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.
Interesting. I thought JPM just issued more stock though..
My guess is that they're going to be burning the midnight oil now through the 06/24.
I mentioned earlier, and I think Mordicai would agree, that this might actually encourage JPM to settle this alot sooner.
I'm not convinced that this is going to delay us all that much if at all. All of the clues pointing to a settlement are still there.
I'm with you guys 100%. I haven't read the document in which Jackson posted (thanks Jackson, btw) but I plan to do so if I have some free time in the office today. In spite of that, I can't help but wonder whether a stay will buy JPM more time before a ruling is issued on the R.2004 discovery. I imagine it would.
From a legal standpoint, I think it would still be in JPM's best interests to settle this matter as quickly as possible because the longer this drags out, the more claims/issues WMI will add to the list (i.e., trademark/copyright infringements, etc.) and the more interest JPM will be liable for on the $4B if/when the Judge decides it belongs to WMI. Even if Judge Walrath orders a stay on the proceedings, JPM will not be precluded from settling the matter "amicably," out of court.
Moreover, a decision on the R.2004 discovery will come at some point - there's no avoiding the inevitable - and I think things can only get worse for JPM if it drags this out.
Why are the boards so quiet today...anyone hear anything?
Thanks for the correction on that...much appreciated !!
This is true -- good point fsshon !!
If you hold for a year or longer, you'll incur Capital Gains Tax of 20% compared to straight income tax, which could be double or more depending on how much return you make on your short-term investment.
Same here...I would be grateful just knowing that my net-worth has exponentially increased. As much as I would love to cash in my shares overnight, another 1-3 months won't kill me. I've already waited this long.
Exactly. I anticipate that any kind of buyout/settlement will occur in the form of a conversion -- 3:1, 4:1 or 5:1. JPM's plan to payoff TARP funds and raise additional capital are solely to become eligible for the acquisition AND meet the government's more stringent liquidity requirements. It has to present the perfect balance sheet to "justify" acquiring the rest of WAMU (and it's debt).
I disagree.
Three quick points: (1.) The longer JPM stalls, the more vulnerable they are to the outcome of the probable R.2004 discovery and legal action thereof; (2.) why else would it be in such a rush to payoff TARP loans other than to allow it to acquire WAMU; and (3.) the settlement will likely cost JPM billions but there is no doubt that JPM can afford it and there is plenty of info on these boards and beyond to substantiate why it would be in JPM's best interests to do so.
**[SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG WITH THE IHUB FORUM BECAUSE THIS MESSAGE POSTED 3X -- SORRY]**
Oh I DEFINITELY need to research those posts. Thanks for the heads up!
1:3 would be a pretty sweet deal...1:2 would be even sweeter.
However, keep in mind that JPM is valued at $36 or so with 3.7B shares outstanding. We have 1.7B shares outstanding, so the reality is we would be earning a bit more than $12/share (1:3 - $36/3) from that conversion. At a 1:3 ratio, I think we would see around $20/share.
I hope this is more than a mere pipe dream, lol.
I think you're right on the money here. Anyone know whether a sanction like that of FRCP 11 exists in BK proceedings; and/or whether such sanctions would apply here if the $4B really does exist contrary to what JPM is saying?
lol, yeah I just noticed the time myself...sorry, i've been so busy at work that the day flew right by.
I don't think we're going to see a takeoff today. Hopefully next week we'll see it start trending upward.
Anytime
Honestly, I would assume so -- they're being backed by JPM, which as we all know owns WMB.
WAMUQ is equity (stock/securities), not debt (bonds and/or debentures). Fitch, like Moody's, rates bonds. So no, it isn't WAMUQ's rating.
Bond ratings for notes issued out of the WAMU Master Note Trust -- the ratings probably improved because the notes are now entirely secured and backed/collateralized by JPM.
Thank you so much, that means alot and I greatly appreciated it. I hope you're right -- I would love to be able to refrain from working so I could focus solely on my education for the time being.
Well said.
I'm at 235,000 and hoping to hit 300,000 on Monday morning. Hopefully this stock will explode in the next few weeks.. I would love to make some more moves before my next semester of law school.
No worries, it's pretty easy to lose your cool amidst all the excitement.
I love it, lol.
I'm beyond frustrated. I made a deposit with my bank/broker last friday and the funds won't be available until Monday. As much as I want to see news of a settlement over the weekend, I think it would be better in the long-run to see the PPS sustain itself or even dip a little lower on Monday as we get closer to the hearing date (and prospective settlement) so I/we can acquire some more shares.
Agreed.
I don't think the JPMorgan Chase umbrella has done too much good for the WAMU's brand equity amidst consumers. Moreover, your everyday accountholder might be a little hesitant to continue banking with such an inconsistant company - first it's consumer-friendly WAMU, then it's consumer-unfriendly chase, only to revert to WAMU again.
People usually don't like to be subjected to so much change unless they're the ones initiating it.
Very interesting.. but do you think JPM (with it's reputation virtually unscathed) will risk the bad press and allow any/all skeletons to escape from it's closet by moving forward with the litigation process?
Does the fact that evidence of the April (and perhaps even more recent) settlement discussions make a difference in your opinion on JPM prolonging the litigation?
I honestly believe JPM will use its business judgment in settling this case out of court, as soon as possible. It stands to lose way too much if it prolongs the litigation process and opens itself to Rule 2004 discovery - limited or not. The $4B is as good as ours and I hope we see a decision sometime next week (as I won't be able to get my hands on more shares until next week because of margin requirements, lol). I also believe Judge Walrath is giving a bit more deference to WMI - unfortunately, she has the weight of the world (and the financial sector) on her shoulders with this decision. I think she's simply giving the parties until the omnibus hearing on June 24 to finalize some kind of settlement agreement.
Thats just my $0.02 though. There is alot of speculation here - but only one thing seems constant - we all stand in a fine position to capitalize serious gains and/or recover losses from this action. Godspeed everyone.
The share price as we see it will have no bearing on the post-settlement (or post-judgment, if it goes that far) price. So, for anyone taking this security for what it is, daily pps is of little interest and its "tanking" or "slipping" will only yield a more opportunistic buy-in for investors to average down or get in the game.
I don't see how that's possible. Can you elaborate?
Might be a good time to pick up some more WAMUQ before the market closes for the holiday weekend -- anyone think it'll fall less than or equal to $0.105 ?
I couldn't agree with you more...right on.
Maybe through indemnity, but that still doesn't answer the question on punitive damages if the court finds JPM liable on the fraud/misrepresentation claims.
Call it whatever you want, buddy.
It might be easy for them to do that - especially since they seem to have sole access to the information in dispute.
However, the threat of FRCP R.11 sanctions combined with subsequent claims/actions for fraud and/or misrepresentation could be even more dangerous for JPM - especially if the information was more than just "relevant" in it's nature.
I believe WAMU and its counsel is aware of what information does/doesn't exist - and it will seek that information in particularity.
I think the FACTS are in WAMU's favor - and the article could NOT distort them without affecting the WSJ's credibility. In light of that, I can see how the article would be construed in WAMU's favor.
The comments that make me feel otherwise are: (1.) "...an investigation that the parent company says could be key to paying off billions of dollars in debts left behind" - which undermines the evidence saying that WAMU is already in a position to payoff the $8B in debt, with or without a settlement or the proceeds of this action; (2.) "Regulators said WaMu was teetering on the brink of collapse at the time of the takeover last fall and needed to be put into responsible hands" - which, I fear, overstates the condition WAMU was in at the time of the seizure; and (3.) "WaMu's former parent says it needs to find out whether WaMu's new owner, J.P. Morgan, engaged in 'a conspiracy, a plot' to get the thrift it had unsuccessfully attempted to buy, parent company attorney Michael Carlinsky said Wednesday" - seems like a smug comment here, especially when WMI isn't trying to find this out -- on the contrary, it's trying to prove it with the help of the Rule 2004 Discovery.
As for her addressing the judge: (1.) "Ms. Walrath is presiding over Washington Mutual's Chapter 11 case" - fourth paragraph; (2.) "Mr. Carlinsky urged Ms. Walrath to clear the way for an examination of J.P. Morgan" - fifth paragraph; and (3.) "J.P. Morgan asked Ms. Walrath to block the probe and said WaMu's former parent can get the information it needs through existing lawsuits" - paragraph 6.
Again, I may be looking at the article with too much scrutiny, but who knows. In the end, I feel very confident that Judge Walrath will decide in favor of WAMU -- but I also believe she is giving the parties a little bit of time to reach some kind of settlement and avoid all the bad press (and potentially negative effects on the financial sector) that will follow if all the "skeletons" in JPM'S "closet" were revealed by virtue of an order granting discovery under Rule 2004.
Seems to me as the author's tone was somewhat biased and in favor of JPM - which doesn't surprise me given the source.
On another note, (and this is just a personal issue I have with the author's sense of respect) the author cites Judge Walrath as "Ms. Walrath" several times in the article. I find it rather condescending to refer to a Federal Judge or Justice by any prefix other than their proper and official title. I may be looking into it a little too much, but it almost comes across as a retaliatory strike against the qualifications of a Judge who seems to be giving WAMU (the obvious underdog here) a bit more deference in light of the direct and circumstantial evidence at hand.
That's just my $0.02 though.
Wall Street Journal Online
"Former WaMu's Parent Asks Court Permission to Probe J.P. Morgan"
MAY 20, 2009, 3:42 P.M. ET
By PEG BRICKLEY
WILMINGTON, Del. -- The former parent of Washington Mutual Bank, or WaMu, Wednesday argued it should be able to use special bankruptcy powers to probe suspicions J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. plotted to gain the "long-coveted" thrift "at "fire-sale" prices.
Judge Mary F. Walrath said she would rule later on the parent company's bid to investigate J.P. Morgan's role in the events leading up to the September 2008 seizure of WaMu, an investigation that the parent company says could be key to paying off billions of dollars in debts left behind.
Regulators said WaMu was teetering on the brink of collapse at the time of the takeover last fall and needed to be put into responsible hands. Almost overnight, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sold WaMu to J.P. Morgan for $1.9 billion. The move plunged WaMu's former parent, Washington Mutual Inc., into bankruptcy and stunned investors in the Seattle banking operation's stock and debt.
A judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., Ms. Walrath is presiding over Washington Mutual's Chapter 11 case. WaMu's former parent says it needs to find out whether WaMu's new owner, J.P. Morgan, engaged in "a conspiracy, a plot" to get the thrift it had unsuccessfully attempted to buy, parent company attorney Michael Carlinsky said Wednesday.
Mr. Carlinsky urged Ms. Walrath to clear the way for an examination of J.P. Morgan; U.S bankruptcy law allows companies and creditors in Chapter 11 to look for grounds to sue. The chance to sue J.P. Morgan over business wrongs, such as misuse of confidential information, would be "highly valuable," the parent company said in court filings.
J.P. Morgan asked Ms. Walrath to block the probe and said WaMu's former parent can get the information it needs through existing lawsuits. J.P. Morgan, WaMu's parent and the FDIC are involved in a series of lawsuits nationwide.
Mr. Carlinsky said the existing lawsuits focus largely on who has rights to $4 billion in cash that was in the parent company's accounts at WaMu when the thrift was taken over and sold off to J.P. Morgan.
That's far different from the area WaMu's parent wants to investigate. It specifically wants to look at the possibility that J.P. Morgan, a thwarted suitor, leaked confidential information and manipulated the market to make WaMu look more troubled than it actually was, Mr. Carlinsky said. If the parent company can prove J.P. Morgan engineered WaMu's ruin, then pounced on the ailing thrift, it can sue for wrongs to the business, said Mr. Carlinsky, a lawyer with the firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges.
On Tuesday, WaMu's former parent filed papers seeking a quick court order to force .P. Morgan to release the bank-account cash.
Mr. Carlinsky said J.P. Morgan is playing for delay, which means profit for J.P. Morgan because it has control of $4 billion in cash that was in the parent company's WaMu bank accounts when the thrift was taken over.
"What it's attempting to do in these Chapter 11 cases is really muddy the waters, dictate the schedule, the agenda," he said.
J.P. Morgan attorney Stacey R. Friedman, who is with the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, denied wanting to delay action involving WaMu or the $4 billion worth of deposits that are now under J.P. Morgan's control.
Thomas Califano, a lawyer at DLA Piper who's representing the FDIC, said Wednesday the agency wants the Delaware bankruptcy court to hold up action so that everything can be heard by a federal court in Washington.
Write to Peg Brickley at peg.brickley@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124284602607940243.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It was my understanding that the hearing already took place - briefs, oppositions and replies were exchanged, and oral argument over the issue was held today - thus, isn't Judge Walrath free to excerise her discretion as to when she issues a decision/order on the matter - whether it happens today or in the June omnibus hearing?
Perhaps, but keep in mind that the general public is still relatively unaware of what is going on with WAMU - let alone any presumptions that could be inferred from Judge Walrath's courtroom sentiment or decision to hold off on a decision - sufficient to trigger an increase or decrease in PPS.
What we do know is that today's hearing provoked significant increase in volume - with increases in WAMUQ and decreases in JPM - sufficient to say that the public awareness is already in our favor. Moreover, instead of adjourning the "issue" of Rule 2004 Discovery, Judge Walrath merely held off on issuing a decision/order - which also dances in WAMU's favor.
I agree with you. From what I understand, Judge Walrath is encouraging the parties to reach some sort of settlement agreement and she's showing some signs of favorability to WAMU.
If anything, I suspect that Judge Walrath is very much aware of the potential implications (and the skeletons that could very well come out of JPM's closet) associated with granting the Rule 2004 Motion - she may be doing JPM a favor by helping them avoid the bad press for a month while the parties reach a settlement.
Glad to see JPM's alleged misconduct is making the headlines.