role destroyed any potential work-product privilege claim over the Hexion team's communications with both the Duff litigation consultants and solvency experts. Duff had to provide comprehensive discovery to Huntsman, which was a huge gift to Huntsman's Vinson & Elkins litigators.
I would say that Weil, etc could be acused of dual role -- helping debtors (but not trying to maximize assets for EC and others) as well as getting JPM FDIC off hook.
What it takes to legally make that happen, I have no clue, but food for thought.
Still think Susman should have been there today. EOM
Will FDIC now reject DS/ Settlement? It sounds like FDIC will do ANYTHING not to be probed in any way. Could they possibly reject settlement and force Rosen into a better one to get rid of EC from probing?
Hopefully Rosen isn't trying to bribe THJMW while we can't hear anything!
WOW -- JMW reconsidering examiner, saying EC and debtors on same side!!!!
I would hope at the very least, that she extends times and does not rule on the DS at all. If I were her, I'd be pi**ed. This sounds like the exact same hearing from May, so Rosen apparently didn't obey her demands to produce documents.
JMW seems to be siding with discovery, but if she OK's DS, it will be tough to get anything needed and used by confirmation. Rosen keeps saying he will have everything by confirmation. she better not go for that.
Some VERY light reading while we wait:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/what-you-can-wear-at-weil/
Been holding 5,000 shares of CORS for since 8/2009. WAMUQ is taking all my time!
Ptolomeo -- Two questions:
1. If DS is approved, can bondholders be offered more money? Where would that money come from? If more money just showed up, wouldn't that go further to prove that more examination needs to be done?
2. If more money is simply taken from someone else and given to bondholders, doesn't that constitute the need for another disclosure statement? Or is a DS, simply a high level document and POR can be changed at will once DS is in place?
If what you say may happen today, actually does, I would think at this point Solomon would appear with some numbers that would pay everyone in full, plus equity. Assuming that happens, would you happen to know how the voting process would work between competing POR's and how/if JMW would be able to discern which numbers are more accurate?
VooDoo -- I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, which is why I believe today, she will try to find a way to force Rosen to give the documents up, ruling that if they aren't in the hands of Susman within x days, and anything needed thereafter, unlimited discovery will be granted. She will then try to emphasize (without saying as much) that they better find a way to come up with a settlement.
OR -- she could give Rosen everything, screw us, get a fat payoff and everyone (except us) will never be the wiser.
What I can't believe is these objections to the discovery saying that the EC hasn't proved that the case is a matter of importance!
In regards to Standard and Poor's objections:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100602000000000023.pdf
They refer to Scott paper company or Pan Am Corportation in objection 4 (sorry -- cut and paste not working well). Found this document where later rulings in other cases disagree with that. Hope Susman has his attorneys working OT tonight.
http://www.graisellsworth.com/Rating_Agencies.pdf
contains this footnote:
16 Rating agencies won the early cases on journalist’s privilege, including In re Scott Paper Co. Sec. Litig., 145 F.R.D. 366 (E.D. Pa. 1992); In re Burnett, 269 N.J. Super. 493, 635 A.2d 1019 (Super. Ct. 1993); In re Pan Am Corp., 161 B.R. 577 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Stephens v. Am. Home Assur. Co., No. 91 Civ. 2898 (JSM) (KAR) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 1995). But one of them lost the most important case, In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003). See also Nat’l Med. Care, Inc. v. Home Med. of Am., Inc., Index No. 103030/02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 20, 2002) (ordering special referee to investigate and report “f Fitch’s rating was privately contracted for and intended for use, for example, in a private Offering Memorandum, or other document intended solely for a limited group of investors, rather than for publication in a general publication, [in which case] Fitch would not be entitled to the qualified journalist privilege”).
Wonder is Susman is pulling the same crap Rosen did with those POS PORs -- When JMW mentions each of these objections (OTS, and possibly several others), Susman will say that they have now gone through the 22,000 pages or whatever and have narrowed their scope somewhat and now only need this specific document, hoping JMW will say, he only needs one or two documents, give them to him, then he'll keep asking for one more, then one more, realling pi**ing them off.
Is there any chance when this goes to a trial, it will be a jury trial. I'd love to get a number of jurors who don't like big banks.