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.
Again until I see otherwise from JMW, is she just going to say to all these types of things, that she can't decide the impact/legality/ whatever and just let it slide. I'm sue there are those much smarter than myself here that can look at this and determine if any IT laws or any ethical walls or anything were broken.
I'd definitely appreciate any thoughts from those knowledgable!
I've been listening off and on this morning and I have been unable to make much sense of it. I know the EC has been submitting evidence while questioning witnesses, but I haven't had any luck of trying to figure out how meaningful the evidence is in relation to PROVING either IT or some other illegal activity or breaking of ethical wall. Can anyone point to anything specific and make any sense out of it?
Thanks.
It sounds like this witness is trying to say that basically he can break any law he so chooses, just so his attorney is there, and the would never have to talk about it.
I hope JMW remembers all these "I don't remember", " I don't recall" crap.
And I'm sure you think Bernie Madoff was just helping thousands of workng class Americans try to get a tax break by allowing them to contribute to his charity.
My question is, will JMW consider Blackstone's to be fair and ignore any other valuations and ultimately every other thing presented before her. Despite the obvious testimony that indicates there is alot more out there for equity, can JMW still rule that while there may be more out there, these other paths present promise, but since so much time has gone by I don't want to wait years for other things to come to fruition, therefore Rosen's POR is again fair and reasaonable?
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110713000000000020.pdf
Shouldn't EC already have most of these documents that they are wishing to submit if they were required to turnover everything related to trades?
This is where I get confused / upset. It seems the HF's can do whatever the heck they want regardless of what they are told to do. I know we only need one ruling go our way to have this POR denied, but I get really nervous with each hearing/issue thinking soome random ruling will come if ever to be actually enforced.
It doesn't matter whether Bopfan is correct or not. IF JMW confirms this crap, she is basically giving a free pass to all illegal trading and company acquisition and allowing attorneys and corporations and government entities to break the law in broad daylight, so we are screwed anyway.
This whole process is starting to worry me. After reading many posts and doing as much DD as I could during a bout of insomnia last night, IMO, the filing of the objection under seal is most likely because of SOMETHING included in the confidentiality agreement (maybe information relating to what Hoffman was trying to get unsealed), but not necessarily a lot or everything. I would hope that when the confirmation hearing is in progress, that it would be normal, then whenever anything related to confidentiality agreement came up, hearing would be moved to judge's chambers.
There just seems to me to be much information that EC wasn't given because of attorney client privilege as well. If anything related is discussed, I fear there may be more time in chambers.
Again, IMO, the only good thing I see from this is that now there can be possible negotiations until the 13th and if a settlement is reached, that objection will never be unsealed, so any allegations of crimes will stay hidden forever (I don't like that in itself, because I want justice, but do like that we may have better chances of a settlement if the documents stay hidden.)
fixedops -- Is it possible that EC could have submitted a redacted or partially sealed version, as opposed to having to seal the whole thing?
So do SNH's get to see the objection, so they can do some more insider trading, while we are scr*wed again?
voodoo (edited can follow to can't follow) -- I thought the same thing, but at this point I have to ask why bother? If EC has anything, go for the throat. By not sealing it, wouldn't that have forced debtors to call for emergency negotiations tonight and allow for another extension.
Granted, I can't follow who has what to hide anymore, so I guess it needs to determined who has the most to lose here. SNH, debtors JPM or FDIC.
I just don't see the benefits of sealing at this point, when SNH's apparently will never let us in the money.
If the hearing is closed hopefully they'll let Bet be in there to be our eyes!
Investors strike $208.5 mln WaMu settlementBY Reuters
— 9:31 AM ET 07/01/2011
* Directors, officers, underwriters and auditor settle
* $208.5 million ranks among largest from credit crisis
WILMINGTON, Del., July 1 (Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc's (WAMUQ
) officers, directors, underwriters and auditor have agreed to a $208.5 million settlement to end class-action securities fraud lawsuits, according to court documents.
The settlement is among the largest stemming from the financial crisis, trailing a $624 million settlement by Countrywide Financial Corp and $475 million by Merrill Lynch & Co Inc.
The lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington accused the defendants of concealing from investors poor loan underwriting and inflated appraisals that juiced earnings. That inflated the company's stock price, which was once a stock-market darling.
As the U.S. housing market began to crash, Washington Mutual's (WAMUQ
Loading...
) loans soured at an alarming rate. In September 2008 regulators seized the company's savings and loan business in the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
The day after the seizure, the bank holding company, Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ
WAMUQ WASHINGTON MUTUAL 0.1330
Change +0.0035 (+2.70%) AS OF 9:35 AM ET 07/01/11.
), filed for bankruptcy.
Under the terms of the class-action settlement, announced in court papers dated Thursday, claims against the directors and officers will be settled for around $105 million.
About a dozen underwriters of the company's securities contributed $85 million to the settlement; the company's auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, contributed $18.5 million.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
The cases were consolidated as Washington Mutual Inc Securities, Derivative & ERISA litigation, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 08-md-1919.
Countrywide and Merrill Lynch were both acquired by Bank of America (BAC
Nightdaytrader -- That raises the question if JMW's blunders/ mistakes can be done by anything that takes place in the next confirmation hearing or any subsequent trial afterwards. If the answer is no, then those of us that are still here are fools. If the answer is yes, the next question is how? Does EC have enought to convince JMW that insider trading or bad faith negotiations happened? What other AMMO does Susman have?
About the redacted documents -- I thought JMW had a huge opportunity to say, well, I can't make you give documents between attorney and client, but the documents provided, better not have very many redactions at all. I was disappointed she didn't do it.
Rumble -- very thought provoking and well thought out post.
Unfortunately for me, it brought up the thought of my son's knothole team. He plays on a very good team and when they play a bad team, I can usually predict who will win. However, if the umpire s*cks, then many, many outcomes could happen.
Good luck to us all as we wait nervously for 7/13, if we get to that point.
With the EC only getting item #5, and the JMW basically saying that she agrees that all documents have already been turned over, does anyone on the board knoww if there is anything specific that can determine if Aurelius actually hands over what they need to in this instance?
If EC says (like they did today), that they've been railroaded, it seems like nothing can be done about it.
XOM -- In your opinion, do you think the EC already has information and this extra little bit we might get is enough to win, whether a settlement now, or in confirmation hearing or in court later, or are we scr*wed?
Also, now, does EC have any AMMO to provide confirmation (fair and reasonable)?
if it is going to take months to get EC what they want, how in the world did they produce everything between Feb and May when settlement talks began, then everything afterwards (when talks broke down), that they were asked to do, and still have time to redact at leat 80% of it?
Hopefully JMW doesn't fall for some sort of this will take "months" crap, when they were allowed to beat up EC members. She needs to set scope for documents and better be accomodating to EC. Hopefully she will do so to force the parties back into a settlement discussion before producing them.
Is it possible for JMW to decide to appoint someone to determine if all the documents needed have been produced and if someone is lying, because it is sounding like he is trying to railroad her big time into thinking they gave everything?
I wonder if this type of thing will happen to JPM and how much of it is from WAMU investment? Also, can this possibly affect any settlemnt issues?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bank-of-America-in-85B-apf-1572655122.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
I think they wanted until the 12th. She gave them until the 11th for the response part and the 8th for the rest. I'd call this a stalemate and a message, no matter how small on JMW's part, IMO, that she wants compromise.
basically the objection (at least that portion) is saying insinuating IMO that pretty much everyone EXCEPT the EC is on the up and up in every aspect of the insider trading issue and the wording of what I highlighted goes even further to comppliment the debtor's attorneys (Rosen).
This case is becoming more bitter by the minute, although I beleive that when they are in court they will play nice.
I have this weird feeling in the back of my head, that all the attorneys are basically acting out a play or something and we think it is real. Somewhere down the road, they will all say something like "shareholders have been punked" and they will all laugh all the way to the bank.
Is this board having representation at the hearings the next few days? Gosh I hope so. The play by play good be very intriguing.
I like this part on page 6:
xoom -- Maybe I'm misreading, but wasn't the proposed plan 7.0 what all the talks were about until they broke down? I think they must have had Schwabe as part of their discussion team or at least watch what was going so they could either advise for the final deal or if the deal fell through (which it did). I obviously don't know their skills but would hope they have some negotiating type assets that can keep them involved to the end once the settlement talks hopefully begin again before this thing (version 6.?) goes through confirmation hearings.
Anyone notice on page 5 that BR should have said June 17, but said July 17th. To me, this makes the objection null, since we have not hit that date yet.
Don --
Quote:
Since we've been here for years already, can someone give a quick summation of what happens to certain financials if we remain in this limbo for several more years?
Obviously attorney fees build way up.
Do NOL's expire?
Any money in holding drawing interest? (Visa shares, assets, etc)
I have to believe this portion of BK will be over by the end of this year. DC litigation may continue well beyond that.
Don't forget about Collyer and DC litigation. This has a long, long way to go. Most of us were hoping for a favorable settlement and that looked like a possibility a few weeks ago. Now we are preparing for the long haul again.
oilstrike -- I agree with you. What worries me, is that if you and I both know, I'm sure the feds do too, and are not doing anything about it. So the question is, can Susman inflict enough pain where hedgies cave, or take their chances in court down the road, knowing (hoping) the government would never let this many of them go down?
Anyone have thoughts on if there is a possibility JMW can throw out the fair and reasonable bs again?
i like your version! eom.
mattchew -- these requests seem an awful lot like waht I thought would happen with the examiner. Can you (and the board of course) chime in on what your level of comfort of getting all this information is? Does being part of a deposition make a diference, or will the opposing parties try to limit scope again and we will be in court for a long long time?
Don -- I again claim to be no expert, I just want my money! The settlement would have been nice if fair. Since we now apparently have a long way to go (again), I guess I am now more comfortable being in waiting mode. I would really like however to see the information that EC has on everyone!
As always, thanks for all your contributions.
Whatever wins this case I can live with! Again, I would give up some of my money to see those guilty go to jail!
UZ -- Can you enlighten me on one thing? Are these documents for the deposition or other documents? Why would they need a hearinf for this? I thought the EC was already given the right to have the depositions. Does the fact that they dropped them mean they have to go through the whole process again? Maybe I missed something.
No offense taken MrchntDeth -- I definitely don't claim to be a lawyer. From sitting on this thing for over 2 years now, I have come to an undeniable conclusion that Rosen and Susman both have a reputation as being among the best of the best.
Someone has to win this case, whether from a "verdict" from JMW approving a POR in whcih we get nothing, or one in which we do. IMO, nothing has happened factually which indicates we will be in the money. The only POR that made it as far as confirmation did not include us. While it was denied, the road is still very long for us to get something.
Obviously Susman is doing the depositions with the goal of uncovering something that will get the commons in the money. Common sense says that a lot of things were done that were not legal/ethical in this case. Can Susman prove anything? I sure hope so. Why does he want the deposition sealed? Is it because something can be used from it that may cause the public harm? I honestly don't know. I just feel that the deck is still stacked against us. I also don't know the long term effect of sealing a document. If it prevents us from making certain moves in the future, I am not for it. I for one want all options to be as open as possible.
Hoffman may not have been game changer for us, but Thoma sure has been. I believe in getting involved to the extent of being useful, not a burden for the EC team. Look at the the objections filed by shareholders and those that actually spoke in court. They have had an effect on this case.
I honestly don't know the effects of what happened yesterday. I don't think any of us do yet. I know that most of us were expecting a settlement by Friday. Today, while that could still happen seems less likely. I will wait as long as needed to get paid, but I do want paid. Whether or not, I like Susman, I still have to hope he wins this case.
We need Nate (and as many of us as possible) to come up with objections to the sealing of any more documents in this case. This could be our golden ticket and they want to seal it. Granted, sealing it could be enough to get this thing settled, but I don't want to risk losing any ammo we may need later.
MrchntDeth -- Interesting post. I have a few questions for you and the board as a whole. If this is civil, then why would they be concerned about jail time? They've already made a ton of money of this stuff, so I fine may not concern them either.
Also, if it becomes every man for themself, can JMW sift through it all and render a just verdict, or will she simply approve 6.5? (I am not even sure there can be a 6.5 the way it looks like all sides are at odds now, there has to be major negotiations going on between someone)
I am not an expert on civil cases, but the depos -- are they truly a civil case now, part of BK, or are both the same in this instance?