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.
His entire testimony is premised on a $127mil value of the reorganized debtor.
Since this value is $127mil, any entity that "buys" reorg WMI for more than $127mil would negate the ability to use a majority of the NOLs.
I am sure this will be addressed by EC.
We will see how he holds up under cross.
Hearing started.
She will hear the evidence and rule on jurisdiction later in her opinion and forward her findings to DC court on issues where she lacks jurisdiction.
I agree with her ruling since there are so many intertwined issues.
No parties objected to her ruling, EC included.
The judge already ruled on the jurisdiction issue and I didn't hear any objections.
I agree.
Susman/EC can submit their objection "up to and including the Confirmation Hearing".
We may not even see the objection before the hearing, but Susman/EC will object.
Since the motion is to exclude certain evidence from being presented at the hearing, it should be handled before the hearing starts or at the beginning.
It could be handled in open court or in JMW's chambers.
The motion will be heard at the Confirmation Hearing.
All responses to EC objection filed under seal.
Response of Appaloosa Management L.P. to the Objection of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders to Confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110711000000000006.pdf
FILED UNDER SEAL
<Now we are again apparently doomed.>
Why?
Monthly Operating Report for Debtor In Possession for the Period May 1, 2011 though May 31, 2011
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110705000000000006.pdf
From what I have read so far, this is an outstanding objection.
Objection by Charles S. McCurry to the Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110701000000000006.pdf
Motion of Bettina M. Haper to Compel All Washington Mutual, Inc. Creditors to Fully Comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110701000000000007.pdf
While it would have been great if the EC had received everything they had asked for, today wasn't a total loss. We do get more info from Aurelius.
I can only assume that the primary reason for this motion to compel from the EC was to elicit more information, ie objections and argument, from the HF's about their position on the merits of the IT claims.
None of us really know what discovery bombshells, if any, the EC has, but everyone now knows a lot about the HF's(specifically Aurelius) defense to the claims.
And as JMW stated, claims of IT have not even been presented yet to the Court by the EC. It speaks volumes that the EC hasn't even made any specific or direct claims of IT to the Court, and the HF's have been positing their "excuses" and/or justifications for insider trading and providing reasoning as to why their insider trading wasn't actually, "insider trading".
Insider Trading is proprietary and protected in JMW's court.
Heavily redacted docs in response to discovery requests is now considered a valid production in JMW's court.
Wow , she really sounded upset.
Order Granting Emergency Motion for Limited Reconsideration of (I) Extending the Deadline to File an Omnibus Reply to Objections to Confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Plan; and (II) Authorizing the Debtors to File All Documents in Support of Confirmation Contemporaneously Therewith
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000011.pdf
Adam Strochak from WGM.
"In addition, prior to the announcement of the recent failed settlement with the Equity Committee, tens of millions of shares of the Debtors’ common stock changed hands, causing the price to spike sharply. Investigating each such situation could add many months to these cases, to the detriment of the Debtors and their estates."
Page 27. http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000006.pdf
Does Aurelius know who made those trades?
Probably not, but the trades should be investigated as should other suspicious trading spikes prior to public information announcements.
Again, Aurelius throws everyone under the bus:
11. Key to successfully implementing this type of procedure is the heretofore widely understood securities principle that the stale details of unsuccessful negotiations are simply not material. Any other rule would either require disclosure of even the most inchoate negotiations (which would chill principals from making offers in the first place) or require those hearing the offers to remain restricted indefinitely (which would discourage their participation). Applying such a rule retrospectively in these cases would be particularly unfair – and would mean that countless parties that were privy to failed negotiations at various stages of these cases and then traded – ranging from other noteholders to holders of bank bonds, preferred and common stock, and litigation tracking warrants (“LTWs”) – could well be deemed to have traded improperly.
Page 7. http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000006.pdf
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders Third Amended Deposition Notice to Washington Mutual, Inc. and WMI Investment Corp
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000005.pdf
"virtually every other party heard in these cases, have been trading throughout the cases, across a broad range of securities"
Page 3.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000003.pdf
Objection of Certain Funds Managed by Centerbridge Partners, L.P. to the Motion of the Trust Preferred Securities Holders to Compel Production of Documents of the Washington Mutual, Inc. Settlement Noteholders
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000004.pdf
Objection of Appaloosa Management L.P. to the Motion of the Trust Preferred Holders for an Order Compelling Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P., Appaloosa Management, L.P., Centerbridge Partners, LP, and Aurelius Capital Management LP to Produce Documents
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000003.pdf
Motion to Shorten Notice and Schedule Hearing on the Equity Committee's Emergency Motion for Limited Reconsideration of Order (I) Extending the Deadline to File an Omnibus reply to Objections to Confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Plan; and (II) Authorizing the Debtors to File All Documents in Support of Confirmation Contemporaneously Therewith
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000002.pdf
Emergency Motion for Limited Reconsideration of Order (I) Extending the Deadline to File an Omnibus reply to Objections to Confirmation of the Modified Sixth Amended Plan; and (II) Authorizing the Debtors to File All Documents in Support of Confirmation Contemporaneously Therewith
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110628000000000001.pdf
Aurelius already admitted that they had non-public information and traded. They stated that they had an ethical trading wall in place, but relied on the Debtors to make the information they received public.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64516243
The other three HF's did not have ethical walls in place, other than the flimsy attorney-client privilege "wall".
"The Equity Committee took the depositions of these three funds on June 23rd and 24th."
Emergency Motion of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders for an Order Compelling Appaloosa, Centerbridge, and Owl Creek to Produce Documents
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110627000000000001.pdf
Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing on June 29, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. (EDT)
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110627000000000003.pdf
"subsection (ii) of § 1821(d)(13)(D) bars only claims that relate to an act or omission of the failed bank of the FDIC-as-receiver, and appellants’ suit is simply not a “claim” under FIRREA. In FIRREA, the word “claim” is a term-of-art that refers only to claims that are resolvable through the FIRREA administrative process, and the only claims that are resolvable through the administrative process are claims against a depository institution for which the FDIC is receiver. Because appellants’ suit is against a third-party bank for its own wrongdoing, not against the depository institution for which the FDIC is receiver (i.e., Washington Mutual), their suit is not a claim within the meaning of the Act and thus is not barred by subsection (ii)."
Finally, the FIRREA defense was shot down.
JPM just lost protection for their pre-BK actions.
57. As discussed in detail above, during the course of settlement and plan negotiations, the Debtors provided information to Aurelius pursuant to Confidentiality Agreements covering certain confidentiality periods that required the Debtors, at the conclusion of those periods, to publicly disclose any and all material non-public information provided by the Debtors thereunder.
58. During those periods, Aurelius either restricted itself from trading in the Debtors’ securities or erected an ethical wall between the employee given access to information from the Debtors and employees trading in the Debtors’ securities. At the conclusion of those periods all potentially material, non-public information provided by the Debtors to Aurelius during those periods was publicly disclosed by the Debtors through the filing of monthly operating reports. Following those disclosures, Aurelius resumed unrestricted trading in the Debtors’ securities.
59. While Aurelius believes that the Debtors did in fact comply with their disclosure obligations and therefore no claims should arise, the Equity Committee has contended to the contrary. If the Equity Committee were correct, the Debtors would have breached their post-petition obligations to Aurelius under the Confidentiality Agreements to publicly disclose all material non-public information provided to Aurelius thereunder. In that circumstance, Aurelius would hold (and would assert) administrative expense claims against the Debtors. See Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 503.06[6][a] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.) (“If the trustee enters into a contract or lease after entry of the order for relief and subsequently breaches the contract or lease, the other party will have a claim for damages. The amount of those damages will be determined under the contract or lease, and the full amount of the damages arising from the trustee’s breach will constitute an administrative expense.”). In order to comply with Section 1129(a)(9)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Modified Sixth Amended Plan must not release and must reserve for Aurelius’s administrative claims against the Debtors
in cash.
Page 21. http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110622000000000003.pdf
WOW.
Aurelius admits that they did trade after receiving non-public information, but only because the Debtors were supposed to release that information to the public before Aurelius traded. And because the Debtors did not release that information publicly in time, Aurelius may have claims against the Debtors for any damages they may incur due to their unintended "insider trading".
"the Trust Preferred Holders now seek the right to participate separately in the process, apparently believing that ganging up on the Settlement Noteholders will help extort an even richer settlement."
Page. 3
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110621000000000005.pdf
How rich?
AURELIUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO
SHORTEN NOTICE AND SCHEDULE HEARING ON MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL
COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING
AURELIUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110617000000000008.pdf
NEWS-WaMu to decide next week if shareholder deal possible
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/wamu-idUSN0822967220110608
Regular.
Pg. 36. ; review of IRS rulings, Plan and DS regarding whether Reorganized WMI will be a bank holding company for tax purposes that can take over other banks
Nice.