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.
Transporter -- Agree with your opinion. I think this judge is in over her head. We can debate over and over whether she is corrupt, bought off, incompetent or whatever. My question remains -- How can she possibly approve anything without an accounting of everything? All she has to do let Rosen know that she not EVER approve a settlement without an accounting of A vs. L or a settlemet between ALL parties.
The fact that this charade is still being played should be sending off huge signals that she is over her head and should be removed.
I am getting more frustated by the day with this case. Here's to hoping that JMW will eventually force Rosen's hand by demanding what is needed to resolve this case and issuing contempt of court sentences for those that do not comply.
voodoo -- If she wants to give them a reason to settle and end this thing without causing a great depression, all she has to do is say "This GSA/Plan will never be approved without an accounting of all assets or a settlement between ALL parties." As soon as she does that Rosen will be forced to settle. Case closed.
Thanks Don. This lead to the simple question (simple to ask - nearly impossible to answer):
How then can equity ever be in the money, except for a settlement? Then the question is why would Rosen ever settle?
Edited to add everything below here:
It seems like JMW would follow Rosen's lead in somehow dipensing of any A that are greater than L (if we are ever given a chance to prove that) in any way to prevent equity from getting anything.
Are we now hanging our hats on hoping a little cash comes to preferreds and commons are toast?
Don -- If she intends to do that, shouldn't she have made that clear in her previous denial? She spent so much time saying that everything is on the up and up, even though the plan was denied. Rosen then makes small changes and resubmits. Shouldn't she have told him not to submit without a valuation? I can't reconcile these two things in my mind denial with guidelines on what to fix, yet no mention of valuation.
Maybe those smarter than myself can. Thanks!
Catz -- It would be rather difficult for us to figure out all the assets and who should have what, but based on this string of posts, in your educated opinion, do you honestly feel, short of some kind of class action lawsuit later down the road. that common/preferred shareholders will see anything from this fiasco?
Catz -- So if I like many of us here have both common and preferred, my commons at this point yet again don't get to vote, so no release required. My preferred if I op-in agree to the release and get paid whether or not I vote yes, if the POS is actually approved. I believe a previous post somewhere said maximum 2.9% for preferred, but regardless of number, is that the most I can get, or can judge (or possibly a trustee down the road) increase that value based on other related rulings?
Steel58
If JPM wants the case moved, then moving it would be bad for us, IMO. From the little other reading I've done on the case, I believe that the amount of damages can be bigger in BK court, thus JPM wanting it moved.
Another side opinion is that maybe certain corporations not to be named feel that it is easier to bribe 12 jurors than one judge.
Don't know, but for 10 shares, I will risk it. Any way I can stick it to Rosen is worth it.
If I had any free time, I would read every legal book I could and come up with a way to have him disbarred at minimum.
Maybe JPM will get what's coming to them in this lawsuit:
JPM Lawsuit MSNBC
Lawrence -- If your theory is correct, and there was evidence of insider trading, can the Hedgies say they got the information from Rosen, thus implicating him in a smaller Madoff type thing? I would think that if the Hedgies were going to in any way be caught doing anything illegal, they would take as many others down with them.
Any thoughts from the board?
The Berg letter to the court is very interseting.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110208000000000006.pdf
About the Discovery that JMW (I noticed not many are using the H any longer): If Susman gets the infor from Hedgies and it shows that that no trades made by them on 3/12, is he allowed to go to other brokers and get all the trade information, or elsewhere if possible to basically get a check and balance to make sure ALL trades are accounted for?
From Reuters:
Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.PK) filed a modified plan to exit bankruptcy on Tuesday after a bankruptcy judge rejected its previous plan last month.
The modified plan scraps a rights offering that the company proposed last year. Under that plan, Washington Mutual would have sold shares of the reorganized company, mostly to hedge funds, which would have controlled the company after exiting Chapter 11.
So what happens to the company? Is it now just a public offering for shares of new company?
Has anyone been able to determine if these changes Rosen is making to the plan/agreement require an additional hearing with testimony, or simply them submitting the plan?
That's what bothers me more about this case every day, UZ -- Why are we still asking this queston nearly 3 years into a bankruptcy proceeding?
Fox News or someone needs to ask that very question on a show that contains members of that ridiculous Senate Committee studying the financial collapse or someone from FDIC.
Does anyone know if an individual or group can take action to have a judge removed from either a case or from office due to something like judicial misconduct? I did a little DD and found that any such action goes before a circuit judicial council, but I haven't been able to find who can fill out the required forms.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Better question Texan -- Does discovery encompass anything? EOM
Don -- Excellent post. I have a few areas where I feel the judge mesed up in addition to what you have posted. Using the numbers from your post:
3. She should have known better than to accept any kind of settlement without the asset list. She should have told Rosen as much on march 12, if not sooner. If she had, we would have been paid by now.
4. The EC had no choice but to ask for examiner when JMW didn't force Rosen , etc from stonewalling and not providing information to EC. How many hearings dealt with the issue of "they didn't hand it over --- yes we did"?
6. She thre out the examiner's report, but essentially used all the findings in her opinion. Again, her "opinion", instead of being some document she intended to last for the ages, should have simply said, I have no numbers, therefore I cannot honestly say anything is fair and reasonable.
From her plan for the EC:
2. If she is being honest, she must know that an appeal is harder than forcing Rosen to include the numbers. IMO she didn't do the EC any favors here. We may eventaully win on appeal, but again, IMO, if she ruled with "fairness and reasonableness" we would have money by now.
I must agree with the poster (sorry, can reference right now), who mentioned the stolen car for someone to use for work. Stolen is stolen. Give it back.
I agree that there is much none of us know about this case, but I find it hard to imagine the JMW making some game of Clue for the EC. If the numbers are there and Rosen is accurate, then I lose my investment. If he is covering up and the numbers are in our favor, then I will be rich. Again, one simple question -- Why hasn't she demanded the numbers?
Shouldn't someone go to jail for insider trading? EOM
Climber-- Thanks for the Mordecai posts. After reading them, I had a thought -- What if every one of her opinions is appealed by one side or the other? How foolish will she look after supposedly taking so much time to make sure her ruling would prevent appeals?
Rosen may not have verbally insulted JMW, but IMO, he has time and time again insulted her intelligence, with her having to keep demanding things from him and not getting them. Unfortuneately for us, his tactics have worked more often than not.
Guess it's a good thing I'm not a judge. Rosen and Califano would have both been levied heavy fines and/or spend some time the colling off behind bars.
carguy64 -- Hate to beat a dead horse here, but if JMW wanted this thing over, she could have demanded the asset list longer ago, or without it denied this POR long before any confirmation hearings. Susman could have submitted one and we would have already returned from our Vegas celebration.
Again, we wait......
......hopefully for a deserved settlement.
balu -- I thought the exact same thing about Rosen! EOM.
UZ -- Seems to me that the likes of JPM (not sure about FDIC) basically have huge legal budgets. IMO, these are simply a power tool to play with just to squash the little guy. Money means nothing to them. Something needs to be done to make sure that if wrong doing is found, prison comes for some of these guys. That IMO is the only thing that will force them to settle.
Ptolomeo -- In the MP3, JMW asked Califano what 3rd party releases he wanted. I couldn't make out what he answered. My thoughts were pretty much exactly what you stated. That's what made me curious as to why JMW would ask the question. Did she want him to state specifically an answer so that it would be documented for later, or did she not know the specifics about 3rd party releases?
I couldn't clearly understand from the MP3 exactly what 3rd party releases FDIC needed. Can anyone clarify? Thx.
Another article about quigley denial that may shed some light on judges reasoning. How much it applies here, I'm not sure:
insert-text-here
UZ -- Thanks for response. I don't know either. Obviously I don't have the powerful connections to risk lawsuits. Killinger somehwat more than I do, but IMO not nearly that of Dimon and FDIC.
They can drag things on for years and years. If I were Killinger, I'd be singing really loud now if I had anything that could get all sides talking settlement. We know Dimon never will.
I guess we are all part of a history lesson in the making here.
UZ -- Your last question below somewhat concerns me. THinking more and more about it, I can see how parties may forgo the releases to get approval. Seeing the past few days quotes and rules regarding the releases -- It seems like very few judges will grant the releases, but look how many times the cases are still confirmed with nothing for shareholders.
What makes this case different? The only thing that can change this is if someone comes forth to put pressure on FDIC/etc. Who can do that? Can Susman? Who will pay for Susman in a suit after the case is settled (Not counting appeals , which in my opinion it should be provable that JMW has on numerouos occasions contradicted herself. Can that get this overturned if it is eventaully confirmed without equity? Will EC be disbanded? I thought Nelson petitioned to have it not disbanded, but I never saw a ruling.
Thoughts of others appreciated. Thanks.
Catz -- How right you are about the debtors.
My beef with JMW is that she has said repeatedly she can only rule with evidence. She can either demand the evidence or simply state that NO POR will be approved without it. Either EC would submit something with some kind of numbers, or they don't actually exist, which I will never believe.
She could have done that two years ago, 1 year ago, six months ago, 1 week ago, or yesterday.
As far as your last statement, I wholeheartedly agree. As I have stated in the past, I am more than willing to give up anything I may get out of this (100,000 common, 5000 Ks, 200 Ps) to see Rosen and Dimon in jail.
Thank you for your insight to this board Catz. I personally aprreciate it.
Thaks for the insight Lawrence147. That is what blows my mind. Even today, she can call everyone in her courtroom and demand the list of assets. Why won't she?
Can Lawrence147's post be archived somehow? I will save it as a file. THe quote from Lawrence147 below is the perfect ammunition Susman may need for an appeal.
The next thing we actually have to go on is that she is turning out decision some on the same information she has tossed.
Man this case is wearing me out. Just give me my money. I'll let diamond, real and others debate the specific price.
Until she comes out and says in court to Rosen, "Either settle to include all classes of equity, or show me the asset list", I will hold my opinion of JMW to myself.
While she did DENY the POR, so basically agreed with it, so if Rosen can switch a few dollars around and convince some that there will be no one able to sue, she will approve it, leaving us with nothing. My opinion, of course.
Sly -- Did the OTS disband? If so, is anyone then responsible, such as individuals?
Silver! EOM
Better call Willingham and let him know.
Sounds to me like JPM and FDIC have releases, only certain officers in some form of Washington mutual might not, but again, her ruling was so vague, it sheds no light on what can happen next.
But she could have ended this long ago by just requiring the 3.1. Most here belief that would have put thgings in our favor, but at least the decision would have been legal based on fact. There would be no need to leave the door open a crack, she could have blown the damn house down.
Shouldn't Rosen have had to show the 3.1, not Susman? Without that, how can she approve? She keeps saying it fair and reasonable? Based on what? NOTHING
JoePick -- I don't think we can read too much into anything at this point. As was mentioned in a post by robigus, from JMW's ruling:
It seems as though a POR is fairly easy to accept in a bankruptcy. THJMW had to rule with what was presented and a few times in her ruling she states: "The Plan Objectors (EC) presented no evidence..."
Yet she states the plan for the most part was reasonable and fair, meaning iMO, she wants to approve, but make it as close to appeal-proof as possible and wrap this up, leaving anything further to be at shareholder expense. Again, IMO, if she were concerned about equity and fairness, she would have stated,
"The DEBTORS (WMI and those that prepared GSA/POR) presented no evidence..." , therefore, the great opinion I had planned to write is of no use now, and simply the plan (without documented valuation) is denied.
That could have taken 108 less pages. Clearly none of us knows what the jusge is thinking. IMO, it is one of two things.
1. I will somehow force a settlement so all receive something. Hopefully this denial will be in the right direction. If not, I am not sure how to proceed
2. I am tired of this case and will take the Hochberg approach -- Ignore testimony, evidence, the common sense and throw out some legal mumbo jumbo about how litigation would fail against FDIC and JPM, so I can just let JPM walk away legally with theft of 1.9 billion company and screw the common man.
Which is it? I honestly have no clue.