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've spoken with my Securities Regulation professor and a fellow classmate about it and we all seem to be on the same page. You would be surprised with the number of law students who have an interest in securities law - it's minimal at best.
I'm sorry I've been out of the limelight lately. Amongst many other things, I've been pretty busy trying to get ready for graduation in May, the NY/NJ bar exams in July and obtaining a job thereafter. I'm hoping an opportunity with the SEC presents itself so I can get started on my MM hunting.
There's not much to say right now anyway so I'm just sitting in the back seat enjoying the trip while Hochberg drives us to our destination. I'm confident in his team and am looking forward to 11/01 with much excitement and anxiety. I've read through the billing statements and really think they've found some dirt under all the stones they kicked over. How much dirt and whether it'll be enough to provoke a quick settlement is anyone's guess. I agree with Chiron's statement earlier though - regardless of what happens, I'm riding with you all until the end.
I very much agree with you Catz. The filing is going to lead to either (a.) the appointment of a trustee who will in turn pursue the potential claims outlined by the examiner; or (b.) a true global settlement between all parties that will result in payout to equity.
Excellent point and great observation. I need to get up to speed on this stuff.
Welcome to I-Hub, Myadad. Good to have you aboard. Your wisdom and experience is highly respected.
Because they're uncapped and cost less to acquire. I'm not saying preferreds aren't a good move - I'm just saying I would rather get the residual payout from what might very well be a high-dollar settlement value.
Of course it is, but if you've acquired commons under $0.20/share and they settle within the threshold of values being thrown around by professionals like Dr. Archaya, then you're talking about a higher exponential return.
Thanks Jimmy.
In all honesty, all of us longs are experiencing a major catch twenty-two with this case: most of us expected and wanted a settlement by or before last March - but by prolonging it this far and allowing additional claims to be made, the settlement value is going to increase substantially.
I wish I had the means to acquire more commons. IMHO that is where the big money will be.
I think the examiner is doing an amazing job so far and I am very pleased to see that the scope of investigation will leave no stone unturned. Given the nature of some items that appeared within the examiner's recent billing statement, I suspect the examiner and his team have uncovered some dirt that will probably result in (1.) the appointment of a trustee to replace WMI (in its capacity as debtor-in-possession) and (2.) the assertion of various business tort claims, third-party claims and avoidance claims within the bankruptcy court.
This is a dangerous game and I honestly cannot believe JPM and the FDIC have not settled. The level of corruption here is unprecedented and any findings of fact proving collusion between a publicly held bank and its federal regulators to seize and obtain a solvent competitor will be enough to shake foreign and domestic investor confidence in global markets.
Has anyone considered the possibility of JPM allowing disclosure of the information regarding letters to the FDIC as an underhanded means of avoiding class-action liability from its own shareholders if/when the case is settled and JPM stock is subsequently reduced?
If I recall, the letters discussed at length in the WSJ article and several others, discussed JPM's need to solicit cash from the FDIC because of its expectation of costs in connection with the WaMu litigation. Now, that is rather vague - but to me it seems as though this latest move was nothing more than a way for the directors to protect themselves once if/when this all goes down.
Thoughts?
Thanks Gmen!
Yes, it's the same one I offered for review to some of the I-Hub members. I'm glad to see that it will be properly disseminated but more than anything I hope it draws some attention to the corrupt market practices that have led to the demise of our capital market system.
Hey guys, I haven't been combing the boards as frequently as I have in the past since I'm really just waiting for things to move along with the examiner's report and have been a little busy with the onset of my last year of law school.
I received an offer of publication for my market manipulation paper, so it should be available on Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis after December 31, 2010. If all goes well, I plan to begin writing another piece on WaMu and evenutally a piece on the new financial reform legislation.
I think it's safe to assume that the examiner served the first round of discovery requests last week - or at the latest, early this week. As such, if we don't see any motions for a protective order filed by Friday the silence will probably indicate that the parties are in compliance with his requests.
Lots of things are happening in the background right now. We recently saw the ERISA and IRS settlements filed on PACER (reducing liabilities and giving us a nice cushion thereafter) and discovered, thanks to Boston at Y!, that the sale to JPM has yet to be finalized (shows the FDIC's substantial leverage over JPM). Unlike the court, the examiner is not going to slow down or stop his work to give the parties time to settle. He is going to proceed and strive to conduct the investigation within the court-ordered timeframe. IMO, time is JPM's biggest adversary - then comes the EC. Lets hope this game of chess ends soon.
Haha, thanks Diane. Glad someone caught that.
or "Chase What Matters" as in, chasing justice and a favorable settlement for all.
I don't know but I think I might be willing to send him an email or letter to encourage him if I find the time to draft one. I've already done this with Dillon Ratigan of MSNBC but haven't heard anything back.
I'm going to do my best or die trying - that much I can certainly promise.
You raise a very good point in saying that maintaining good books is essential in encouraging investment. Unfortunately, this is going to require major systematic change and the American people need to educate themselves a bit more on what is going on within their own country. From companies like Enron cooking the books to the quasi-monopoly of rating agencies competing against each other to offer clients and their junk-based CDOs top grades - it is clear that the mechanics of our system have grown to depend on manipulation and corruption to keep it running.
Some of you might benefit from reading some of Matt Taibbi's work. He is published in Rolling Stone and offers tremendous insight on all of the corruption that goes on behind the scenes. I really respect him for his willingness to get his hands dirty and take on these issues head-on.
He's not being passive, he's being reasonable and efficient. The EC represents our interests - and if there is a lead that one of us believes is worthy of investigation, then we should forward it to them. The examiner is on a VERY tight time constraint and does not have time to investigate theories that are not supported in fact. On the contrary, he is using the facts that he has to evaluate existing legal theories (claims) and potentially generate new ones. Just take a look at the scope of his proposed investigation and realize that he only has fifteen (15) trading days to come up with and file a preliminary report. It is up to the EC to filter and create viable issues of the many voices crying out for justice - not the examiner.
Very much agreed, Biz. I never believed much in politicians, but this case has left me with a feeling of disgust towards even those of my own profession. It is individuals like Walrath, Susman, Nelson, Hochberg and McMahon that keep my faith in the system.
It's in the examiner's request/motion for additional relief that was so ordered by Judge Walrath in the last hearing. If I recall correctly, the parties have five (5) days from service of the discovery demands to oppose and/or move for a protective order - and five (5) days after that, Judge Walrath has to hear oral argument on the opposition/motion. Accordingly, they can buy ten days before Judge Walrath grants or denies their request and forces them to comply with the examiner's discovery demands.
If they are denied a protective order and still proceed to withhold documents from the examiner, they can and will be held in contempt of court and subject to sanctions. Remember, the examiner has the ability to issue subpoenas and compel discovery with the full force and order of the court. Noncompliance with the examiner is essentially the same as noncompliance with a direct court order.
The trustee is not automatically assigned, but I imagine the examiner will recommend that the court appoint one - and if Weil is found to have breached any of its fiduciary duties to the estate, then I suspect Walrath would most definitely appoint one.
Our adversaries still have the right to file motions for protective orders as well as the right to be heard on why a protective order should be issued - and make no mistake, they will exercise these rights. That is how they will stonewall the examiners efforts. Unfortunately for them, I doubt their efforts will be fruitful.
Looking forward to meeting you, Catz. I am going to try to make it out to the hearing in September.
There is no doubt in my mind that the examiner has or will request the 3.1(a) statement itemizing the assets conveyed to JPM.
I'm betting that we'll be seeing a motion filed by the FDIC and/or JPM at some point next week requesting a protective order on documents that either or both parties are unwilling to provide to the examiner. Be prepared for some quick discovery litigation leading up to the Examiner's Preliminary Report and hope for a swift and favorable resolution of those issues by our beloved Judge Walrath.
I miss her reporting too and you're absolutely dead on about her being the only one to get things right. The rest of these "reporters" seem to either (a.) not understand what they're reporting or (b.) have an agenda to spin.
I think the explanation for Kirsten's absence as of late is that she is drowning herself in research for her book. This WaMu debacle has become her life and I have alot of gratitude for her coverage of the ordeal as well as faith in her upcoming book - I highly doubt anyone bought her silence.
I believe it will be filed with the court, so I presume it will be publicly available - just don't expect any privileged or sealed information to be revealed within it.
I may try to make my way down for this one. It would be nice to see the examiner present his preliminary report while putting faces to the many good people on this forum.
Thanks Knick, I'll definitely do whatever I can.
They're not going to be able to ask for a protective order for every document but they might be able to ask for a protective order for every request. However, the examiner doesn't have the time to nibble at discovery in the same way Weil/WMI did. The examiner knows what he's looking for and is going to fashion his request in one broad, but narrowly tailored, discovery request. If they move for a protective order, it will be dealt with in one shot.
Very much agreed and I doubt she will grant any motions for protective orders - particularly because she has already held that FIRREA does not apply here.
Catz, I think your second scenario is exactly the way this is going to play out. The examiner's motion still protects JPM/FDIC's due process rights by allowing them the opportunity to move for a protective order on certain document requests. If we're going to see a back-and-forth volley for discovery, chances are that is where it'll take place.
Thanks GYS. I think we're on the right track - it's just taking us forever to arrive at our destination.
I can't wait to read the FDIC's opposition papers - as they're probably going to continue hiding behind FIRREA. JPM's opposition papers should be interesting too - as they're still trying to retain control over what gets handed over.
The next big thing is going to be Walrath's decision on the subpoena powers and her subsequent decisions on any motions for protective orders that might be filed by JPM or the FDIC.
That would be a concern for me if the U.S. Trustee had not already succeeded in her appointment of an equity committee and examiner. At this point, the U.S. Trustee has done everything she was required to do in the interests of justice. There's no going back now that the EC is on board and the examiner has commenced an investigation of the sham settlement and potential claims.
If we're going to talk about corruption within the DOJ at this point, I believe the only thing that could happen is that the DOJ might find itself reluctant to actively charge and prosecute JPM/FDIC with criminal charges. However, if the examiner and/or the court clearly finds evidence of criminal malfeasance the DOJ is going to have a hard time refuting its duty to begin a criminal investigation.
Haven't gotten into the second portion (Areas of Investigation) yet but from what I've read (Work Completed to Date) it seems pretty clear that the FDIC intends to hide behind FIRREA and withhold the production of certain docs from the examiner - this is where it will get heated.
JPM, on the other hand, is agreeing to consider further requests for documents and information - and has also agreed to make employees and agents of JPMC available for interviews by the examiner. The examiner is trying to identify possible witnesses. Interpret JPM's willingness to "consider" further requests however you wish - but to me this says that if the examiner asks the right questions, seeks production of the right documents, or requests interviews with the right people, things might get heated up with JPM as well.
I think this is far from over, but I believe once it ends it's going to end in our favor.
Thanks again for hosting!
I'm reading it now.
The Examiner's Work and Expenses Plan/Report and Motion for Additional Relief was just filed on PACER. If someone can host it I'll gladly email the document over - otherwise it should hit KLCC very soon.
Anytime Venom. I mixed them up, so see my correction here - http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53038907
EDIT- I'm sorry, my answer was wrong and it's the other way around - they're generally open to the public unless the court and/or subject matter requires the conference to be held privately before the Judge.