voodoo, wasn’t the fdic teetering on the fence before 3/12/10 and then they were back on board before the hearing. I’d sure hate to see a rerun of that day.

gophlipgo, TY. Reality check. nice post eom

Franconeli, thanks and…. so correct. Ms.Lonstein brought this up in a court hearing.

Ms. Lonstein from Blackhorse
And what's interesting about this plan is that it
13 provides for senior creditors owed billions of dollars to
14 choose to take stock in an ostensibly 100 million dollar
15 company, okay, instead of cash. Why would creditors owed
16 billions of dollars take stocks in 100 million dollar company
17 instead of cash . There must be something valuable about that
18 stock.

Thanks for the response Catz. eom

Can our judge, before making public her decision, get the gang (WGM, debtors, EC, SNH’s JPM, FDIC etc.) together and say, this is what I have decided, and do you have a settlement agreed upon by all parties “or” now knowing what I have decided, do you want another week (or more) to try and reach an agreement, if not, my decision will be made public.

Does the judges’ decision have to go public regardless, or does a settlement render it useless and void?

I would like to think her decision could avoid the public eye, (as much as I would like to see it) if it could entice a settlement.

Catz, Don, anyone

TY Catz, eom

Catz, very nicely explained. Just for clarification, is this last sentence you have written where Stern should be addressed and we are allowed to go after the true value of the antique vase after BK?

If so, then before Stern there was no recourse once a BK was final; as in legal theft. I find it hard to believe that BK’s have gone on so long without this Stern ruling. Is this the land of the free, or the land of the free to do as you choose as long as you have the money?

Bidingmytime, common sense post.

LG, Thanks for the (whew!!, wipe the sweat off the brow) response to Lawrence. I was concerned with his post. I hope you have it right.

Slow day reading,
Preponderance of Evidence
A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

Old stuff I know, just thought the substance was interesting. I was actually looking for the 3% guru mentioned and got into the transcript of the senate hearings, but I don't have 3 hours to kill going through it.

Dial-up, not to mention an old computer makes me wan't to throw this chunk of plastic out the window sometimes.

"When JPMorgan bought WaMu out of receivership last September, it used the purchase accounting rule [FAS 141(R)] to record impaired loans at fair value, marking down 118.2 billion of assets by 25 percent.

Now, JPMorgan says its first-quarter gains from the WaMu loans resulted in $1.26 billion in interest income and left the bank within an accretable-yield balance that could result in additional income of $29.1 billion."

http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2009/06/fas-141r-turning-toxic-loans-into-star-performers.html

Agree voodoo EOM

Susman and especially Willingham knew about inside trading and how the SNH operate in these BK’s before Nate spoke up.

For whatever reason, legal or otherwise, it was just not brought to the surface by them.

A lot of things have changed over the course of three years, but I believe most of those changes Willingham could foresee. Let’s not forget he has been down this road before. IMO

Nice Limey, I'd like to think the "convince me even more" was telling them, you guys are going down if you don't settle before my decision so you better push hard to get this over with.

I just don't know if the SNH are screwed either way. If there is a settlement before our judge rules is the DOJ going to go after them anyway or are they off the hook?

Umaw, so true. The biggest problem this country has is corporate owned media. They have their agenda, and the truth is never seen or heard by 90% of the public. We need a taxpayer owned media that spills the truth. In a short time it would become profitable at no extra cost to the taxpayer. I have no idea why our seemingly small handful of honest politicians is not pushing for this.

“Idiot on a stick”. lol. Can’t argue with that one. He somehow just fell into daddy’s footprints. He was just willing to play ball as most do. Those that won’t play along will not get media coverage and that is why Ron P. doesn’t have a chance.

Maybe this Wamu saga will start to turn things around, but the judge will have to be strong on her just assessments for that to happen.

Byrddog' excellent! ty, eom

Russian;

I agree erevno as that was one of the sticking points that derailed the last POR. I tend to believe that our Judge has been wanting to change the way the hedgies do business. The way she mentioned they did not contribute anything to the settlement. She knew what was going on, and I as well believe she would like to see her rulings used in a positive manner. The thought of that going through her mind is a huge plus for equity.

Thanks Catz, awesome summary. EOM

Gandalf, that is a good question as that time frame is especially important regarding the pps tumble before Rosen opened his yap on March 12. Most here felt insiders knew what was coming as greed made them move a little too quickly exposing the inside knowledge.

A WAG is that the EC told Aurelius that we do not need to see that time frame if you come on our side against JPM. I believe the Aurelius objection wanted the 4 Bil plus interest back. Who knows the direction in which the EC is trying to get maximum dollars, leverage, whatever? The fog is getting thick.

Big Charts is showing after hour trade.

Last price: 18.5
volume: almost 85 million shares

Thats incredible volume for after hours since all day on friday was 95+

These numbers are either skewed or someone on the inside doesn't believe this "Q" stock is toast.

From Nightdaytrader

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.

They contradict themselves.....in the top paragraph was means definitely... in the next paragraph, believes and if means they are not so sure. CYA IMO.

Wow Fish, your fingertips must have been smokin' after that one. Good read. Thanks

I am fully convinced now that Susman and company have the goods on IT or know for a fact that they will get it. If there was any question they would settle for less.

The reschedule of depos seems to say we are tired of waiting, getter done. IMO

And since no wrongdoing was done, they just decided to give us the company out of the goodness of their hearts.

I am content with the price of shares staying at a low value because……..

Brian Rosen: Your honor, we are here today to discuss the proposed settlement….I know in the last proceedings we talked about equity and how the commons would be included….well your honor, we know the commons are going to be extremely disappointed to hear they are not included…….(here is where the price plummets and those in the know scoop up the cheepies)….. Hesitation…cough, cough,… Excuse me your honor, I have to get a drink of water as this almost brings tears to my eyes….Hey!, where is my water…excuse me lady, I think that’s my water; haven’t I seen you somewhere before….Pause, a couple of minutes go by…..Ok, as I was saying, the commons will not be included,…. at least not included with some of the wildly speculative amounts that were being thrown around, but they are included with a fair and reasonable value. Your honor, along with others my nuts have also been in a vice these last couple months and we need to conclude this as quickly as possible. The milk just isn’t worth it anymore.

I've always understood 3mil shares to be 3mil shares. If some have sold, than someone bought them. Could be the mm's have them and if so, will be paid. The only way WMI could keep the rest is if they bought them and were returned to the treasury. IMO

Chucky, everyone seems to be picking nits about this or that to no avail. At this point thanks to SG, MW, Nate, even our judge and a high number of great SH objections, we now have a company.

I agree with you about SG and this is the tip of the ice berg. Nelsons chart in court showed 33B plus a questionable 7+B = 39+B. They may not get that sum in the format shown, but I tend to believe that will be the minimum in the end (due to other avenues). If less is forthcoming it will be seen as SG not doing their job. Fighting to retain and grow their reputation is a powerful force in our favor.

Voodoo tried to bring this, as a reminder, to everyone’s attention the other day.

Ms. Lonstein from Blackhorse
And what's interesting about this plan is that it
13 provides for senior creditors owed billions of dollars to
14 choose to take stock in an ostensibly 100 million dollar
15 company, okay, instead of cash. Why would creditors owed
16 billions of dollars take stocks in 100 million dollar company
17 instead of cash. There must be something valuable about that
18 stock.

We now have a company worth billions folks. Put the panic on hold until the details come out.

Susman and MW will not settle for less than it is worth. They have the leverage or we would still be fighting for the company.