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.
Does anyone know whether JPM still has to produce documents by August 1st?
If so, the anticipation is just going to explode.
That's correct.
I think there are two issues with moving forward with the Rule 2004 Examination: (1.) whether uncovering such evidence as the type you described will substantially and materially diminish JPM's bargaining power in any settlement negotiations; and (2.) whether WMI would be bound to disclose any evidence of criminal activity uncovered by the Rule 2004 Examination to the SEC.
The first issue is very simple -- YES, because WMI would have very little incentive to "bargain" with JPM when the likelihood of a landslide judgment in WMI's favor is so high (assuming the evidence is there, of course).
The second issue is a bit more complicated. My instincts would tell me that the criminal activity should be reported (when in doubt, disclose -- lol) to the SEC, but I may be wrong. I'm not quite sure and I would have to research that to confirm. If my instincts are correct and WMI would have to disclose, JPM would not be able to settle simply to avoid the criminal liability.
Climberprof / Jerle
I'm not sure I agree. If JPM does not settle before complying with discovery pursuant to the R.2004 Order, it will risk major exposure to additional claims and potential criminal/RICO liability -- and more exposure is the last thing JPM wants. From both a legal AND business perspective, it would be the most cost effective way for them to clean up this mess.
As for BOP's statement, I believe she/he meant that JPM would not be able to meet the legal standard necessary for a higher court to review Judge Walrath's decision on the Rule 2004 Motion on appeal. A party must have permission to file an interlocutory appeal (i.e., an appeal made before final judgment is rendered) for review by a higher court and it must meet the appropriate legal standard in order for permission to be granted. BOP was simply saying that JPM would not meet that standard -- thus any request by JPM to appeal would be denied as a matter of law.
Excellent Article
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/1
I'm sure many of you will appreciate it.
I really hope Judge Walrath decides on JPM's Motion for Reconsideration next week and orders JPM to produce documents by August 1st pursuant to WMI's request. I commend her for taking her time to issue thorough decisions/orders with opinions in support because it reduces the likelihood of reversal by a higher court. However, this is a pretty unusual bankruptcy proceeding and time is of the essence to ensure WMI recovers what it needs to satisfy its creditors and re-organize its business.
I know JPM already served its responses and objections to WMI's R. 2004 Document Subpoena, but something tells me JPM did not produce anything and instead reiterated the argument it made in the Reply in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration -- that WMI had no right to proceed with a document subpoena pending the motion without permission from the court. If that is what happened, I would like to see Judge Walrath sanction JPM for withholding the documents pursuant to FRCP R.11 now -- and issue an Order compelling production thereafter.
Does anyone actually think JPM will proceed with Rule 2004 discovery after Judge Walrath decides on their Motion next week -- or do you think JPM will opt to settle before August 1st to avoid discovery?
Yeah, you're right. The price seems to remain steady around $0.085 right now. It's almost as though they're fighting to keep it at that level.
I've noticed. Finding quality DD is pretty difficult over there.
On the contrary, I think GS would be interested if JPM settled the litigation with secured debt, not cash -- bonds during recession would be worth big $$ to them, I'm sure.
That's not true according to Rule 10b5-1. On the contrary, I think it means settlement is imminent. Read paragraph two of the following:
AP
JPMorgan CEO Dimon exercises options
Tuesday July 21, 3:24 pm ET
JPMorgan Chase CEO Dimon exercises options for 660,000 shares after 2nd-qtr earnings report
NEW YORK (AP) -- The head JPMorgan Chase & Co. exercised options for 660,000 shares of common stock under a prearranged trading plan, the company said Tuesday.
In a Form 4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Jamie Dimon reported he exercised options for the shares Friday for $29.96 apiece and then sold 601,279 of them the same day for $36.69 apiece.
The stock sale was conducted under a prearranged 10b5-1 trading plan which allows a company insider to set up a program in advance for such transactions and proceed with them even if he or she comes into possession of material non-public information.
Insiders file Form 4s with the SEC to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Last Thursday, the New York-based bank reported a 36 percent jump in second-quarter profit, easily surpassing analysts' forecasts as huge gains in its investment banking business outweighed higher losses from bad loans.
The results came two days after rival Goldman Sachs Group Inc. also posted surprisingly good results, solidifying the companies' position as the strongest players in the industry.
For the most recent quarter, JPMorgan earned $2.72 billion, or 28 cents per share, up from $2 billion, or 53 cents per share, a year earlier. Revenues soared 39 percent to $25.62 billion.
http://au.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090721/us_jpmorgan_chase_insider_transaction.html?.v=1
Apparently there are a few other options being executed by other JPM executives. Dimon's is interesting, but what do you make of James Staley's option execution -- he acquired 129,500 at $36.6808 and disposed of 129,485 at $36.69 -- it seems like alot of effort for $641.05 and 15 shares. Anyone?
http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/sec.cfm?Doctype=
Good call, you're probably right.
Courtesy of ghostofreagan on the Yahoo! forums.
Stipulation between WMI, JPM and the FDIC for a four-day extension of time by which WMI is to file answering papers in opposition to FDIC/JPM's motion for leave to appeal
http://members.cox.net/raggztwitches/Extension.pdf
JPM's affidavit of service of the answers and objections to WMI's discovery requests
http://members.cox.net/raggztwitches/JPMObjection.pdf
My thoughts share the same curiosity as the guys on the Yahoo! forums -- why would WMI only seek a four-day extension of time to file it's answer? Coincidentally, the deadline would be extended to Friday, July 24th. Lots of stuff happening in the next week...I feel as though something is up, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Yahoo! thread: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=86316&tid=192992&mid=192992&tof=19&frt=2
I believe the hearing on JPM's Motion for Reconsideration is Monday, July 27.
Today's Orders -- Courtesy of Sidedraft
http://www.sidedraught.com/stocks/WashingtonMutual/Docket%20No%201346.pdf
Thanks guys, very much appreciated.
Sidedraft
Just sent the docs. Thanks!
They're on PACER, so you'll need to register for an account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ to see them. I posted the case number and subsequent docket numbers in my previous post.
Noticed the same in Hoboken, NJ.
Haha, thank you. I hope so too. I would want nothing more than to have the proceeds of this investment cover my loans and debt so I could live comfortably, help my family out and engage in other investments/business ventures after I graduate.
No. I'm a Law Student and Law Clerk at a Wall Street Law Firm.
Two orders have been filed today in the DE Bankruptcy action (08-12229) and are listed on PACER (Document No. 1346 and 1347). There has been no other activity on the docket today other than her two orders. I hope more Orders follow.
P.S. I think the two Orders she filed today are irrelevant for our purposes -- per the docket entry, they are (1.) Order (Omnibus) Awarding First Interim Allowance Of Compensation For Services Rendered And For Reimbursement Of Expenses To Shearman & Sterling LLP And Perkins Coie LLP; and (2.) Order Approving Stipulation, And Order Resolving (I) Debtors' Third Omnibus Objection To Claims With Respect To Proof Of Claim Number 2155 Filed By McKinsey & Company, Inc. And (II) Certain Other Claims Filed By McKinsey & Company, Inc. (Claim Numbers 3663 And 3664).
Judge Walrath is filing a few Orders today...I wonder if we'll see one of the ones we've been waiting for come through before the close of business today.
The next seven days are going to be exciting.
We have a hearing on Thursday for JPM's Motion for Reconsideration -- briefs were exchanged several weeks ago, so I believe Judge Walrath has had more than enough time to deliberate over this. We should get a decision on this very soon and hopefully proceed with discovery soon thereafter.
Transfer of wealth. That's capitalism at it's finest.
Question re: JPM/FDIC Appeal
Will JPM still have the right to appeal Judge Walrath's decision on the Rule 2004 discovery if she denies JPM's Motion for Reconsideration?
I wonder how long it's going to be before Judge Walrath issues sanctions in response to JPM's delay tactics pursuant to FRCP Rule 11. JPM's efforts to delay are a total joke -- no merit to their arguments and no valid defenses against WMI's claims.
Take a look at the attorneys on one of Quinn's billing statements, then visit the Quinn website to obtain their email addresses and presto!
Be sure to state that you're a shareholder.
$0.085 - 0.0851 (Buy/Ask)
This is a TIGHT spread. Wow.
I sure hope so. It seems as though WMI has launched a full counterstrike on JPM and the FDIC. If WMI has in fact been talking to the USAO and the Attorney General, I might smell a RICO claim.
Up to now, JPM has been exercising its best efforts to stall discovery while the FDIC hides behind what it thinks is a facade of government immunity -- and really is nothing but a house of cards. JPM is starting to spin the story in its favor to make it seem as though it was the only bidder so that when settlement comes, it emerges as the "good guy" while the FDIC/OTC take the blame.
Settlement is close. I only hope it's closer than we all imagine.
I think the next month will be riveting -- (1.) JPM only has one more option (Motion for Leave to Appeal) left to exercise after it's Motion for Reconsideration is decided in the DE action, after which discovery and depositions will begin; and (2.) the FDIC will now be fighting a motion for summary judgment, which can result in pretty serious damages if it's decided. Things haven't been going in the FDIC's (or JPM's) favor from a legal standpoint and a potential adverse ruling on WMI's motion for summary judgment might be too big a risk.
We have them exactly where we want them. I think it's all coming together now. Our attorneys really are brilliant. Bravo!
Jerle -- you're 100% right.
If the DC case is dismissed pursuant to WMI's motion to dismiss, it will help us two-fold at the minimum because (1.) we would be awarded damages; and (2.) I think it would eliminate any lingering hope on part of JPM to remove the Delaware adversary proceeding to DC.
This is only going to place added pressure on the FDIC and JPM to settle this now. Based on (1.) Dimon's recent statements in Seattle, which place implied fault on the FDIC for not soliciting other bids; (2.) Judge Walrath's denial of the FDIC's motion to stay the adversary proceeding; and (3.) the possibility of an adverse ruling pursuant to WMI's motion to dismiss -- I think the FDIC might be much more willing to negotiate with JPM and WMI for some kind of deal because it will surely be backed into a corner.
The pieces continue to fall into place. This is exciting stuff but I hope it comes to a result in our favor soon.
MMs are at it again.
Climber
I'm also very surprised that JPM has allowed it to go this far, however, remember that we aren't even in the discovery phase yet - let alone trial and oral argument - so every day that JPM procrastinates is another day that it can generate interest and returns on our $4B and whatever cash they're holding for settlement.
Playing the devil's advocate for a moment -- it's in JPM's best interests to play this out as long as possible until it has no choice left but to proceed into discovery. I strongly believe that JPM will settle before then because the potential joinder of new and add'l claims (and potential criminal proceedings) would completely change the playing field and quite possibly turn this "clot" of a case into a debilitating "stroke" that will affect not only JPM, but the rest of the financial world. There is NO way Jamie Dimon would let it go that far. He has worked too hard to build his empire and polish his reputation to risk it all for this. He WILL, however, delay the inevitable as long as he can.
Settlement is coming before discovery, IMO. It's that simple.
I wasn't aware, thanks for the clarification.
Based on a quick review of the billing, Quinn has been extremely busy, but I did not find a single reference to "settlement" in the statement.
Quinn finally posted its Second Monthly Application for Allowance of Compensation for Period from May 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009.
Refer to document number 1315 on PACER.
I think this crook is smart enough to realize that he's going to be departing with alot more money if he goes through discovery.
I'd be curious to know whether PPS was through the roof before Bear or Lehman were acquired.
Why wouldn't he if he's done it time and time again. He's not going to risk the likelihood of add'l claims being raised with discovery nor will he risk an adverse outcome from the litigation. It's not even about good business judgment at this point, it's just common sense.
As ABIGHAMMER stated, he doesn't have many alternatives left before we proceed with discovery. This is the home stretch IMO.
No, because the hearing is in reference to what you see in the corresponding document -- which is ONLY a settlement on the savings plan.