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.
Very well said Catz. :)
Wamuq has been promoted by 87 promoters,the last took place on 6/02/11 according to stock promoters .com.
Thank you Catz, good to see somebody else's take with such a background. (El Juez)
Charles S. McCurry, great job thank you.
Great job as usual David, thank you.
:) Go WAMUQ
Good job !
This will be a good start in reading about George Soros. I could give you my true thought on him ,however the message would be deleted. Go WAMUQ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hero-to-liberals-soros-ends-hedge-fund-career-to-escape-regulations/2011/07/26/gIQApZ0hbI_story.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
whos this sorros and what fund did he drop
Agreed... IMO
Ya think he might have a agenda. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. We've all been waiting on getting your wisdom and insight.
Thanks ever so much.
The value of your sharing is immeasurable.
...Catz
Might have to click on pause and play.
Your new sight works great! thank you (Live Stream via justin.tv)
Watch Video It is real big.
Great work Catz,THANK YOU.
Wow,well said IMO
Nobody is making you listen in on court,(i happen to appreciate it very much,and i thank you Dan for making it possible.)
Could you elaborate more on your inside information.
------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, you guys with the 'settlement' talk...in the entire 3 years of this case there has only been 1 brief discussion of settlement for equity. That was from the Hedgies, who obviously didn't have enough to pay equity. The only reason Wamu classes are still trading is because of Nate Thoma and the IT charge, otherwise this would have been over in June at the original confirmation
AGREE :)
Agreed,well said.
And might i say you are do a great job with your filings. Thank you
I second that... :)
LOL,got to get some sleep expecting long day tomorrow. GLTA
Yep, they are not new to the game.
Not a bad filing for a 10 pound monkey, plus sealed filings. :)
Sorry if already posted,long but good read.
https://yod1bin.comcastvault.net/id/abyss/download/t/NULX3WGsOvhhim6XiF8nQE/item/8273675465436102719/?output=pdf
Judge Walrath,
I am someone who has an inherent interest in this case having been severely injured by the hasty seizure of Washington Mutual(WaMu) on 9/25/08. As a pre-seizure holder of WaMu equity (I have continued to hold equity), I recognize that my unresolved loss was primarily due to how the receiver (FDIC) recklessly transferred assets of WaMu to JP Morgan Chase (JPM).
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released its final Inquiry report (FCIC -Jan 2011), in which Sheila Bair (FDIC Chairman) was quoted: " WaMu’s failure “was practically a nonevent,” Bair also said in her testimony to the FCIC. “It was below the fold if it was even on the front page ... barely a blip given everything else that was going on." I consider these statements to reflect a very prejudiced, cavalier opinion. It was a BIG blip in MY world. Plus, the 'Wall Street Journal' had it as an ENTIRE FRONT PAGE story. Statements as foolish as this only magnify the short-sighted mentality of the person at the helm of the FDIC. Judge- I
ask that you take a look around you. There are currently "20+" legal firms drawing monthly checks from the estate/this case; All shooting in different directions. Then there's all the rest of the firms
outside of that. Does that sound like a 'fair & reasonable' summary to the precedent setting actions which Ms. Bair considers 'fair & reasonable'?
There are many ways I can describe the last 2.5 years; 'FAIR & REASONABLE' have never quite been able to squeeze their way in, however. Even Weil, Gotshal & Manges has been able to set new billing records/precedent in how much the Debtor & the Court is allowing. When just "1" of their employees can bill (monthly) for as much as several other firms do combined (monthly)- then
everyone (yes, even the court) has failed at their duties. Nothing to be proud of here. In addition- enhancing JPM (as a result), has dramatically streamlined investor DD because now they
can immediately OMIT ALL U.S. BANKS and any other publicly traded financial centers who are subject to whimsical, predatory regulators. Investment money in these situations has the ever-present risk of vaporizing from unexpected seizures. Ironically, this is an obstacle to banks in raising capital via stock offerings for any reason- including when required by their regulator to raise those same levels.
The transfer still remains nothing but a contribution which the FDIC made to JPM, the beneficiary in this transfer of wealth. This is characteristic for the FDIC, which has YET to even acknowledge a 'completed' transaction by refusing to sign off on the transfer. The original purchase and assumption
agreement (P&A) gave FDIC the right to extend the settlement “in its discretion”... which it continues to do, to-date.
So, JPM has been afforded the luxury & profits of what is nothing short of an unlimited TESTDRIVE from the FDIC dealership. A 30 month, multi-billion-dollar-profit test-drive, so far. One
where JPM has followed in the footsteps of its benefactor, the FDIC, doing whatever it wants with assets still unidentified as to true ownership. One which has shown itself, by all numbers available, to be a very effective "vehicle" in aiding JPM's return to re-leveraged financial health. JPM is truly fortunate to receive such generosity at the injury of thousands of others. Sheila Bair kept in close personal touch with Jamie Dimon (JPM CEO) in letting him know he was the chosen one. Chosen to be the sole inheritor named in the P&A pact between JPM & FDIC. Still, since the FDIC has carte blanche in everything it does, until the WaMu covenant between JPM & FDIC is actually closed- what
the FDIC giveth, the FDIC can taketh away.
The FDIC, which has been endowed (as it postulates) with 'sovereign immunity', can do whatever it wants / whenever it wants / wherever it wants. Here is another FCIC excerpt (from Bair): “By 2007, banking regulators had come to understand that they did not have the proper tools to wind down a large complex non-depository institution without causing disruptions to the broader financial markets. As a result, the government was forced to rely on ad hoc measures involving government support to stabilize the situation."
The Center for Public Integrity published the following in an (11/4/2010) article about the ill-fated WaMu examiner report:
Hochberg criticized the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for its lack of transparency in cooperating with his investigation. The agency was “slow and difficult” in negotiations, he wrote.
Hochberg came down hard on the FDIC for failing to adequately cooperate with his investigation, and questions some of the agency’s actions along the way.
He notes that the Sept. 16 call from FDIC’s Bair to JP Morgan’s Dimon came “before any formal opening of the bidding process.”
Hochberg also says that “some of the FDIC’s actions lack transparency.” As a result, he was “unable to determine whether the FDIC fully understood the value of the assets it seized and sold.”
In general, Hochberg was frustrated with the agency’s balking.
“The FDIC made clear that attempts to compel discovery could be met with certain obstacles . . .
which could effectively delay any discovery beyond the time limits of the examination,” Hochberg wrote. The FDIC had said it would litigate to keep internal deliberations secret, he said.
The agency also responded selectively to document requests, and refused to make Bair and two
other senior officials available for interviews. The FDIC’s lack of cooperation was especially
egregious compared with other players in the WaMu sale, he said. The OTS, for example, “was
helpful and cooperative,” he wrote.
FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said:
“It is unprecedented for the FDIC to let its process be subject to review by a bankruptcy examiner,”
he wrote. “However, the FDIC voluntarily cooperated in an effort to move the settlement agreement
forward, including the production of numerous documents and interviews with key FDIC senior staff.
The FDIC General Counsel determined that interviewing other officials, including the Chairman,
was not necessary to adequately respond to the needs of the special examiner and would set a
dangerous precedent.”
In another report, Bair avoided any possible Inspector General of the FDIC audits called
Material Loss Reviews (MLR) by making the claim that there "is no loss to the DIF" (From FDIC
IG Jon T. Rymer to PSI)
"Section 38(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the cognizant IG to conduct a material
loss review (MLR) of the causes of the failure and PFR supervision when the losses to the DIF exceed
$25 million or 2 percent of an institution’s total assets at the time the FDIC was appointed receiver.
Because the FDIC facilitated a sale of WaMu to JPMorgan Chase & Co. without incurring a
material loss to the DIF, an MLR was not statutorily required."
I find this statement by the FDIC's own IG completely disingenuous. Consider the fact that the
FDIC agreed to spend as much as $500 million dollars to indemnify the recipient of this unilateral
transaction. That's '$25M x 20' for the numerically challenged. From where? Why? Because JPM
already had an exclusive agreement (contract) with WaMu which it had to breach in order to get
the P&A deal from the FDIC/receiver instead.
The FDIC claims to be above the laws of the U.S. in that it can not be held responsible for anything
it does. It follows then, that if declaration of this attribute is not questioned- this courts
effectiveness & subsequently all parties rights in pursuing a "fair & reasonable" GSA or POR
*with the FDIC as a bargaining party*- will be extinguished.
WILL COMPROMISES MADE IN THIS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANKRUPTCY
INCLUDE ANY COMPROMISES IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
COURT SYSTEM?
*The FDIC HAS managed to impose its will on this court & its beliefs.....
The court has made it clear, through it's Opinion (docket# 6528) that it has grown impatient and just
wants a settlement which satisfies the FDIC since the FDIC says they have "sovereign immunity" as
a government regulator . Left uncontested as to it's truth, consequently- the court accepts the
FDIC's postulation and can only serve as a moot court where there is at least one party to the
GSA which remains outside the authority of this court.
(re: Pg 58 of opinion)
"c. Complexity, Expense and Delay
The Plan Supporters argue that continuing the various
litigation on the disputed claims will cause at least a 3-4 year
delay in any distribution to creditors, increase post-petition
interest and professional fees (which are currently running at
the monthly rate of $30 million and $10 million, respectively)
and require the resolution by this Court and others of complex
issues relating to the takeover and sale of WaMu and conflicting
claims of many parties to the various disputed assets. (Kosturos
Decl. at ¶ 30.) The Plan Supporters contend that the litigation
in this case was particularly complex given the involvement of
the government regulators which added issues of sovereign
immunity (affecting even whether discovery could be taken of the
government agents), preemption, and jurisdiction.
The Plan Objectors note that this factor is really not
significant because all settlements eliminate the complexity,
expense, and delay inherent in litigating.
The Court disagrees with the Plan Objectors’ contention that
this factor is not significant...."
The court, in its opinion, makes it clear to adversaries of the GSA That it is 'unfortunate' to be one of the many who were injured by the FDIC's actions but, sometimes these things happen. It's just part of the way it is and you'll just have to deal with it. Don't
let the courthouse doors hit you on the way out. 'Fair & Reasonable'? About as fair & reasonable as a random drive-by shooting.
*---JPM---*
Consistent with that stated in the Courts OPINIONIt
must be quite an *EMBARASSMENT OF RICHES* since there is still no consolidated inventory re: open P&A Nevertheless- Plan distribution (e.g.- to Equity/original owners of the company) IS set to ZERO.
(re: Pg 57 of Opinion)
"b. Difficulties in Collection
The Plan Supporters argue that given the complexity of the
case and the fact that it involves claims against the FIDC as
well as JPMC means that the possibility of collecting is very
difficult. They note that because WMI’s claims against the FDIC
are premised in part on its equity ownership of WMB, the
possibility of collecting on those claims are particularly
remote. The FDIC as Receiver of WMB has significantly fewer
assets than the claims of creditors, making any recovery for
equity unlikely. The Plan Supporters argue that even collection
against JPMC for claims the Debtors have against it is not
assured.
The Plan Objectors disagree, contending that JPMC is a huge
financial institution with many resources and that any collection
of claims against it cannot be difficult. They also note that
several of the assets in dispute are liquid: notably, the $4
billion in Deposit Accounts, the more than $5 billion in tax
refunds, and the $4 billion in TPS. Therefore, they argue that
collectibility is not an issue.
The Court disagrees with the Plan Objectors. The collapse
of WMB itself demonstrates that bank deposits (especially in the
amount of $4 billion) may not be easily collectible without
resulting in another bank collapse. Further, given the economic
turmoil in 2008, when even huge institutions like Lehman Brothers
and AIG faced financial difficulties, the Court concludes that it
is not possible to say that any judgment against JPMC would not
face difficulty in collection, especially if it is in the billions of dollars as the Plan Objectors contend."
"$4 billion) may not be easily collectible without resulting in another bank collapse."
Judge; It is everything I can do to restrain my wording when reading this. If that was your intent- then
consider it 'mission accomplished'. If not, then this is where we have complete disagreement. So much
so, that I can sincerely state:
*This is far below what I expect to see as credible conclusion(s) from a Court and Judge of your
caliber. This holds as much credibility as my naming either the team to win the next Super Bowl or the
next horse to win the Kentucky Derby.
The court may not have taken the position it has in its opinion, if it had seen the story published in the
New York Times, about a week later. Here is the beginning excerpt taken from that (Jan 15, 2011)
story:
"JPMorgan Chase Earns $11.7 Billion"
"JPMorgan Chase kicked off what is expected to be a robust — and controversial — reporting season
for the nation’s banks on Friday with news that its profit and pay for 2009 soared. In a remarkable
rebound from the depths of the financial crisis, JPMorgan earned $11.7 billion last year, more than
double its profit in 2008, and generated record revenue. The bank earned $3.3 billion in the fourth
quarter alone.
Those cheery figures were accompanied by news that JPMorgan had earmarked $26.9 billion to
compensate its workers, much of which will be paid out as bonuses."
It's ludicrous to speak of "Billions" as if it suddenly appeared from the air. The fact is, the amounts
involved HAD TO BE GENERATED FROM WASHINGTON MUTUAL VALUE,
no matter how it's calculated. JPM more than doubled its profit of "2008". Does the WaMu seizure
date of 9/25/08 just happen to coincide with this remarkable jump?... and the rest of the industry didn't
happen to share in. This IS what it IS and an insult to state otherwise. JPM continues to get fat off
of what it inherited. Numbers (unfettered) don't lie. NUMBERS ALSO DON'T SEEM TO HAVE
ANY PLACE IN THIS CASE EITHER.
How come the presence of any assets/values are as welcome to the FDIC & JPM as
the bubonic plague?
This court does NOT owe either the FDIC or JPM special treatment.
*They have not even met their own obligations in finalizing the (as of today- 'Pretend') P&A sale
pact between them; nor have they supplied a bona fide asset list/ pertinent 3.1a schedule. What
happened to the asset value disclosure required to be submitted to the court by JPM on 3/19/2009?
This court should not have sanctioned ANY type of arrangement including these 2 parties while
their partnership contract, relevant to this case, for all practical purposes... doesn't even exist
until lawfully fulfilled. This is the equivalent of requiring an insurance carrier to make payment on an
accident which hasn't even happened yet.
There are no illusions about these 2 intervenors in this case. They've managed, by intervention,
to stalk the ex-owners of the bank(s) through this venue instead. They've come before you to
circumvent stayed litigation & obtain YOUR assistance in expunging their actions; The same
actions which were the genesis to this bankruptcy. Actions that portrayed the antithesis of what
generally accepted views of 'fair & reasonable' are .
*** HAVE THEM LEAVE WITH THE SAME LUGGAGE THEY CAME HERE WITH. ***
The currency of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" contains the phrase
"IN GOD WE TRUST".
Those who subscribe to this should also be expected to subscribe to the beliefs in what that God
represents. I don't recall the commandment
"Thou shalt not steal" having a footnote which states... 'for a list of those who are forever exempt
from this- see below'.
---------------------
Relief Requested:
1) I fully support the EC's appeal in objection to the GSA 'Fair and Reasonable' inadequacies...
The GSA arrived with 'uncontested interpretation' of the tax sharing arrangement. Both
ownership AND value were made part of this pie-eating contest before establishing rightful
ownership and valuation of assets included. In my opinion, this remains the single worst
omission in this court/case. Why has this simply been ignored? The DIP simply should not have been
allowed to enter ANY agreement in which the assets were not completely defined- by ALL parties,
including Equity. The IRS sure knew who to send the refunds to. And the $4B deposit?
How can a mutually successful POR (exit to bankruptcy) occur with an absence of quantification? You
could not expect to have your car fixed at a repair shop if you left the engine at home.
2) Beyond the above-
**I ask that the court not allow the use or presence of a GSA to be THE mechanism (central element)
to ANY POR in this case when/where the FDIC is included as having any input at all. Their
inclusion removes ANY level of 'fair & reasonable' measure or Good Faith. They are a true adversary
to the Estate.
OR in the alternative, allow both a & b conditions below to be contested... even, should this
require the temporary relinquishing of court jurisdiction.
The argument for this is two-fold:
a) The FDIC has Clear BIAS / conflict in these proceedings. (This is the equivalent of having
Adolph Hitler sitting on the jury of the O.J. Simpson trial). It's described here, due to the following
'predisposition', as directly quoted from Sheila Bair's FCIC testimony:
"The WAMU resolution—with a private sector acquirer—reflected an effective bidding process and
regulatory action that facilitated a closing while the institution still had value that exceeded its insured
deposit liabilities. While creditors and bondholders were treated as mandated by statute, it was a
seamless transition for depositors and other bank customers. As evidenced by the orderly resolution,
WAMU could be resolved without posing systemic risk. The process worked as Congress intended
and imposed losses on shareholders and uninsured creditors. The WAMU resolution process mirrors
the way in which a large interconnected financial institution would be treated under proposals currently
before Congress."
b) The FDIC maintains/postulates that- under no circumstances can it be held accountable for its
actions; that this level of authority is ordained through sovereign immunity.
If the court permits this to stand true (uncontested, as it has), one MUST assume that this is immutable.
It follows then (by this court endorsing such GSA), that all other parties are deprived of their right
to a "fair & reasonable" arrangement; it is already weighted heavily in the FDIC's favor, to the
point of coercive. On top of that- Is it within the scope of this courts enforceability? After all, since the
FDIC possesses an inherent 'immunity'...means it could not be held responsible for not fulfilling its
part of THIS agreement either. Who would underwrite this possibility on behalf of all other parties
affected by the GSA?
**This is not prescient fantasy. This has already occurred. Among the aforementioned samplings of
the FDIC way of doing 'business' .....(which were not written as an exercise in catharcism) was the
$500M promised to defend JPM's breaking its exclusive contract with WaMu in order to 'deal' through
the very same receivership. How cozy & convenient. Write new rules on the fly.
3) I ask the Court to "Get Tough" / Shorten the leash- using its available power & resources.
This courts adjudication, in both time & due process, has been burdened by multi-lateral self-serving
agendas. The intervention of the FDIC & JPM is equivalent to a game of "Whack-a-Mole". The
FDIC & JPM partners (use the- I'll Huff-and-I'll Puff formula to) inform the court of just what they
intend to do with the $4B deposits, Tax refunds, etc. Hedge funds using 'debt-piracy' in taking over
what once was WMI/holding co AND NULLIFYING IT'S BOD. The traiterous acts of that
(carefully hidden) BOD in turning their back on their owners & fiduciary obligations. The DIP's
attorneys in presenting a GSA based (equity excluded) POR which was created without any regard to
fulfilling a 'reasonable' level of being 'fair and reasonable'. All this chicanery carefully orchestrated and
finely choreographed to zip by, undetected by the courts radar. I'm just not sure who's fooling who.
The Debtors, by employing Weil, Gotshal & Manges (among others) seem to navigate smoothly and
freely through the familiar waters of the court. I suppose, like many other things here- I'll just have to
live with that. I'm reminded of the story of there being 3 types of people in this world... Those that
make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened.
Judge, I realize that anyone 'seasoned' in their career can also become 'tenderized'. (No disrespect
whatsoever; we're both citizens of the same vintage). I can tell you, with all sincerity- I wish I didn't
EVER (by victim association) come to learn what I have from these proceedings... and you deal with
this daily. Paints a pretty sordid picture. I've kept a score-card (on all parties) re: ignored &/or
refused discovery, missed deadlines, deposition refusals, unkept promises, arrogant testimony,
and the like. Then there's the semantically clever/ truth-challenged (doc & verbal) submissions. Final
orders that may not be. The list is... healthy. What I'm TRYING to say (without getting in trouble) isthat
I'm all for the 'give em enough rope' approach, however- I feel that the court has allowed enough
of these infractions as to have actually contributed to some of the 'complexity' mentioned in the
Courts Opinion (docket# 6528).
The court needs the courage to step up and administer, and the wisdom to acknowledge that it may
require additional venue to prescribe. This case embodies the reasons to receive multi-jurisdiction
attention without being duplicative..
-----------------------
One thing is certain;
No matter when/what the finish line to this case brings- If the assets (in both value & ownership) are
not COMPLETELY & methodically brought into play (litigated), or the courts continually ignored
demands for discovery regarding a number of participants remain muted-
There will NEVER be enough washings nor strong enough detergent to clean away that which will
have engulfed this court/case. It flys in the face of reason- that so many have been harmed at the
hands of so few. The Devil will not only be in the details... but right there with arms around the court
in an embrace.
I would not have ever remotely imagined that guaging, just what "Fair and Reasonable" IS, would
prove to be such an elusive target- as the line keeps being moved.
-As a shareholder (listed in joinder), in addition to entering my objection(s);
by my signature below I hereby give my full authorization to
the 'Official Committee of Equity Security Holders'
to act on my behalf in regard to the enclosed objection(s)-
consistent with their standing as fiduciaries to the estate and to the equity.
Sincerely, OptionenAntwort einfügen
Boardmail an "Memory193"
Wertpapier:
Washington Mutual
Anzeigen von Google
AuRico Gold Inc. is pleased to announce that commercial production resumed today at its wholly-owned El Cubo mine, located in Guanajuato State, Mexico.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in AuRico Gold. We have recently posted new information which might be of interest, please follow this link for direct access.
http://www.auricogold.com
Regards
Anne Day
Director of Investor Relations
T. +1.647.260.8880
F. +1.647.260.8881
AuRico Gold Inc.
320 Bay Street, Suite 1520
Toronto, ON M5H 4A6 Canada
OUR GUYYS ARE ON THE CASE AND ITS GONNA BE SOME SHOw!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For sure!
Just a few think sky is falling. :)
I noticed after my post;your link better..:)
So much for the first thought crossing my mind as i read it. :)
My thoughts, rather than face possible charges?
Admired here also!
Hope your chillin today Catz with friends and family. Happy 4Th to all. Gooooo WAMU
http://coolpho.blogspot.com/2011/04/best-of-cats-chillin.html
UZUAL, could you put it in language recognized by Google, my translate won't work. :)
All post are good answers for early_retirement2. LOL :) imho
Thank you sir.