The one in South Riverside Calif....You?

There is a part of me that wants this as a sticky... :o)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. ROSEN: ...Your Honor, I feel like that man in the
old FedEx commercials who has to speed talk to get through all of the issues within thirty minutes. And --

THE COURT: Well, do you? Because I don't want to hear you repeating your brief.

MR. ROSEN: And Your Honor, I don't want to repeat the brief. And as we told you last week --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSEN: -- and we told you at the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, as Mr. Folse said as well, we would
have been happy not to have this day in court, Your Honor. We thought --

THE COURT: Then you can sit down and not say anything.

Yep they are red...
http://www.myredcanary.com/canary-info/

Colorbreds come in 35-40 different color variations. Many feel the Red lipochrome canary is the most popular. However, there are so many different colors; it is hard to say which ones are the most popular. Everybody seems to like more than one, like potato chips! Colorbreds are judged in competition based upon how well they conform to the standards for size and color.




And finally:
http://theredcanarychicago.com/

I wonder...
if we will ever hear from wamuqd again

I really like your last statement......

Thanks Catz, you're the best.
P.S. Remind me not to play Scrabble with you... ;o)

TPG buys minority stake in Saxo Bank


http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/external/ft/SIG=13ofqg0lu/*http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/e9749be2-cf30-11e0-b6d4-00144feabdc0.html?referrer_id=yahoofinance&ft_ref=yahoo1&segid=03058

Not sure what it means, guess you have to have a membership to read.

Kubitz=
http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/jan/19/janesville-native-honored-bravery/

So true......

WTF is this? Aurelius "partial withdrawal of objection"
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110817000000000012.pdf
Aurelius Capital Management, LP (“Aurelius”) hereby withdraws the portion of the
Objection of Aurelius Capital Management, LP to Confirmation of the Modified Sixth
Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code (Dkt. No. 7951; Filed 6/22/11) (the “Objection”) that relates to the
reasonableness of the Amended Global Settlement Agreement.
2
For the avoidance of doubt, the
portion of the Objection withdrawn by Aurelius is the portion set forth in the section of the
Objection entitled “The Amended Global Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Approved” at
pages 12-15. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver or withdrawal by Aurelius of
other positions, objections or arguments contained in the Objection, all of which are hereby
expressly preserved.

This will make your day....NOT!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/08/17/sec-destroys-evidence-against-banks-and-hedge-funds-whistleblower-alleges/

Interesting case with RICO charges:
O.co (aka Overstock.com) Announces Court Ruling Denying RICO Amended Complaint
Moving forward with California Suit
SALT LAKE CITY, Aug. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --

O.co, also known as Overstock.com, (NASDAQ: OSTK) today announced that the court in its prime broker lawsuit denied the company the right to file an amended complaint to include a claim under New Jersey's Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act.


(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110802/LA46403LOGO)

Overstock.com began the process to amend to include the New Jersey RICO claim in December 2010, citing evidence newly obtained from Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch entities that tied them to New Jersey trading in a massive manipulation scheme of Overstock.com's share price.

In May 2011, the court disallowed the amendment, stating that the amended complaint needed more specific facts on the new RICO claim. The court then allowed Overstock.com two weeks to submit a proposed amendment with more specificity on the RICO conspiracy.

Despite meeting the court's deadline and supplying a wealth of detailed and conspiratorial facts, the court yesterday ruled that it is too close to trial and it would be unfair for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch to have to defend the new RICO claim, and that conflict of law principals disallowed the trial of the New Jersey RICO claims in California courts.

"With all due respect, we think the ruling is wrong. We did not have the facts to file the RICO case in 2007. When we received the discovery we needed, we found proof of a RICO conspiracy and promptly filed that claim. The court ruled that our claim was not specific enough, so two weeks later we re-filed our RICO claim, with great specificity. The court now denies our RICO claim again, this time on the grounds that it would be unfair to Goldman to force them to prepare a defense against RICO so late in the game," said Jonathan Johnson, President of O.co. "We disagree that it is too late to require Goldman and Merrill to defend their conduct on theories which rest on the same facts that have been at issue all along and of which we only recently obtained evidence. These issues and our allegations have been a matter of record since December of last year."

Notwithstanding yesterday's ruling, the company has determined to push on to the December 5, 2011 trial date and will reserve any appeal of yesterday's decision until later.

"In a way, the ruling now clears the tracks, and we are eager to have our day in court," said Johnson. "Our core manipulation case is solidly established, and we will move forward confident in our belief that a jury will hold these defendants to account for the harm they caused."

The court did not rule yesterday on Defendant's motion to seal the record of the documents filed in support of the motion to amend, despite pleadings from The Economist and The Rolling Stone to release such documents to the public. The court indicated that in the future it would issue a written ruling on Goldman and Merrill's efforts to seal these documents.

"The public has an interest in a free and open court system and particularly in learning the supporting facts upon which this amendment was based." said O.co Chairman and CEO Dr. Patrick Byrne. "Given actions of Goldman and Merrill which have already become public in recent years, the massive taxpayer bailout they enjoyed, and this week's White House Executive Order declaring organized crime's manipulation of our financial system a national emergency, we agree with The Economist and Rolling Stone that the basis of our RICO action is of extraordinary public concern and interest and that the public should be allowed to see and consider what we have learned."

About O.co (also known as Overstock.com) O.co, also known as Overstock.com, is Your Savings Engine offering brand-name products. The company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative inventory distribution channel. O.co, headquartered in Salt Lake City, is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ Global Market System and can be found online at http://www.overstock.com and http://www.o.co. O.co regularly posts information about the company and other related matters on its website under the heading "Investor Relations." Overstock.com® is a registered trademark of Overstock.com, Inc. O.co(TM) and Your Savings Engine(TM) are trademarks of Overstock.com, Inc., Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include all statements other than statements of historical fact, assessments of legal rulings, quality of evidence in the case discussed and the relative prospects for outcome at trial. Our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, our subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, or any amendments thereto, and our other subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission identify important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections, estimates or forward-looking statements.

SOURCE Overstock.com, Inc.

TPS Did not..
http://wmish.com/docs/810/8438-tps.pdf
Nor the debtor
http://wmish.com/docs/810/8439-debtors.pdf

EC Filed under seal...

What does it mean if they don't file?

TPS
http://wmish.com/docs/810/8436.pdf
1. On July 29, 2011, Debtors simply ignored this Court’s July 21, 2011 ruling and
Order, and filed a purported Response to the TPS Consortium’s submission of excerpts from the
United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (“Subcommittee”) Report titled
“Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse” (the “Senate Report”)
that was completely improper. On July 21, this Court clearly instructed the TPS Consortium to
provide the Court by July 26 with a summary of the Senate Report, consisting of quoted excerpts
from the Report, and instructed the Debtors to submit any counter-designations from the Senate
Report by Friday July 29. Rather than abide by the Court’s directive, Debtors submitted a
purported Response containing no excerpts or quotations from the Senate Report. Instead,
Debtors sought to interject new, inadmissible hearsay into an already closed trial record, present
so-called “facts” that are not supported by any admissible evidence, and attempt to reargue the
admissibility of the Senate Report.
2. Because Debtors failed to comply with the Court’s instructions for submitting
portions of the Senate Report, the Court should strike the Debtors’ improper submission in its
entirety and preclude Debtors from offering any portions of the Senate Report in any future
submissions to the Court. Furthermore, the Court should strike and disregard Debtors’ Response
because it consists of inadmissible hearsay and arguments that are not supported by any
admissible evidence. Lastly, even if the Court were to review Debtors’ objection to the Court’s
prior ruling regarding admissibility of the Senate Report, such objection is without merit and the
Court was correct in admitting into evidence excerpts from the Senate Report.

TPS- 10 page report submitted:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110726000000000006.pdf

A better search
http://scoweb.sco.ca.gov/UCP/SearchResults.aspx?searchID=dec9db0a-5dd4-41e6-a5b4-9bfc842a689c&page=0&set=0&pageSize=25
Type in washington for last name and mutual for 1st name.
Have fun....

There is quite a few in calif too..

Just type "wamu" in the last name search...
http://scoweb.sco.ca.gov/UCP/InterimDetails.aspx?propertyRecID=1343848

Can we use these?
As assets?
http://nevadatreasurer.gov/UPSearch/default.aspx
type in "washington mutual" in the search...

A>L ;o)

TPS inclusions
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110726000000000006.pdf

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA filed a third-party complaint in Ohio on Monday, saying its agreement to buy assets from bankrupt Washington Mutual Inc. means the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. must indemnify it in a suit over $650 million in mortgage-backed securities
http://www.law360.com/cases/4e29fad47b9eb31690000002

Objection your Honor, they're making my client look like a fool" "On what grounds?"

"Just look at him, he's a babbling buffoon and no one will ever invest with him again, he's sweating like he just ate a bucket of 4-alarm chili."

"I'll allow a 3 minute recess so he can compose himself and get some coaching"

"Thank you your honor, Yo' Retard, you get 3 minutes to change your shorts and get your heart rate down to hummingbird level."

"I don't recall"

"Yo idiot, you're not on the stand anymore, cut that out, you don't want to give away our best defense gameplan do you?"



ALL OF THE ABOVE IS FICTION of course.


From gintowin on the Y.
too fkn funny...

Aurelius Attys Aided Wrongful Trading: WaMu Shareholders
Law360, Wilmington (July 19, 2011) -- Washington Mutual Inc. shareholders said Tuesday at a hearing in Delaware bankruptcy court that Aurelius Capital Management LP’s counsel facilitated improper trading during WaMu’s bankruptcy, keeping the hedge fund abreast of settlement talks as it traded freely from the sidelines. The hedge fund — one of four accused of insider trading by shareholders in an effort to derail WaMu’s reorganization plan — drifted in and out of settlement negotiations to resolve the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. But its law firm, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, passed along critical details from the talks to Aurelius, enabling the hedge fund to trade on material nonpublic information, a shareholder committee attorney said. Committee attorney Parker Folse of Susman Godfrey LLP made the allegations during a withering cross-examination of Aurelius managing director Dan Gropper, which spanned two days during WaMu’s Chapter 11 plan confirmation hearing. Gropper bristled at the idea that Aurelius and Fried Frank, which also represented three other hedge funds implicated by shareholders, were anything but meticulous in their compliance with securities laws and confidentiality agreements. “You can’t do this halfway,” Gropper said. “This doesn’t operate on a wink and a nod. What you are suggesting would not be appropriate.
Shareholders have tied their hopes of a recovery in the case to insider trading claims against Aurelius, Owl Creek Asset Management LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Centerbridge Partners LP, which stem from the hedge funds’ involvement in settlement negotiations between WaMu, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The settlement, cleared by the court in January, splits $10 billion in assets between WaMu and JPMorgan, and releases billions in claims among the three over the FDIC’s seizure of WaMu’s affiliated bank after it failed in 2008 and the subsequent sale of the bank to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion. Fried Frank remained at the negotiating table to represent the hedge funds, which hold $2 billion in WaMu securities, after they ceased direct involvement in the talks and resumed unrestricted trading. But the firm was on strict instructions not to discuss the substance of settlement proposals with Aurelius, Gropper testified, unless the hedge fund agreed beforehand to limit its trades.
Folse pointed to major movement in Aurelius’ position in January 2010 toward WaMu’s subordinated bonds as evidence that the hedge fund knew a deal was near, even though the debtors and JP Morgan maintained an outwardly litigious posture at the time. The shareholder committee also produced emails between Fried Frank and the debtor suggesting that the hedge funds were directing the firm in the talks based on the specifics of one settlement proposal that had not been disclosed to the public. Daniel Krueger, a managing director at Owl Creek, took the stand after Gropper and testified that his firm operated under the assumption that settlement proposals could never be considered material nonpublic information.
“Only when a deal is reached,” Krueger said. Witnesses for the remaining hedge funds will take the stand Wednesday and Thursday as WaMu rounds out it plan confirmation hearing.
The insider trading allegations, if substantiated, could convince U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath to impose the lower, federal judgment interest rate on the hedge fund’s claims, rather than the contracted rate — which the shareholders hope will free up value for their own claims.
The shareholders have also moved for standing to sue Centerbridge and Aurelius and potentially disallow their claims in the bankruptcy entirely. WaMu is represented by Brian S. Rosen of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP as well as Mark D. Collins, Chun I. Jang, Travis A. McRoberts and Julie A. Finocchiaro of Richards Layton & Finger PA. The equity committee is represented by William P. Bowden, Gregory A. Taylor and Stacy L. Newman of Ashby & Geddes PA as well as Edgar Sargent, Stephen D. Susman and Seth D. Ard of Susman Godfrey LLP
http://www.law360.com/bankruptcy/articles/259059?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bankruptcy

If you feel that way, then you should sell and find a stock or investment more in your comfort zone.

jhdf51,
some of us can't listen in...."love what"?

Yeah, she is not tweeting as much cause people are probobly standing over her shoulder to see what she is tweeting...

I don't think anything is going to move our stock much till the judge actually holds our hand up and declares us the winner in this knock down drag out fight.

This stock is not going to move based on grilling....

By Peg Brickley
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
"With hundreds of millions of dollars and the reputations of major hedge funds at stake, the shareholder push to upset Washington Mutual Inc.'s (WAMUQ) Chapter 11 plan entered its second day of trial Thursday.

The cash at issue is the difference between treatment Washington Mutual has agreed to for billions of dollars in bond debt, and the treatment shareholders say is appropriate. Who wins that argument hangs on the decision on the other dispute--whether Aurelius Capital Management and Centerbridge Partners engaged
in insider trading in Washington Mutual's case.

Aurelius and Centerbridge said they will prove they deserve full exoneration during the confirmation hearings that began Wednesday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., for Washington Mutual, which was once a staid Seattle company and is now a big pile of money.

The holding company behind the biggest banking collapse in U.S. history accumulated more than $7 billion in bankruptcy, and wants to hand the money out quickly under a plan that will silence questions about its role in the loss of Washington Mutual Bank, or WaMu. WaMu was taken over by regulators in September 2008, as a run of withdrawals and the implosion of the housing market put it in jeopardy.

Shareholders stung by the loss of WaMu said they are being stung again under a Chapter 11 plan settlement that takes the parent company off the hook, but leaves equity stakeholders with nothing.

They are urging Judge Mary Walrath to slash the interest rate on the bond debt and shake up the payment scheme so there is value to dribble down to them when payday finally comes for Washington Mutual.

The hedge funds said they are being victimized by "no-holds-barred, litigation as sport tactics" and blame shareholders for wasting "tens of millions of dollars"--money shelled out to lawyers and professionals while creditors wait for payment.

In testimony Thursday, restructuring executive Jonathan Goulding said shareholders are still far out of the money in the bankruptcy case, no matter what interest rate is applied. Goulding is with Alvarez & Marsal, the outside firm that took over the management of the beaten-up bank holding company while it crafted its Chapter 11 plan.

"We thought this was the best possible outcome that could be achieved," Goulding said Thursday.

The main event, the test for allegations of insider trading, has yet to begin, in a hearing that is expected to stretch into next week.

Aurelius and Centerbridge said they adhered scrupulously to the rules and used law firms to shield them from the danger that material inside information could leak into their trading activities.

Court documents indicate two other hedge funds suspected of improper trading came out clean in a shareholder investigation: Appaloosa Management and Owl Creek Asset Management.

Shareholders contend that Appaloosa and Owl Creek still deserve to be reined in, on the grounds they engineered Washington Mutual's Chapter 11 plan, taking on a role that obliged them to look out for shareholders.

The hedge funds labeled the claims as absurd and deny dominating plan discussions. They said they played a positive role in dealing with the legal storm that arose when WaMu went under and its parent took refuge in bankruptcy."


(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection.)


-By Peg Brickley,
Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review;
302-521-2266;
peg.brickley@dowjones.com

Thanks catz, that was worth the wait...

Did anyone else receive a package today? It has the unredacted/sealed stuff from the debtors. The debtors supplemental response to the objection of the official committee of the equity security holders is very interesting.

Great re-cap by charlien
Charlien Posts as follows;


Maxwell (PJ Solomon expert) has done very well in his testimony to give good logical reasons for keeping WMMRC a viable business. He's also given a good analysis of what is needed.

Maxwell handled all the WGM and creditor attorneys in a very professional manner and never let them get him in a trap to discredit him.


Anderson provided excellent testimony on the possibilities of Sections 269 and 382 limitations being applied to the reorganized company and their affect on the NOLS. Strong witness.

Both gave the Judge the possibilities of what it will take to keep WMMRC alive. Even though the Debtors say they are doing it ... their testimony is making it look more like they want to liquidate than to restructure.

So what about the billions in NOLS??

The Judge has already gone on record to say that she is not inclined to give a restructured company worth billions to creditors who are owed millions.


EC still has the IT testimony to nail those guys with. If they have what it takes ... and they seem to think they do by what they have presented ... then using FJR on those creditors/SNHs involved in that trading puts hundres of millions down to equity when the interest rates change.


It all needs to be heard and properly weighed out .... OR ... several parties will be fighting to take this case out of her court and straight to the Federal Courts (based on Stern) to make a decision on the non-core issues of the JPM and FDIC claims as well as the TPS claims.

re insurance co. valuation.
http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2008/balcombe05-insurance-agency-company-valuation.aspx

Insider trading claims hang over WaMu confirmation
July 13, 2011 14:00 ET
Thomson Reuters News Washington Mutual Inc
WAMUQ
© Copyright 2011, Thomson Reuters
Page 1
* Shareholders accuse WaMu of allowing insider trading
* Funds accused of gaining millions in illegal profits
* Court may hear insider-trading allegations on Thursday
By Tom Hals
WILMINGTON, Del., July 13 (Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc allowed four hedge funds to hijack its bankruptcy and tacitly
approved of their trading on inside information, according to the bank's shareholders.
The accusation of insider trading hung over Washington Mutual on Wednesday as it began its attempts in court to end its
bankruptcy and distribute $7 billion to creditors.
The official committee of shareholders asked the Delaware Bankruptcy Court for permission to pursue litigation against the
hedge funds -- Owl Creek Asset Management LP, Appaloosa Management LP, Centerbridge Partners LP and Aurelius
Capital Management LP -- with the goal of knocking them out of the line for repayment.
In the most inflammatory of scores of objections, shareholders accused WaMu of assisting in the hedge funds' "gross
abuse" of the bankruptcy to profit from trading the company's securities.
"The debtors fostered these hedge funds' ability to generate tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains
through illegal trading," the shareholders said in a filing on Tuesday.
A Washington Mutual spokesman declined to comment.
The hedge funds have said in court documents that they are owed about $2 billion for their holdings in company securities.
They denied the insider-trading allegations in court-filed responses to the allegations.
WaMu has said common shareholders will get nothing from the bankruptcy. The shareholders could change that by getting
the judge to strike down the hedge funds' claims.
The judge, Mary Walrath, put off ruling on what evidence the shareholders could present on the insider-trading question
until she hears the allegations in court. That will probably not happen until Thursday or Friday.
Washington Mutual has been in bankruptcy since September 2008, when regulators seized its savings and loan and sold it
to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.88 billion in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.
The bankruptcy plan is based on a "global settlement agreement" struck last year between warring parties. The deal divided
$10 billion in disputed assets, providing $7 billion to the company, while other recipients agreed to support its bankruptcy
plan.
Shareholders accused the funds of directing the settlement talks while trading the securities that stood to benefit from the
deal.
Much of Wednesday's hearing before an overflow crowd consisted of expert views on the value of the tax breaks that the
reorganized company will own.
Washington Mutual plans to emerge from bankruptcy as a small mortgage reinsurance business that it says is worth around
$160 million. Shareholders have argued the business may be worth billions more because of the potentially valuable tax
breaks.

Notice of Third Amended Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing on July 13, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110713000000000005.pdf

Wow...
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2011/07/off-to-new-adventures.html

You just now reading it? pretty good eh' Thoughts for the day?

Where are you at chiron? I am in San Diego.