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.
It's one page until you click ENTER
Business must be good to move from MISSOURI to LA
http://www.rrhawkins.com/index_files/Page266.htm
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/r-r-hawkins-and-associates-intl-psc/17/224/203
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/r-r-hawkins-and-associates-intl-psc/17/224/203
Business must be good to move from MISSOURI to LA
They do exist
R.R. Hawkins & Associates is built on our 40 years of combined experience in accounting, consulting services, tax preparation, financial planning and auditing services.
Behind everything we do, we use our management capabilities to ensure faster and higher quality services. We are continually developing new ways to capture and deliver insight and ideas, utilized by the professionals in our organization, for the benefit of our clients.
R.R. Hawkins and Associates International, PSC grew out of an auditing practice that was established in 1985. Since then, R.R. Hawkins and Associates International has been dedicated to providing professional services to both public and non-public companies. The firm has performed services for Fortune 500 companies, as well as small to mid-cap entities.
R.R. Hawkins and Associates International, PSC specializes currently in the consulting of small to mid-size public companies. We service clients in the United States, Canada, Germany, and China.
R.R. Hawkins and Associates International, PSC has extensive experience with start up tech companies, manufacturing companies, financial institutions, health care companies, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations.
R.R. Hawkins and Associates Intl, PSC’s Specialties:
We specialize in the consulting of companies that are publicly-held and closely-held businesses, not-for-profit organizations, employee benefit plans, and public sector and governmental organizations. We also specialize in mergers and acquisitions, Sarbanes-Oxley 404 Compliance, assurance services, transaction development, tax compliances and planning, and management services.
Lets get past determining Fact or Fiction first for I do my best prognistcating when tools are in hand
Everyone have a nice weekend...see y'all Monday
Yes I own a decent amount of Stock in HESG and
Yes I'm not a basher,
but it appears more due diligence is needed here and less sharing with delight, to the whole world, just how many shares you say you've bought or the story telling how one day you were hit by lightning and the next day you were some sort of super stock fore-telling price machine! Now that that's off my chest....
Below is a post that might have been posted before but just in case it hasn't, consider it an attempt to connect the dots as dots when connected, usually show a pattern to a story. Good or Bad I plan to post everything I find for comment and deliberation so that we all can be prepared little boyscouts and girlscouts.
HESG stated they are in preliminary negotiations to do business in some or all capacity with MJNA so what better place to start than there? The question is, "who contacted who first?"
The following post was taken from the MJNA Myspace web sight.
http://www.myspace.com/marijuanainc
Although I have to admit I jumped before having looked [having been caught up in the excitement of the run as most might have been here ]my jury is still out on this one. The information is not of my own opinion and for you to do with as you wish, but I've learned from past experience, If only I remembered, lol, that it is wise to always start looking at the beginning of penny companies and their associations [being PENNYWISE] along with current actions of companies involved to determine "what the heck is going on". Afterall, it is someones hard earned money, in this case mine, supporting their proposed intentions.
Medical Marijuana Inc. (MJNA) is truly a forward looking company.
Looking back, it began in 2003 as Berkshire Collection, Inc. (BKCL) of Ontario, Canada. According to a complaint filed 12 Jun 09 by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) against Blackout Media (BKMP) and its principal Sandy Winick of Toronto, Berkshire Collection was one of 59 subsidiaries spun off from Blackout Media Corporation, formerly known as First Canadian American Holding Corporation, (FCDH).
The SEC complaint alleges these 59 subsidiaries had no legitimate business purpose and were just "public company shells", and that Winick profited at least $3.2 million from selling shares in these "shells" from 2004 through 2007.
On 23 May 05 Berkshire Collection changed its jurisdiction to Oregon, at the same time issuing a 1 for 1,000 reverse split.
I have never before in my life seen a 1 for 1,000 reverse split. A reverse split is typically a last ditch effort to prevent a company from being delisted on an exchange. According to MSN Money, "reverse splits are like a message from management that the underlying business trends are so rotten, they won't be enough to get the stock price up to snuff." Small shareholders, those holding less than 1 share after the reverse split, are cashed out. They're lucky if they get a penny on the dollar.
On 31 Jan 2007 Berkshire Collection changed its name to My Newpedia Corp (MYNW). This incarnation lasted until June of 2008 when it issued 211,926,840 shares of common stock, realizing $100,000. Then My Newpedia changed it's name to Club Vivanet, exchanging 12 shares of MYNW for 1 share of CVIV. Then the merged entities, now named Club Vivanet (CVIV), "took back" 210,117,998 shares in a 1 for 20 reverse split and posted a stunning net profit of $26,040 for 2008.
The Statement of Operations found on page 16 of the Annual Report for Club Vivanet for 31 Dec 08 states that it spent $751,359 on sales and marketing in order to post a profit of $26,040 on revenue of $818,992. While this was more than double the net profit of $12,624 for the previous year, it doesn't seem particularly forthcoming to term the growth "meteoric" as Perlowin does repeatedly.
In April of 2009 Club Vivanet (CVIV) became Medical Marijuana Inc. (MJNA):
We thought at first we'd call our corporation Marijuana Inc. But when you say to someone ... you're in the Marijuana Business, you do get that weird, kinda strange look. But when you say 'We're in the Medical Marijuana Business' ...I don't care where I am, everyone's interested. Not only are they interested, sometimes they're passionately interested because they've heard the stories and they think people should have the freedom to choose the medicine that really does help them.
On 25 Mar 09, the day the name change was filed, the stock was worth 4 cents. The name change and 10 for 1 forward split occurred on 28 Apr 09. The day before the split and name change CVIV closed at 22 cents. The day after, MJNA closed at 62 cents. It has trended downward since.
Perlowin explains it like this, pointing out he got out of prison 19 years ago:
I was the largest marijuana smuggler in West Coast history. The media dubbed me the King of Pot. As the newspapers said, I had a fleet of boats larger than most country's navies, and that was probably true. Made $100 million bucks by the time I was thirty. And then I went to jail for nine years and got out and made some huge businesses in the phone card and international telecom business. We've always had meteorically growing businesses after I got out of prison. Well, before I got out of prison too...
Just look at what happened to our stock from day one and you can see we sort of know know what we're doing in this industry.
He explains that he is "monetizing" the public's desire to legalize marijuana and that buying stock in his company is casting a vote for the legalization of marijuana.
When Obama and the attorney general Holder said that they'd no longer interfere with state laws on marijuana issues, all of a sudden dispensaries and collectives and co-ops started popping up like weeds all over California ... and, all of a sudden, legitimate business people started getting involved and wanting to get involved. And then "we" come along...
This is one of those statements were you don't really know where to begin.
What is this "all of a sudden" legitimate business people are getting involved? Is he saying those dispensaries and co-operatives that have been doing it for years and who built the industry he finds so exciting are not "legitimate business people"? What does this say about The Green Cross - in business in San Francisco for five years and featured in June as an example of how medical marijuana had become mainstream? And, by the way, they've all been using plastic cards of all kinds for years: debit, credit, stored value, ID, and so forth. A manager of one dispensary told me 5 years ago, "Bank of America loves us."
Are we also supposed to believe that the "legitimate business people" who have been waiting for Obama to start the green rush before they got involved will not have the wherewithal to set up a business account with, oh, Bank of America or Wells Fargo, but instead will be "cash based"?
While Perlowin wasn't really sure if New Mexico had passed a medical marijuana law or not and was astonished at what he found when he came to California in February and told his doctor he had insomnia so he could get in a dispensary and see what it was like, he assures us he is the one to tell us all how to do it.
I actually believe New Mexico is one of the places - don't quote me on that because my big focus is on marijuana, on California - but I think New Mexico is one of the places where it's legal. You can look at any of the movement websites like NORML or MPP.org - that's a great one, MPP.org - and they really keep you up-to-date on what's going on in each state. So I think it is. And in some places you can have co-ops, like in Colorado and California, and some places you're allowed to grow your own. There's no standardized laws or rules, which for a public company like us makes it really lucrative, or potentially lucrative. Because we can help come in and standardize the industry and help regulate the industry. Again, from the bottom up. Typically a company like this can move much quicker than the government can.
It's all a mish-mash. Every county in California is different from every city. And every state has different rules. And if you standardize it - it will take a few years - but that's one of the things that we're here to do, is to help standardize it. And again, starting with the most lucrative of all, the tax remittance.
And he's going to begin by re-assembling his old organization, from administering taxes paid by the sick and dying for medicine. When asked if he has any plans to own a dispensary:
"If Nevada ever legalizes it - it'll be on the ballot in 2012, November - I would love to have a dispensary inside a casino, growing the marijuana plants..."
Obviously, Medical Marijuana Inc. CEO and King of Pot Bruce Perlowin didn't have "medical marijuana" in mind when he said this. When the host points out this has the appearance of exploitation he replies:
Yeah. So in that case, yeah. In the beginning. no. In the beginning all we want to do is provide all the tools for the dispensaries or the co-ops. In fact, we're going to be doing seminars on how to open up a dispensary and we want management contracts with the dispensaries, not just for the tax card but for inventory control, for grading and standardizing the marijuana for software, for the doctors to use, and evaluating whether sativa or indica should be used for glaucoma vs. cancer vs. MS vs. headaches..."
In the meantime, he hopes to buy "homesteads" of 1 to 5 thousand acres all over the country and grow vegetables or something on them until hemp is legalized, and then convert them to hemp farms. All this from administering taxes paid by the sick and dying for medicine.
It's an intriguing business model. He states they've decided 60% of the profit will go to the company, and 40% to charity.
My job is to empower people, and specifically (because of another model) empower women. 40% of our profits goes to The Global Family and WE (Women Empowerment) because their job is to make sure this wealth goes all over the world to create a thousand millionaire women, who will create a thousand millionaire women each, and then they take over the world in what's known as a global coup, but it's really a coochie coo..
Again, it's difficult to figure out where to begin. Seems a bit sexist (not to mention boorish) to me, but what do I know? Besides there are more pressing issues. For instance, just ten minutes previously he stated 40% of "revenues" would be going to the local community: 10% to schools and or the women's council (because women won't take bribes and kick-backs, but men will); 10% to another local problem like fire or police (speaking of bribes); 10% to another city in America; and 10% to some international problem.
Obviously, how much of what goes where isn't really important. All that's important is that 40% of the stockholders earnings from administering taxes paid on medicine by the sick and dying will go to some charity somewhere. No doubt medical marijuana patients will get a warm glow knowing their disability stipend is going to increase the supply of female millionaires in third world countries.
Among a nebulae of disconnects is that it never occurred to Medical Marijuana Inc. that there are medical marijuana patients that can't afford medicine, that are losing their jobs and their homes, that can't pay lawyers and court costs. And a lot of them are men.
Perlowin says he doesn't smoke marijuana, except rarely.
My prescription's for insomnia. And I don't know if I have insomnia, I'm so excited about what we're doing I can't sleep at night so I jump up and email. I go to sleep. I wake up. I email. And so I'm thinking, 'I really want to go see these dispensaries but you can't get in without a medical condition and I don't want to lie about a medical condition. I won't do that. I'm CEO of a public company, I've got to keep everything really straight. So, I'm thinking, 'wait a minute...' and if I don't have my computer I'm sitting there awake all night, just thinking. So that's clinical insomnia. That's insomnia. So I got my medical marijuana card for being too excited. But I haven't used my marijuana medicine yet because if I do I won't answer my emails all night.
As for the morality of taxing medicine? As for what happens when The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (HR 2835) is passed? As for the fact that you don't get a "prescription" for medical marijuana, you get a "recommendation"?
HR 2835 will move marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act's Schedule I to Schedule II. Among other things this will mean marijuana will meet the legal definition of medicine and that doctors can prescribe it the same as pharmaceuticals. And this means it will not be taxed in states such as California where the people think there's something sleazy and just plain wrong about taxing medicine.
Well, maybe by then Perlowin will have his upscale pot emporium in some swanky Las Vegas casino.
Eventualy HESG's OTC BB quotation status will enable market markers to make their own markets in this stock –greatly enhancing shareholder liquidity.
and has issued instruction to the company's transfer agent to retire them. The company is prepared to continue retirement of additional shares as conditions permit. It is expected that in the next few days our transfer agent will receive the certificate(s) and complete the retirement.
The retirement is complete when the TA receives the Certificate
Simple procedure is to call and ask
There is definitely something rotten about running the shell game and participating...nature of the beast I guess...
Thats the name of the game....I prefer to put my trust at this point in HESG and their obvious good intentions and long term strategy to take this company to the top of the industry...bottom line... MAKE A LOT OF MONEY
The retiring of shares and the pinpoint PR's to me can mean only one thing....that the ffolks running HESG either have an organized business plan to jump this stock into the dollar zone and NASDAQ coinciding with the opening of their first location or the foresight to build PPS value in the event there will be a share swap as a result of a merger...IMO
SHHOOOT...how did I miss .015 and .02 for ADVBQ
Thanks..
I dont see any trades today...did I miss something or symbol change?
Me & My Wiki
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.
In Common Law systems, issues of law, that is to say, what the law actually is in a particular case, are decided by the judge, except when jury nullification of the law acts to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional Common Law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury.
Absent an award of summary judgment (or some other type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for each party to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that such party is saying "what really happened," and that, under the judge's view of applicable law, such party should prevail.
The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly.
A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery, by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the jury to decide, then, the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in favor of the moving party. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party who is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Motions for summary judgment
A motion for summary judgment must be filed with supporting evidence. Thus, the party bringing the motion must have conducted discovery and/or submitted evidence to the court, following the applicable rules of evidence. Typically, the party bringing the motion will have filed a Request for Admissions, asking the opposing party to admit or deny certain facts. Witness testimony or documents received from expert witnesses must be accompanied by an affidavit from the witness, otherwise it will be treated as hearsay. The moving party must also cite the specific rules of law being argued. For example, if the moving party claims breach of contract, then the section(s) of the Business Code that define breach must be cited; this assumes, of course, that the opposing party has admitted a contract did exist. If not, then the moving party must also provide evidence and cite the appropriate law to prove a contract did exist.
Also keep in mind that the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure are very particular about how documents are formed. For example, some states require each claim to be in a separate paragraph and that all paragraphs be numbered.
Specific jurisdictions
United States
In U.S. legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:
1. there are no issues of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and
2. in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.
A party making a motion for summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called a "moving party." A "material fact" is one which, depending upon what the factfinder believes "really happened," could lead to judgment in favor of one party, rather than the other. A simple example of summary judgment is provided below.
A plaintiff may move for summary judgment in its favor on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may move for summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense, but in either case, must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). To be successful, such motions must be drafted as written previews of a party's entire case-in-chief (that it would put before the finder of fact at trial) because all parts of an entire claim or defense are at issue.
A different and very common tactic is where a defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in an immediate grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Therefore, these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in its favor on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those motions are very rare.
A party moving for summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible if there were to be a trial, such as, depositions, party admissions, documents received during discovery (such as contracts, emails, letters, and certified government documents). Each party may present to the court its view of applicable law by submitting a legal memorandum in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. The court may allow for oral argument of the lawyers, generally where the judge wishes to question the lawyers on issues in the case.
Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. The court must consider all materials in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, (1970), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby enunciated the moving party's burden on summary judgment and for that reason it is so frequently cited by appellate courts when reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment that it is the most-quoted Supreme Court case of all.
If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a bench trial) deciding in favor of the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment is inappropriate. A decision granting summary judgment can be appealed without delay. A decision denying summary judgment ordinarily cannot be immediately appealed; instead, the case continues on its normal course. In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (the final judgment rule).
In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, if one side on a summary judgment motion can produce the evidence of "a dozen bishops", and the other side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for trial.
Where appropriate, a court may award summary judgment upon less than all claims, known as "partial summary judgment."
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed "de novo" (meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge) both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A motion for summary judgment in United States District Court is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," can be converted by the judge to motions for summary judgment, if matters outside the pleadings are presented to – and not excluded by – the trial-court judge.
State court practice
Summary judgment practice in most states is similar to federal practice, though with minor differences. For example, the U.S. state of California requires the moving party to actually present evidence rather than merely refer to evidence. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001). This is done by attaching relevant documents and by summarizing all relevant factual points within those documents in a separate statement of facts. In turn, the record to be reviewed by the judge can be very large; for example, the Aguilar case involved a record of about 18,400 pages. Also, California uses the term "summary adjudication" instead of "partial summary judgment." There is currently a conflict between the different districts of the California Courts of Appeal as to the availability of summary adjudication; most superior courts tend to side with the narrowest interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, under which a party may make such a motion only with respect to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, or a claim for punitive damages. There is also language in section 437c about "issues of duty," but some Courts of Appeal panels have given that phrase an extremely narrow interpretation due to evidence that the California State Legislature has been trying to stop the state courts from engaging in the piecemeal adjudication of individual issues.
Fox News " Count Down to the Closing Bell" states the FDIC is working really well!!! What is she nuts?
Jaime D states that there should be no one "too big to fail" Even his institution
Someone point me to the toilet!!!!!
Is this investigation still ongoing from claims made in the Law suit?
Posted by: catman26 Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:15:25 AM
In reply to: sparkydlr who wrote msg# 101088 Post # of 120240
By PEG BRICKLEY
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
WILMINGTON, Del. -- A U.S. bankruptcy judge has authorized the former parent of failed savings and loan Washington Mutual Bank, or WaMu, to quiz JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over suspicions that JPMorgan Chase engineered the biggest banking collapse in U.S. history.
Judge Mary F. Walrath gave the green light to a special bankruptcy probe into JPMorgan's role in the events leading to WaMu's seizure by regulators in September 2008.
The probe will track claims made in a Texas lawsuit in which investors allege JPMorgan, "which had long coveted [WaMu's] depositor base and branch network, drove down [WaMu's] value so it could purchase [WaMu's] assets at a fire-sale price," Walrath said in an opinion filed Wednesday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del.
WaMu's parent said allegations of business wrongs that contributed to the thrift's seizure, if true, would give rise to "highly valuable" claims against JPMorgan.
IF YOU READ THE TEXAS LAWSUIT YOU WOULD KNOW....GLOBAL SETTLEMENT
Motion for Relief from Stay Filed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Hearing scheduled for 11/24/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #4, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 11/17/2009
Omnibus same day?
Other Omnibus Dates
Jan 20th 2010 3 PM EST
Feb 22nd 2010 3 PM EST
March 18th 2010 10:30 AM EST
I am the all seeing eye of the Pyramid
and since I seem to be the last one here to take a crack at a wacky prediction for the office pool, I predict the announcement for summary judgment will be Friday the 21st before the omnibus hearing giving everyone a most memorable Thanksgiving...IMGGW
How important is the hearing on Dec 4th? How will it affect PPS?
Any thoughts?
How important is the hearing on Dec 4th? How will it affect PPS?
Any thoughts?
Does anyone have a calendar for the BK proceedings or a site for tracking document and motion filings?
Just had my limit order filled at the bid [bid .125 ask .126] , all or none, in three minutes. When an order is filled at the bid it usually means the pps is going down 90% of the time because the MM knows before hand where the pps will be.... before the end of the day they know where they want it to be at the end of day...since they are both participant and operator of the shell game
[bid now at .124 ask .125]
Still I was very happy to have my order filled at .125... an added share is a share at the finish line
That's OK, we all have made mistakes.. if I had a dime for everytime I was corrected in life I wouldnt need my money back from this stock..LOL
This document is
NOTICE of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order by
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (Clark, Bruce) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
which was supplement to
Memorandum in opposition to re 79 MOTION to Dismiss JPMC's Counterclaims filed by JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.. (Clark, Bruce) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
"JPMC is prepared to proceed on an expedited basis and has submitted a schedule herewith that would permit this Court to resolve all of the ownership issues in less than nine months."
jackie2wamoongleason
Complexity of the issues?
Intertwined court jurisdictions?
Fact Checking & Consultation?
Busy Signal trying to reach her Broker?
Reason for the Delays in ruling from both camps...
Writers Cramp!
Currently Opinion but still not yet her official decision as that has yet to be ruled on. Both the DC and Delaware courts will have it sorted out probably pretty much at the same time, IMO. Who goes first will probably be decided by the "flip of the coin"..LOL
Your right, continued efforts by JPM/FDIC to make DC court the ultimate resort destination...
It's been well established that JPM/FDIC have no respect for the BK court and feel the rightful arena is the DC court, having jurisdiction over the FDIC, but her honor in DC has questioned and suggested the BK court has certain jurisdiction. I believe she will rule favorably for WMI over the short span but the longer version will be tough considering corruption runs in high places
I see it as just another example of the arrogance so often seen from JPM/FDIC... both "setting the Agenda" and attempts at controlling a judge and her courtroom...IMHO
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-00533/09-00533-0094.pdf
A suggested scheduling by JPM/FDIC meant to influence a judges "take under advisement"...IMHO
Reuters
Six Flags agrees to Avenue Capital bankruptcy plan
Mon, 09 Nov 12:16 PM IST
By Tom Hals
WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) - Bankrupt Six Flags Inc (SIXFQ.OB) has submitted a new reorganization plan that represents a victory for hedge fund Avenue Capital Management, which fought an initial proposal that gave little to bondholders.
The world's largest regional theme park operator filed for bankruptcy in the middle of the year with a plan that transferred almost all of its stock to senior lenders, including JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), in return for cutting its debt.
The plan sparked immediate opposition, in part because it was far more favorable to bank lenders than what the company had proposed just prior to bankruptcy.
The company said it realized it had to modify its plan of reorganization after discussions with creditors, and as financial markets improved.
The "stabilization and loosening of the credit markets has created financing opportunities that did not exist at the times these cases were filed and the original plan was formulated," the company said in a court filing.
The new plan, which was filed with the court on Saturday, is based on proposals by the Avenue Capital group of bondholders and includes selling $450 million in new stock to increase the money available for creditors.
Led by Chairman Marc Lasry, Avenue Capital invests in distressed companies such World Color Press Inc (WC.TO), which filed for bankruptcy as Quebecor World Inc, and MagnaChip Semiconductor.
The new plan does not propose changing Six Flags senior management, which is headed by Mark Shapiro, a former ESPN executive.
The Avenue Capital bondholders had accused the management of using an initial plan that "enriches themselves at the expense of virtually every other creditor" in earlier court documents.
The new plan leaves in place some of the bonuses that Avenue Capital had earlier opposed, including more than $5 million for top executives if the company emerges from Chapter 11.
Bondholders are the biggest winners of the changes.
Holders of one class of unsecured bonds with claims of $420 million now stand to get up to 47.1 percent of the company under the new plan. Six Flags originally proposed giving them 7 percent.
Another class of unsecured bondholders with claims of $1.3 billion now stand to get as much as 4.8 percent of the company, compared to the original plan that offered 1 percent.
While the company said the plan had broad support, it may face objections.
At a hearing last week, a junior class of bondholders led by Stark Investments said the company and senior bondholders had excluded them from negotiations.
Preferred equity holders may also oppose the plan. Led by Resilient Capital Management, these investors had suggested a separate plan that focused on cutting expenses and maintaining cash flow to provide a recovery for all creditors and some equity holders.
The company has also attracted the attention of former managers, who in August offered to run the company for a $1 salary and said they could increase its value.
The case is In re Premier International Holdings Inc. and Six Flags Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, No. 09-12019.
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-00533/09-00533-0093.pdf
Might have been posted already, but just in case
OPPOSITION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., AND TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
Interesting read mentions cited case law and statutes and rules JPM is relying on to counter WMI motion to dismiss counterclaims of JPM and to stay the proceedings in D.C. court from November 4th hearing...Is there an attorney in the house..LOL
Notice JPM's suggestion to resolve the issue of ownership of the 4 billion in NINE MONTHS if in the DC court!!!!!
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By this Motion, Plaintiffs again request a stay of this action, in connection with a
broader motion to dismiss three claims asserted by JPMC. The stay request should be denied in favor of expedited resolution of the issues before this Court.
At the November 4, 2009 hearing before this Court, when Plaintiffs’ first request
for a stay was argued, there was agreement that this is the exclusive court with jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims in this action, brought in accordance with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D). The Court nonetheless expressed concern with, in part, the comity and efficiency of proceeding while the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) also proceeds with claims the Bankruptcy Court has determined it has jurisdiction to hear, notwithstanding the pendency both of two appeals from that Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and a motion to withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Court.
While these concerns are not unimportant, they are ones that can be allayed.
There are relatively few issues that have been briefed in the bankruptcy proceeding, and other than the question of whether there are material disputed issues involving what Plaintiffs claim to be deposit accounts, no issues submitted to the Bankruptcy Court should result in any ownership determination that is the crux of most of the legal disputes at issue in this proceeding. For example, there has been no activity in the Bankruptcy Court that even touches on the billions of dollars of disputes related to the capital contributions, Rabbi Trusts, the Pension Plan, BOLI policies and Intangible Assets that are raised in Count I of Plaintiffs’ complaint in this action.
Moreover, there is no reason to forestall discovery on any of these matters because discovery is necessary regardless of which court adjudicates these issues.
Although Plaintiffs represented to the Bankruptcy Court, in referring to this action in this Court, that “[t]he two actions are not between the same parties dealing with the same claims” (June 24, 2009 Tr. 94:20-21), if that were the case then there would be no reason for the stay Plaintiffs are now requesting. Plaintiffs seek a stay because they know that (i) JPMC has rights to assets that it acquired from the FDIC only because those assets were property of the WMB receivership, (ii) to the extent this Court adjudicates whether those assets were property of the WMB receivership, as FIRREA vests it with exclusive jurisdiction to do, that determination will be outcome determinative of their claims against JPMC to the same assets, and (iii) even though they brought this action here, as FIRREA obligated them to do, Plaintiffs want to make a grab for these assets in Bankruptcy Court, which they perceive as a more favorable forum. It is also clear that it is fully within Plaintiffs’ control to bring these issues to this Court, which unquestionably has jurisdiction to entertain them and eliminate all duplication.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and JPMC are prepared to proceed in this Court; indeed, under FIRREA they are entitled to an adjudication from this Court (and this Court alone) as to whether the assets to which Plaintiffs want to lay claim were assets of the WMB receivership. Plaintiffs have not, given these circumstances, established that a stay of this proceeding would be appropriate, especially given that this is the first-filed action and one they commenced.
Rather, the appropriate response to the Court’s concern about comity and efficiency is entry of a scheduling order that ensures prompt resolution in this Court of claims against the FDIC and related to the FDIC’s sale of WMB’s assets to JPMC.
JPMC is prepared to proceed on an expedited basis and has submitted a schedule herewith that would permit this Court to resolve all of the ownership issues in less than nine months.
If Plaintiffs want to pursue these issues and preserve their FIRREA rights, then they should proceed on this or a similar schedule before this Court. If Plaintiffs truly believe that another Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims, Plaintiffs should dismiss this action. A stay so that Plaintiffs can both preserve their FIRREA rights and proceed in their chosen forum (not Congress’s chosen FIRREA forum), is a request to have their cake and eat it too, which should be denied.
Since there arent any expert volunteers in the field of smoke signals and sign language? I guess good ol' fashion trading will be my guide
Will there be audio available for tomorrows DC hearing?
Time to visit FINRAPROTECTS.org...lol
What is going on here...IMO, the shorts are getting what they wanted - news in their favor, meaning no news...and the help of the MM...If news was in our favor the shorts would have been squeezed and we would have been much happier for it..could have gone either way, just not my way this time.....on to Baseball
I appreciate your words of comfort but personally prefer to "beat on the brat, beat on the brat with a baseball bat. oh yeah" ...the bat being WAMU and the brat being both FDIC and JPM...I wouldnt mind interrogating the MM afterwards
Its absolute criminal to not only have the MM operate the shell game but participate init as well...with that said...the judge said she will take the motion for summary judgment under advisement [fact checking and phone calls] and will render her decision ASAP. ASAP means it can come anytime without a court date...the future is bright, hold or average down its the same to me at 100,000 shares pre-seizure...I'm not going anywhere