is making moves.
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.
I doubt Judge Walrath will issue a bench decision on the matter. As Mordicai stated a few days ago, she will probably take the matter under advisement and if we're lucky, she'll issue a decision on or by the omnibus hearing next week.
The only thing I'm deliberating over is whether JPM/FDIC will promptly move to settle if summary judgment over the $4B is granted in our favor. Based on the latest filings, I think WMI (like the rest of us) is pretty fed up with JPM's seemingly endless array of delay tactics. The $4B just might be the needle that breaks the camel's back and pushes JPM/FDIC over the edge to settle.
I'm game. Count me in.
Thats entirely up to Weil & Co., but remember that we still have a multitude of counterclaims that we filed which need to prove in trial.
My guess is that after the $4B we will be moving steadfast into discovery and gearing up for trial to prove all of our counterclaims.
TJ-
Unfortunately, its very likely that we won't see much of the discovery at all. Although the material is technically "public" until the Judge grants any motions for protective orders of confidentiality, the general public and investors such as ourselves who are not privy to the actual litigation (i.e., working on the case and/or contracted by counsel) probably won't see any of the discovery unless it is referenced in the briefs or mentioned in the transcripts going forward.
Either way, Weil & Co. will have what they need from the discovery process and thats what counts. They know what to look for, they're one of the finest in their field and they understand the intricate details of this case better than any of us could.
Submitting to complete discovery would be suicide for JPM/FDIC if they did in fact act fraudulently because it could unearth a host of new claims, third-party claims and even criminal liability (if evidence of criminal activity is found, it would have to be reported to the appropriate authorities). I think this is why JPM has been hesitant in engaging in all-out discovery and even fought against the Rule 2004 Motion in the first place.
Anytime, Climber.
The discovery isn't tied to the $4B. What I meant by that was that if the Judge does not grant our Motion for Summary Judgment (i.e., the $4B), then we will move towards trial. Moving in that direction will require us to use all of the discovery power available to prove the facts of our case as they apply to the law in trial.
Look at a lawsuit from a timeline:
#1 Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, MTD, Summary Judgment, etc.)
#2 Pretrial (Rule 2004 Discovery, Depositions, etc.)
#3 Trial (Hearing, Direct/Cross Exams, Oral Argument, etc.)
We're wrapping up on the pleadings phase and if we don't have the case granted in our favor as a matter of law, we will move into the pretrial phase to acquire the facts (via discovery) needed to settle factual disputes in order to prove our case in trial.
Climber, I'm guessing you saw my earlier post on the subject. As for your second question, if she does not rule on the $4B then it means we proceed with discovery and move forward into trial. I do NOT think JPM/FDIC will entertain that option or allow this to go that far.
Thanks Doc!
Haha, anytime Gmenfan. I love this board and I can't wait to celebrate with everyone when this scandal is over.
BTW, I apologize to the board for not being around much lately. Law school and my job have been taking up all of my free time as I'm trying to get ahead of my schoolwork well in advance of final exams.
Issuing notice of their appeal is the easy part and yes, I'm sure that will be ready to go as it won't take much time to draft.
Putting together the Appellant's brief is the hard part because it requires JPM to have the record including - amongst other things - a transcript of the summary judgment hearing, Judge's Opinion and Order, etc. They won't be able to get started on their brief until after the hearing takes place and the decision/order and transcript are available.
Not a chance. JPM does not meet the legal standard to assert an interlocutory appeal, let alone have a meritable argument to have the appeal granted in its favor. The FIRREA issue is well-settled 3rd Circuit case law. He would be overturning the law of a higher court (USCA-3rd Circuit) in reaching any conclusion favoring JPM/FDIC. It just won't happen.
I think that summary judgment on the $4B will start an avalanche. JPM's delay tactics will be virtually extinguished and any effort to overturn Judge Walrath's prospective judgment in our favor would be fruitless as the $4B issue seems to be a pretty straightforward application of law (with no questions of fact) while JPM/FDIC's FIRREA argument is clearly established law in our favor within the circuit in which the bankruptcy proceedings are taking place -- the 3rd Circuit.
Things will move very quickly if Judge Walrath grants our Motion for Summary Judgment. I imagine management and counsel for JPM and the FDIC will be drinking lots of coffee after that as they put the time in to crunch the numbers and work out a mutually beneficial settlement that WMI will agree to. And don't worry, I am confident that Weil & Co. will not settle for anything less than what they've been shooting for -- whatever that is is anyone's guess.
Diamond, any party can appeal a final judgment. A decision granting WMI's Motion for Summary Judgment would constitute a final judgment in the turnover action ($4B). Accordingly, JPM may appeal an unfavorable decision and order if it files the appeal in a timely manner according to the local/federal rules.
The appeal you're referring to is an interlocutory appeal, where the appellant (JPM) files a Motion for Leave to Appeal - essentially asking the higher court to hear the appeal - before any final judgment is issued in the proceeding. Judge Walrath has only stated that JPM's appeal lacked merit and was based on a frivolous claim to strip her of jurisdiction in the adversary proceedings. Thus, until the higher court (Judge Sleet and the Delaware District Court) agrees to hear the appeal (or grants the relief sought on appeal), Judge Walrath is running the show.
In short, JPM can appeal -- but ONLY after Judge Walrath issues a final judgment OR Judge Sleet grants leave to appeal.
Being similarly situated, its quite frustrating and I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we are in a significantly better position that we were 2-3 weeks ago, let alone a year ago. With that said, maintain your faith in the judicial system and rest assured in knowing that justice will be served and culpable parties will pay -- quite a bit I might add. The best thing for you to do is focus your attention on something else other than WAMU to help pass the time and soothe your anxieties.
Good luck.
Now that would be amazing, lol.
We're a solid team, Billiam.
Lets get the mods to sticky your post with the updated 1.7B number.
Billiam, I'm showing 1.7B shares outstanding...how did you conclude 1.9B?
$41B / 1.7B shares = $24/share
Don't worry. JPM doesn't meet the requisite standard of law to assert the appeal, let alone to have it decided in their favor. This is going to be the straw that breaks JPM's back -- nothing more, nothing less.
No, they weren't. Judge Walrath merely stated that the appeal was frivolous and could thus proceed with the adversary proceedings. Only Judge Sleet (from the jurisdiction under which the relief under appeal is sought) can deny or grant the motion for leave to appeal. The court hasn't even decided on whether it would hear the appeal, let alone decide whether to grant or deny relief under appeal.
Exactly my point. That was the brilliance of WMI's reply to JPM's Notice of Divestiture. If you read through it (all 26 pages), you'll see WMI address the same issue head on.
Technically, they already appealed it. The issues pertinent to JPM's Motion for Leave to Appeal are Walrath's denial of JPM's Motion to Stay, which is essentially what this Notice of Divestiture was. This was just a rude and disrespectful way of telling the court (as oppose to asking it via a motion) that JPM is entitled to a stay of the adversary proceedings pending a decision on their Motion for Leave to Appeal.
Haha, true. I have to admit that she is doing a marvelous job of keeping her composure in spite of JPM's behavior. We all know they would move to have her recused if she shows so much as a hint of bias towards WMI.
I'm not sure when this will be resolved...this was supposed to be off the calendar as JPM withdrew its Motion to Strike a few weeks ago. I don't know how they can just submit a reply after the underlying motion was already withdrawn.
I think thats exactly what they're trying to do and in the process of it, they're making a mockery of the entire judicial system. If this follow up to today's hearing isn't egregious behavior, then I don't know what is.
I don't know the briefing schedule on this but I suspect that it will be addressed by then at the latest.
You really can't make this stuff up. JPM just filed a reply memo in support of its motion to strike the affidavit of Doreen Logan. I thought JPM agreed to withdraw its Motion to Strike after we allowed them to depose Ms. Logan. This is a joke.
Courtesty of GhostofReagan on Yahoo!
http://ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-50934/09-50934-0172.pdf
Thanks Bluebird. I can't believe we still don't have all short positions covered yet. Wow.
Any news on the short report?
I think the turnover action has been fully briefed but no oral argument has taken place. You're right, an oral argument before Judge Walrath must take place before she can issue a decision on the matter. This is a critical reason as to why JPM is trying to stall the proceedings with the Notice of Divestiture -- JPM's attorneys know that moving forward with litigation will cost them the $4B and then some.
I'm not sure why Judge Sleet would wait so long to rule on the motion for leave to appeal. I went back and forth with Mordicai on this and no clear answer was reached (or at least my question was not answered). More importantly, I don't understand why he would Order a briefing schedule on the appellant/appellee/appellant-reply briefs without issuing an order on the Motion for Leave. It seems like putting the carriage before the horse and from a procedural perspective, this makes no sense. Lets see how much longer this takes him.
We already know that JPM sees the obvious -- they know they don't stand a chance in trial. Hence their reason for stalling the proceedings as long as possible. Every day stalled presents another day of opportunity to generate the finances necessary to settle.
Its really difficult to say. I'd like to say yes, but who knows whether JPM will find another delay tactic to employ in this case.
Trade at your own discretion but keep your eyes on the prize.
I loved that line, lol.
Good call.
I think Judge Sleet has to issue a decision denying JPM's Motion for Leave to Appeal before we can settle. By denying JPM's motion, he will deny the opportunity for JPM's appeal to be heard (as oppose to denying the appeal itself). This will leave JPM in the bankruptcy dungeon to battle it out with a highly skilled and motivated opponent (WMI) before a very insulted referee (Judge Walrath).
Until then, the pressure will build as there is no way Judge Walrath will relinquish her exclusive jurisdiction over this case.
His career will be over and he will be sharing a cell with Madoff if he sells the bench out. Lets see what happens.
David -
#1 If he grants the motion for leave to appeal, I believe our attorneys will focus on having the said appeal(s) affirm Judge Walrath's decision(s);
#2 If you're referring to the ruling on the case decided in 1993, then I'm not sure because I don't know the facts of that case. I am confident that Weil and Co. used the strongest authority for our case based on the facts and jurisdiction. If they're not using it, then you can assume its because they have stronger authority at their disposal.
Good luck and go WAMU!
You're absolutely right about disciplining the FDIC/OTS. Believe it or not, I think Jamie Dimon made one pretty solid point on this subject -- he said our government shouldn't create additional regulatory agencies, it should see to it the ones we already have are working properly. I agree. We need to fix the system that is already in place as oppose to creating less transparency and more confusion vis a vis more regulators that may share the same flaws as the ones they're in place to assist. This is a systemic problem and it needs to be addressed at the core.
It won't look good for JPM when Judge Walrath acknowledges the obvious.
Thats why I maintain my faith in the judicial system. I wouldn't be pursuing my J.D. without it.
Everything is going to work out just fine. Unless Judge Sleet grants the motion for Leave to Appeal, JPM is legally cornered.
I think JPM is getting closer and closer to sanctions with this kind of frivolous, meritless gamesmanship.
This was a well-written legal masterpiece. I am very excited about tomorrow's hearing and quite interested in Judge Walrath's reaction to JPM's latest ploy to delay and stall the proceedings.
JPM is backed into a corner. They need to settle or submit to trial -- either way, we're coming out on top.