Is throwing matches into plato's cave.
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.
United is informed. I guess a large numebr of German shareholders will participate and send data to wamufight@gmail.com.
Keep up the good work, thanks fish and all.
It is Thermopoly all over again for me.
i am in,
you have my email Don.
Regards
WaMu Sale Kicked Off by FDIC Call to Jamie Dimon
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/02/wamu-sale-kicked-off-by-fdic-call-to-jamie-dimon/
btw 272 million share traded today in germany and the US together.
=== 16% all shares outstanding
Do you longs here remember Senator Coburn attacking Killinger for not answering the question who made offers for Wamu.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292974-3
(1:16:00 or browse "company is gone" in the transcript)
Here is the contact form for Senator Coburn:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=ContactForm
Can one of you US citizens write to him about our concerns and the examiner report, that shoves equity away and leaves JPM with all assets for almost nothing.
Regards
something is brewing over at JPM stock.
volume coming and a little dive
we are moving, volume coming in
basically the examiner report is ....
for US! We are the only constituency that is out of the money right now. We have nothing to lose for we are considered zero already.
Never forget:
- Ex is here for equity.
- EC/UST asked for Ex.
- Examiner openly cooperated with EC on defining both strategy, litigation etc.; Ex acted on fingerpointing by EC
- If sth for us is out there it will be found otherwise we wouldnt have an Examiner in the first place.
Regards
Working link Acharya paper:
http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/moralhazardliberty.pdf
fighting almost alone vs. the german markets,
can't effort buying the price up every week.
only few investors in germany know about this stock, mostly i am alone on the german boards that have an ENZR thread.
hopefully news will make this move to where it belongs above 0,40 $
Nelson did some fighting
the audio is pretty messed up,
however at the end you can hear Nelson asking for inclusion of the NOLs into the DS.
Listen to this audio excerpt. Nelson did fight a little.
"undisclosed billion of dollar gift to the hedge funds"
then Rosen agrees to work with Nelson on DS language. Nelson asks for the Blackstone valuation. Rosen says it is almost complete and will be provided to all parties for the conformation process.
Finally Nelson argues that it is weak by the debtors to forward a DS without a complete Blackstone report.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OEOBE8IB
(3.3 MB)
Regards
Polemarchos
no we wont. Today was the suprise.
When william posted this, we didnt know the hearing would be on the 18th. We only knew it would be no later than 22nd Oct.
When will today's audio be up?
Btw. the 8th Oct Audio is not on the archive. the one linked on the twitter feed is there but the wrong audio.
thanks for the good work!
Regards
i more than agree.
But in light of fairness the judge will not deny it and rather delay it, so nobody loses his face. She will be as fair to them as she is to us.
billions dont disapear. They only thing that has evaporated are WMI POR's. Same will happen to Version 6.
If you had ever listened to the hearing audios or read docs besides WMI's propagande ministy productions you would know sth is up.
law practice changes. how old is that book? 1989 or earlier?
that trustee has said it all about this examiner, he is there for equity and noone else.
FFM 0,139 + 0,01 €
some large buys, Volume = 1,6 mil
that something Sussman needs to know. Makes a good argument in court that debtors worked on POR despite judges halt advice, thus billing the estate millions for fixing comma issues.
you mean from 250 Euro (375$) to 1000 Euro (1500$) in 3 days
A reminder for those who got weak knees
Trustee
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/gTrustee.mp3
That statement is a bomb. Trustee says: listen guys nice statements but the sole role of the Examiner is protecting equity. BAMMM!
Don't worry... if sth is there for commons he will find it.
It's his job
thanks alot.
let the games begin.
Yes I know, that's where i've been looking since yesterday.
i know i should be more patient. But it is the first time audio is not released same day as hearing, and i am eager to hear for myself what happend before jumping into board post talking about what was said or said not in court...
Pls the AUDIO file anybody?
anybody got audio file yet?
i am so eager to listen in
never mind btw. admins fixed it.
they got me for one second.
yes Catz, but not 7/20/20 Court Hearing Omnibus, 9:30 AM (DEL)
that'll be 2020
it is just a typo, couldnt stand waiting till then
funny glitch in Ibox
7/20/20 Court Hearing Omnibus, 9:30 AM (DEL)
hope we'll see a resolution sooner than that
is the audio file released yet? i cant find it where it usually is and the court session is over for some hours already.
wamuq = Waiting All Month Unfinished Questionability
posted request on German board.
We should prepare a form letter with well versed arguments that support our effort and avoid fellas that "ask for the wrath of Walrath"(although funny)
wasnt JPM still getting the tax refund as of POR v5?
so that must be a recent development and not as WSJ states an "old movie"
---
JPM = jeopardizing people's money
good old checks&balances...
The UST is gov too, yet they fight for equity.
so lets wait and see
Investigation of Examiner appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee
(a short summary i found about his actions in Refco vs. Weil, enjoy reading, Polemarchos ;) )
In re Refco Inc. et al. No. 05-60006 (RDD) (U.S. Bankr. Ct. S. D. N. Y. July 11, 2007) Final Report of Examiner, Joshua R. Hochberg
The charge of the Examiner was to investigate, make findings, and reach conclusions about potential causes of action held by Refco's bankruptcy estate. The Examiner had access to and coordinated with government agencies investigating the Refco matter. A principal focus of the report was the role and potential liability of various professionals who rendered services to Refco including its auditors, attorneys, tax accountants, and others, particularly regarding the Round-trip Loans. The Examiner also considered whether the dividend or related damages paid to Refco insiders in connection with the IPO could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate.
I. Mayer Brown -- with respect to possible violations of the New York Code of Professional Responsibility, the Examiner found:
A. Sufficient evidence to allege violations of DR7-102(a):
1. In the due diligence process with respect to the LBO and, later, the public stock and notes offering.
• failed to provide due diligence materials and information regarding any dealings between RGHI and Refco specifically requested by THL and its counsel;
• failed to disclose the Round-trip Loans;
• failed, after inquiry, to disclose the existence of profits interests held by members of Refco's senior management;
2. In the negotiation and preparation of the definitive LBO agreement and later the public stock and notes offerings.
• knew that the agreement contained false representations about Refco's liabilities and its covenant not to assume or guarantee indebtedness in excess of $5 million;
• continued to document Round-trip Loans that were guaranteed by Refco.
B. Possible violation of DR5-109
New York DR5-109 (b) provides:
(b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the
representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization.
1. By continuing to represent Refco in Round-trip Loans at the time of the IBO and IPO.
2. Not bringing the Round-trip Loans to the attention of anyone independent of Refco's CEO, such as its outside directors.
C. Conflict of Interest:
The continued representation of both the guarantor/indemnitor (Refco) and the borrower (RGHI) in connection with the Round-trip Loans after the LBO constituted a conflict of interest because Refco was at risk with no consideration. Although the parties may have been able to consent to this conflict following full disclosure, the Examiner found no evidence of a request for a waiver of any conflict of interest.
D. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Aiding and Abetting Fraud:
The Examiner concluded that, more likely than not, Refco could make a claim for aiding and abetting a fraud and/or breach of fiduciary duty based on essentially the same evidence of participation in and nondisclosure of the Round-trip Loans in connection with the LBO and public offerings of stock and notes (assuming that a fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by Refco officers could be established).
II. Weil Gotshall -- WG represented Refco in the August 2005 public offering of notes and stock ("IPO"). The Examiner investigated whether any claims could be brought against WG by Refco's bankruptcy estate. The Examiner identified certain deficiencies in WG's due diligence process and "red flags" that could have alerted WG to examine more carefully Refco's responses to various due diligence requests and therefore question the adequacy and accuracy of disclosures in the IPO prospectus. However, the Examiner did not conclude that the debtor's estate had a claim for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty against WG or its attorneys. The "red flags" identified by the Examiner included the following:
• WG knew that Refco failed to produce all documents requested by WG in the LBO due diligence;
• WG learned that Refco's disclosures at various times about the status of litigation and internal control deficiencies identified by Refco's auditors were misleading or false;
• WG did not review all documents in its possession relating to the Refco's executives' profit interests, including agreements and tax returns;
• WG did not press Refco for evidence of transactions and agreements between Refco and RGHI, including the transaction by which RGHI redeemed the executives' profits interests in Refco.
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/newsletter/0081/materials/pp7.pdf (page 22 onwards)
true Catz,
thats why I extracted some important passages. As I hear it the judge followed exactly what Nelson asked for with the preliminary work plan => judge granted it
Nelson wanted broader scope than debtor --> granted as a Ex will look into more that just settlement (so FDIC appeal got denied)
Nelson threw out a number at FDIC and provoked a reply that makes it very clear that the FDIC is afraid of an examiner doing more than just evaluating the settlement.
Steinberg asked that timing is considered after scope is set (that is almost in line with Nelson)--> granted.
Trustee says = Examiners is here to protect equity.
(Listen again = he appoints him and he says his job is to consider Nelson's constituents)
---> That is like a dream coming true.
So the outcome could not be any better.
here is a prog i can recommend
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
FIRREA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Institutions_Reform,_Recovery_and_Enforcement_Act_of_1989
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Reform_Act
FDIC capone basically says they cannot be sued based on that law. So the claims will evaporate because of FIRREA.
thats an interesting question.
I have searched for that remark also. all references i found were that "claims go in the tens of billions".
and if you listen carefully thats what nelson states and then suddenly the 30 bill just slip out.
So maybe really the sealed doc was solomons asset valuation or he just wanted to throw a number at the FDIC to catch the lawyer on wrong food by anchoring high (just on the litigation claim)
20th Hearing Summary with AUDIO outtakes Direct Downloand
I made a summary of what i think were the most important argument in the last hearing. Putting it up for discussion and agree with Diamond. FDIC is in deep trouble based on what i heard.
I dont have a server so you have to type stuff in to download the outtakes. Please post that on Yahoo too with my persmission.
Sticky it if you want!?
THANKS DANBB for providing server-space
Summary July 20th hearing with outtakes
First Rosen (who sounded like a kid that lost his lollipop) gives a status on the DS.
Then Quinn lawyer gives a long statement that is interesting since it is new music to shareholders’ ears:
DEBTORS
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/aQuinn1.mp3
“How can we accommodate the wishes of the EC”, never heard that before from the debtors.
Skit 2: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/aQuinn2.mp3
Debtors suddenly admit examiner is necessary, bust asks for dual track. But fashioned by the court, which means debtors can try to limit examiners scope through the court.
Skit 3: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/aQuinn3.mp3
Debtors feel strong about their (old) claims but sets up a defeatist face arguing that JPM might counter-argue…. But hey: “we feel strong about those claims”…. right
EC
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/bNelson1.mp3
Black and white statement. Claims have not investigated at all.
Skit 2: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/bNelson2.mp3
EC asked for full power for Examiner. Don’t just review Settlement. Announces Trustee support.
Then Nelson recommends to set the scope and set the schedule with preliminary reports and monthly reports based on the first work plan. (Note that STEINBERG will argue the same, but with better arguments than Nelson against a dual track approach)
FDIC
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/cFDIC1.mp3
First objecting and proposing an order. And then he starts to shit his pants because the court listens to an “ out of the money constituency”
Skit 2: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/cFDIC2.mp3
Accuses EC of delay to change board and litigation tactic.
Skit 3: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/cFDIC3.mp3
Then he threatens to leave the settlement.
Lets skip him for now, he’ll have his moment later.
TPS
First is in favor of examiner, but neither the open ended one the EC wants nor the limited on the Debtors want.
Then however he swings the morning star and attacks debtor and FDIC for giving away money that does not belong to them.
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/dTPS1.mp3
Litigation tracking warrant holders
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/eSteinberg.mp3
Steinberg (best lawyer in the whole case, imo) kicks some a$$. He argues on scope, timing and settlement extension. On settlement extension he does it so good that one can be almost 100% sure that he attacks the FDIC for threatening to leave settlement.
WMI Noteholder
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/fWMInoteholders.mp3
He tries to turn around Walrath by stating his interpretation of Walraths rulings.
5 Points all later trashed by Walrath in her ruling.
Trustee
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/gTrustee.mp3
That statement is a bomb. Trustee says: listen guys nice statements but the sole role of the Examiner is protecting equity. BAMMM!
EC
Skit 1: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/hNelson3.mp3
I asked myself why can Nelson get the floor again. Well I guess the judge is really more than just fair to the EC. Nelson states 30bill gain in assets. FDIC lawyer bites his tongue in the meantime.
FDIC interrupted by ruling
FDIC jumps up to make statement and is interrupted at the end by Walrath.
(full audio 13 mins, enjoy)
Skit: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas/jFDICexplodes%20and%20ruling.mp3
ALL AUDIOS IN ONE ZIP FILE (IN THE CORRECT ORDER) THAT SAVES YOU TIME WHILST DOWNLOADING
LINK: http://www.viewip.net/WMI/Polemarchos_Megas.zip
20th Hearing Summary with AUDIO outtakes
I made a summary of what i think were the most important argument in the last hearing. Putting it up for discussion and agree with Diamond. FDIC is in deep trouble based on what i heard.
I dont have a server so you have to type stuff in to download the outtakes. Please post that on Yahoo too with my persmission.
Sticky it if you want!?
Summary July 20th hearing with outtakes
First Rosen (who sounded like a kid that lost his lollipop) gives a status on the DS.
Then Quinn lawyer gives a long statement that is interesting since it is new music to shareholders’ ears:
DEBTORS
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TSYQ8VMT
“How can we accommodate the wishes of the EC”, never heard that before from the debtors.
Skit 2: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GCZG71AG
Debtors suddenly admit examiner is necessary, bust asks for dual track. But fashioned by the court, which means debtors can try to limit examiners scope through the court.
Skit 3: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KB3O4LER
Debtors feel strong about their (old) claims but sets up a defeatist face arguing that JPM might counter-argue…. But hey: “we feel strong about those claims”…. right
EC
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OVMHDIT3
Black and white statement. Claims have not investigated at all.
Skit 2: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=32LBHVZ9
EC asked for full power for Examiner. Don’t just review Settlement. Announces Trustee support.
Then Nelson recommends to set the scope and set the schedule with preliminary reports and monthly reports based on the first work plan. (Note that STEINBERG will argue the same, but with better arguments than Nelson against a dual track approach)
FDIC
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NC4MODO0
First objecting and proposing an order. And then he starts to shit his pants because the court listens to an “ out of the money constituency”
Skit 2: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B0I5740T
Accuses EC of delay to change board and litigation tactic.
Skit 3: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0L9L6EOE
Then he threatens to leave the settlement.
Lets skip him for now, he’ll have his moment later.
TPS
First is in favor of examiner, but neither the open ended one the EC wants nor the limited on the Debtors want.
Then however he swings the morning star and attacks debtor and FDIC for giving away money that does not belong to them.
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=27XU99OW
Litigation tracking warrant holders
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K5S9WCO9
Steinberg (best lawyer in the whole case, imo) kicks some a$$. He argues on scope, timing and settlement extension. On settlement extension he does it so good that one can be almost 100% sure that he attacks the FDIC for threatening to leave settlement.
WMI Noteholder
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=906P4I8L
He tries to turn around Walrath by stating his interpretation of Walraths rulings.
5 Points all later trashed by Walrath in her ruling.
Trustee
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UD3BX86X
That statement is a bomb. Trustee says: listen guys nice statements but the sole role of the Examiner is protecting equity. BAMMM!
EC
Skit 1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9UIM1DQC
I asked myself why can Nelson get the floor again. Well I guess the judge is really more than just fair to the EC. Nelson states 30bill gain in assets. FDIC lawyer bites his tongue in the meantime.
FDIC interrupted by ruling
FDIC jumps up to make statement and is interrupted at the end by Walrath.
(full audio 13 mins, enjoy)
Skit: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7JIDPX50
ALL AUDIOS IN ONE ZIP FILE (IN THE CORRECT ORDER) THAT SAVES YOU TIME WHILST DOWNLOADING
LINK: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9IFREA60
The FDIC lawyer besides ridiculing Nelsons rational of "a small amount of WAMU assets gained 30 Billion in the 1st quarter 09" as a fantasy. He also stated that such claims, though going up into thin air would, if they materialize, be eligible to the Bank Bondholders. Furthermore they could be blocked by the FDIC "within a week" because of FIRREA.
Walraths answer: "You will be given that chance to object with the examiner"
Putting that scene aside. If "a small portion of WAMU" generated 30 billion gains in just one quarter and asumming the real estate, subs, NOL, art collection etc... we are sooooo in the money that I start believe that economics Dr.'s shareholder letters.
And even if we just get a fraction of that we are here for XXXX% recovery.
In fact, settlement would be a downgrade with the only benefit being that is comes sooner than later.
Furthermore I think that the FDIC threatened that the deal might evaporate if it takes too long. Thats pretty much an own goal and Walrath ruled accordingly. I wonder how long it will take for them to flip flop and start urging us to acept any settlement just to away before the Examiner finds the SH;T that will hit the fan.