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.
In the pennies its almost all about codes and patterns/tricks of the MM's and the collusion they have with their cronies and buddies helping each other out making profit and shares
100 I need shares.
200 I need shares badly,but do not take the stock down.
300 Take the price down so I can load shares
400 Keep trading it sideways.
500 Gap the stock. This gap can be either up or down depending on the direction of the 500 signal
Interesting reading...Although in District of Columbia case, it sounds like it forms the basis of FDIC argument in BK court room
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-00533/09-00533-0083.pdf
any thoughts?
12 U.S.C § 1821(d)(11)(A). If Plaintiffs are correct that the FDIC’s sale of WMB’s assets to JPMC violated the FDIC’s duty to maximize the value of the WMB receivership estate and that
violation gives rise to a cause of action, the claim should be against FDIC-Corporate (or the United States), not against FDIC-Receiver, and the damages should be paid to the WMB
receivership estate—not to WMI—for distribution in accordance with 12 U.S.C.§ 1821(d)(11)(A). Any recovery to WMI before payment to the Bank Bondholders and other legitimate creditors of WMB would be in contravention of the statutory priority scheme and Congress’ clear intent that shareholders of a failed bank be last in line to recover from a bank
receivership.
Count V should also be dismissed because, as explained by the FDIC, federal law—specifically 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5)(D)(i), 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5)(E), and 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j)—
bars Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the FDIC-Receiver’s disallowance is void. See FDIC Mem. at 22-23.
Finally, to the extent that it includes Plaintiffs’ claim against the WMB receivership estate for recovery of $6.5 billion of capital contributions from WMI to WMB as alleged
fraudulent transfers, Count I should likewise be dismissed. As explained by the FDIC, WMI does not allege that these contributions were made with actual intent to defraud, and WMI’s
Case 1:09-cv-00533-RMC Document 83 Filed 10/27/2009 Page 3 of 5
claim for “constructive fraudulent transfer” fails because (irrespective of whether they could)Plaintiffs have not alleged that WMB was insolvent on the date of any of the challenged capital contributions. See FDIC Mem. at 26. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to show that Plaintiffs did not receive reasonably equivalent value—a necessary element of fraudulent conveyance under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1). In addition, even if it were the case that the
capital contributions otherwise satisfied the requirements for fraudulent conveyances, WMI’s loss from these contributions would arise from infusions of equity in WMB made by WMI as
WMB’s shareholder. Accordingly, allowing payment to WMI based on its fraudulent conveyance theory for these capital contributions, ahead of payment of the Bank Bondholders’
claims in their entirety, would also undermine the payment priority scheme outlined in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11)(A).
2. The Bank Bondholders join in the Oppositions filed by the FDIC-Receiver (Dkt. 52) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Dkt. 61) to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaims of the FDIC and to Stay the Proceedings in their Entirety filed by Washington Mutual, Inc. (Dkt. No. 45), and oppose the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated in
those Oppositions.
Another 5000 block below the bid...way to often!!!
Wamu motions to dismiss JPM and FDIC counter claims in THRMC Court District of Columbia…Oral Hearing Requested
http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/09-00533/09-00533-0079.pdf
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Counterclaims should be dismissed in their entirety as JPMC has asserted claims that were not contemplated, and are not permitted, by this Court's order granting intervention, and also violate the automatic stay on all claims against the Debtors outside of bankruptcy court. Moreover, JPMC has already asserted all of its counterclaims in the bankruptcy proceeding in Delaware where Debtors have answered and the parties are proceeding quickly into discovery.
Plaintiffs also respectfully request that the remainder of this action be stayed in favor of
the pending proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware. In support of the motion, Plaintiffs rely upon the Counterclaims, the accompanying memorandum of law, and all other pleadings in this action.
Plaintiffs respectfully request oral argument with respect to this motion.
Dated: New York, New York
October 26
Agreed. There's no doubt the tricks are in play as always. Anouncement will come soon when you least expect it with no fanfare from the court but someone will know and profit from it.....IMO
A gap code 500 sell then a 300 sell Take the price down code so i can load shares?????
I'm an old jedi master at this..Padawan...but i will have a shot of Napolean
Huge blocks on news Imminent ? Leak? Hope so... Just a guess IMO and all that hypothetical stuff we love to conjecture up
Is it possible the "other financial institution" is JPM
While Deutsche Bank alleges that the FDIC-Receiver is liable for a multi-billion dollar damages award as a result of the pre-failure breaches by Washington Mutual Bank, Deutsche Bank further alleges that another financial institution, not currently a party to the litigation, “has assumed the liabilities related to the Governing Agreements and the Trusts.” Comp. ¶ 23. Thus, based on Deutsche Bank’s allegations, another entity which is not currently a party to this litigation ultimately will be liable if the complaint’s allegations are deemed to have merit.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.,
Plaintiff, v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, )
IN ITS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER
Case No. 1:09-cv-01656 (Judge Collyer)
Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox, in his opinion, just called the FDIC an Abomination and violates the constitution for confiscation of property without due process of a trial, or offering fair value in regards to government regulating the banking system or pay. In his opinion Congress should not be able and cannot legislate stealing your property in violation of the constitution.
Where did the American people go wrong in electing a two party ruling class, full of people that believe they are the constitution and have taken over the interpretation of the rules governing our system?
Found it through http://www.wamurape.org/wamurape.aspx?g=forum&c=2 ...thought it should be re-posted. Mentions case law and links pertaining to BK...made interesting read
Clarke's Silly, Empty Threat A number of people were unnerved by John Clarke's threat to compel JPM to give the FDIC the $3.7 billion. There is no reason for any concern.
A debtor's estate consists of "ALL legal OR equitable interests of the debtor in property" as of the commencement of the case. Section 541(a). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_se... Congress made this very broad description of estate property for a reason: to prevent creditors from claiming that property in question doesn't come within the definition of Section 541. As you can see, any conceivable type of property is covered by Congress' definition, including bank deposits.
Property of a bankruptcy estate cannot be interfered with absent court order. See Section 362(a)(3). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_se... Moreover, that protection is in effect until, among other things, (1) the property is no longer property of the estate (362(c)(1)), or (2) the case is dismissed (362(c)(3)), which is what many of us expect will happen in a settlement.
The writings and depositions WMI has submitted to the court are compelling evidence that the money belongs to WMI, though the court has not ruled on the matter. This evidence is enough to trigger the protection of Sections 362 and 541 -- and Clarke knows it.
The only thing that could override the protections in Sections 362 and 541 would be a FIRREA provision placing authority to adjudicate the money in the hands of the D.C. district court, notwithstanding Chapter 11. Such a provision only exists in the FDIC's dreams, because if it existed Clarke et al. would have cited it in neon lights.
As there is no such provision, Clarke wouldn't dare tell the FDIC to compel JPM to turnover the money (JPM wouldn't do it anyway for fear of violating the automatic stay).
Every lawyer in the courtroom knew that Clarke was making a fool of himself, and the only people who were frightened were some lay people on this board and day traders fearful the FDIC could drag things out. While the latter is certainly true, both JPM and the FDIC know they can't move that money without Judge Walrath's consent, and from what I know about this case that isn't forthcoming.
Re-Posted by EVERMAKE
Words of advice to the FDIC
Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight
And don’t point a gun unless you intend to pull the trigger
What if the FDIC statement was a bluff? Because why wouldn’t they claim the money now through their channels? Why would they show their cards [intent] before the hand was over other than as a threat or bluff?
Just because they stated they would call their hand doesnt mean they will.
Questions…
1. Is there anything to prevent FDIC from filing for return of money to receivership before judge rules in wamu favor if they feel so threatened… since they’re so sure it was theirs under agreement to disperse to JPM as they feel?
2. What would happen if the THJMW released her summary judgment after a possible filing by FDIC through their channels? Or would she?
I've seen in past cases a summary judgement come off the cuff with no announcement..Will a new date be scheduled or can that happen here? IMO anybody not in can get caught with their pants or skirts down!
if she dont rule today,imo, the fdic put a little scare...still ruling can come any second, minute, day
till when....5 minutes?
underadvisement?
we're back
can we regain pps if we dont hear the rebuttal?...
can we regain pps if we dont hear the rebuttal?...
I lost sound also...conspiracy...lol
They basically came in and "threatened the judge"..nomatter If you decide for Wamu we're filing for taking control claiming they havent had a chance for discovery..their strategy seems to be we need a "DO OVER"...our mistake
Thats the govt stating they will get involved if JPM is forced to give money back
My post Sept 30th...MM and shorters will march this down to .1 range before hearing, IMO. MM pattern shows slow run down. Selling below bid and buying into bid arent good signs either. Those that were burnt buying on the last run to .42 and landing where we're at now are either out or holding till
"the words leave the judges lips" on the day of the hearing
with buyers on hold till then, IMO.
Tim Geithner announced those that recvd the highest bailout money will have to cut bonus pay by 50%...
JPM down .83 cents
Wamu TRUTH...posted by HROLLER at JPM IHUB Blog
READ THESE COURT DOCUMENTS!
JPMorgan admits that the FDIC took over a solvent bank in one of the latest court documents...
I'm enclosing a few more documents filed through the BK court in regards to a declaration of Thomas M. Blake (http://www.crai.com/ProfessionalStaff/listingdetails.aspx?id=1276 ).
The declaration can be found in 103-4.pdf at http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287
Quoting:
12. Based on my review to date, there is no indication that the OTS performed a solvency analysis consistent with the test for insolvency specified in the Bankruptcy Code. There is no indication that the OTS assessed the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI). Nor is there an indication that OTS compared the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI) to the total amount of either company’s respective liabilities. There is no indication that the OTS performed a comprehensive cash flow analysis of WMB (or WMI). Instead, the OTS found that “WMB met the well-capitalized standards through the date of receivership.”8 Thus, without a thorough analysis of the assets, liabilities and capital of WMI and WMB, it is not possible to come to a reliable conclusion concerning the financial solvency of either entity, whether on a consolidated or stand-alone basis.
Here is another document that says as of August 14, 2008:
"We propose to decapitalize WMBfsb by returning $20 billion of capital to its parent. The $20 billion will include the master note of approximately $7 billion, proceeds from $3.5 billion of Discount Notes and cash generated through additional wholesale deposits and advances from FHLB Seattle. We propose the payment of at least $10 billion by September 30, 2008 and the remaining $10 billion through December 2009."
"The net balance sheet of WMBfsb will be approximately $34 billion to $36 billion after Project Fillmore. The leverage ratio will decrease to 25% from 62%. A well-capitalized institution requires an 8% or higher leverage ratio."
Read reference page 45 of DOCUMENT 103-1.pdf from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287
Enclosed is a link to the affidavit of Doreen Logan who is the Controller/ Assistant Treasurer of Wamu who states that there was no liquidity problems;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%20Ex.%20D%20to%20Affidavit%20of%20Doreen%20Logan%20%28%201%20/07-3/08%20Account%20Statements%29%20A-46%20...&btnG=Search
Remember, WMBfsb was also taken from the holding company and sold to JMorgan/Chase with all of the other assets for only $1.88bil.....
Please, take some time and read these documents. They are a bit long but well worth the read. Don't you wonder why the main stream media doesn't mention the suppose "failure" of the largest financial institution in America? Wamu was a 100+ year old company.....Here is a link to all documents filed through the BK Court;
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu
Jamie Dimon planted "moles" in Wamu??? JPMorgan committed corporate fraud???
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090501000000000002.pdf
Wamu's claims against JPMorgan/Chase;
http://wmish.com/doc/gov/0603/JPM_V_WMI_-_ANSWER.PDF
I'm also enclosing another link that quotes Judge Hughes from a case against the FDIC that was wrapped up on August 24, 2005; http://blog.kir.com/archives/2005/08/judge_hughes_ha.asp
"The record shows that the swap was the only reason for this suit. It also shows that the FDIC knew that it had no factual or legal basis for its claims, and that its cases here and in Washington were shams."
As usual, Judge Hughes is acerbic in his opinion regarding the FDIC's conduct, noting in particular that FDIC officials "lied about it all under oath" and they "discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists."
"It's hard to find a word that captures the essence of the FDIC's bringing this action. Irresponsible is close. Arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative, extortionate, and abusive all fit."
Judge Hughes concluded that Hurwitz and Maxxam "will recover their costs because the record reveals corrupt individuals within a corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it, bringing this litigation."
The Biggest Banking Heist in World History: Washington Mutual
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13894
Please read this descriptive complaint that was submitted to the SEC from Apex Venture Advisors
Mike Stathis Managing Principal on October 7, 2008 in regards to the manipulation that occurred;
http://www.avaresearch.com/files/20090930175434.pdf
AGREED
First impressions are usually correct...its just common sense...I'm sticking with my first impression of the reason for tomorrows court date
Over speculation here. Forget what the definition of is "is"
Tomorrows agenda:
Judge hears 1/2 hour of garbage from JPM
Gives Summary judgement in favor of WMI
JPM Appeals
Done
My post Sept 30th...MM and shorters will march this down to .1 range before hearing, IMO. MM pattern shows slow run down. Selling below bid and buying into bid arent good signs either. Those that were burnt buying on the last run to .42 and landing where we're at now are either out or holding till the words leave the judges lips on the day of the hearing with buyers on hold till then, IMO.
As Don Ameche once said "Turn on those "F" Machines"
Scottrade showing .23 Bid .26 Ask...I was once told...Someone forgot to reset or turn off the machines at EOD
WAMUQ "The Tease will Please October 22nd" just do the Dorothy and "Follow the Yellow Brick Road"...stay on its path and you'll most certainly find your Land of Oz...
-The Wizard
I've seen no announcement of a confirmed date from the court clerk. Could a date still be set for the week of Oct 12?
Has the court released the OFFICIAL date yet?
I personally dont know the correlation, I'm a WAMUQ holder but hold hope for LEMHQ shareholders as well
You read it right, .002 to a short for 2000 shares was chicken feed...no takers..just more proof it was heading down...and what happened? fell.005 more...selling below bid and buying into bid are sure fire signs MM manipulating it down...
Since I am an original holder at original pre-crash pps, I have no intention of selling, just hoping. Just stating IMO current MM observations based on "Where have I seen this before"
The run up I'm describing was the .18-.44 in 4-5 days from the 16th-21st
well keep it there they'll get to it