Thanks Gmen. I missed you guys, lol.

I'm in northern NJ but I won't be able to make it out to the hearing. I'm tentatively scheduled to head out to Costa Rica for my buddy's bachelor party on Thursday morning and need to be in the office on Wednesday.

Thanks JHD! Check your PM later tonight.

Tell me about it!

Congratulations on getting through your nursing finals and enjoy your break if you have one.

I would be delighted to. I've soaked up a healthy dose of bankruptcy law in the past two months, so hopefully I can be of some assistance to the board. Give me a day or two to read it over and post my comments.

I'm submitting it to law reviews and financial journals around the country for (hopeful) publication, but I would be happy to send a copy out to you guys immediately thereafter.

Thanks Biz. This semester was brutal indeed. I had bankruptcy law, federal taxation of partnerships and LLCs and a 35-page "thesis" on securities regulation and market manipulation to fulfill my advanced writing requirement.

It's been a rough two months, lol.

Hello I-Hubbers, I'm back from the beyond - all done with final exams and my paper on market manipulation & securities regulation.

Time to catch up on these filings. It looks like Rosen has been running a circus. I wonder what his next trick will be.

Interesting, I was under the impression that we still had a significant short position. Thanks for the clarification. That's actually good to hear. I have some numbers on the increase in FTDs from June through September but not much. Most of my NSS research has been particular to Bear and Lehman.

I'll check out the link you sent me. As for other sources, feel free to send whatever you think would be worth looking at. I'll read, review and integrate it into my paper if it applies.

Thank you Sly. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Doc. I appreciate it.

WAMUQ'ers - PLEASE READ

Many of you know that I'm in the process of writing and completing my law school Advanced Writing Requirement (AWR) paper on the issues of Market Manipulation, Naked Short-Selling and Securities Regulation. I have made significant progress thus far and I hope to have my final draft done before Monday morning so that I can dedicate the rest of my very limited schedule to preparing for my final exams, which begin in early May.

I'm posting because I am planning to bring up certain aspects of the WaMu debacle - namely WaMu's exclusion from the no-short list, the spinning and obvious media blackout, and the significant outstanding short position which continues to dilute the true intrinsic value of the Qs - and I need legitimate sources to cite. The challenge with this is that up until recently, the only truthful and objective coverage we've received has come from Kirsten Grind and a host of blogs. I will be citing Kirsten in great detail but I'm afraid I don't know where else to cite as I can't reference a blog - however truthful the author might be - as a credible academic source for my paper.

As such, I'm hoping some of you can give me a hand with some sources and points you feel are worth mentioning. To date, I've written twenty-two pages and pulled over 1,000 pages of research so far on the general issues of market manipulation, naked short-selling and securities regulation, and I'm afraid I don't have much more time available to me.

I wish I could discuss and touch on all of the other points concerning the downfall, seizure, sale and bankruptcy of WAMU but the scope of my paper is very specific to manipulation and short-selling. Perhaps after I graduate next year and/or if I find some more time in my schedule, I'll put together a comprehensive case study on everything. In the interim, I believe many of you will be pleased with this paper if/when you read it. My professor is very impressed and has recommended that I pursue various avenues for publishing upon its completion.

Feel free to reply to this post or send me a PM with anything you would like to share. Thank you all kindly in advance.

-RR

And that is where it belongs. We need an objective review, not this "bipartisan" BS. This hearing is being perpetuated by a clear underlying agenda.

I wouldn't be surprised. The U.S. is on the brink of "financial reform" so perhaps they've been working hard to set up the scapegoats to make new law. The timing couldn't be more indicative of their real motivations.

Can't describe it but he reacted to Levin's statement that the committee would sidestep over the seizure to focus solely on the lending practices.

Yeah, I spotted that. I wonder what he was thinking. There must be something going on in the background that we, the public, knows nothing about.

Levin just said it. This investigation isn't about their decision to seize WaMu, it's about the regulators role in "allowing" them to engage in high-risk lending practices.

This hearing is BS. It's a total dog and pony show. If you're going to make a "case study" out of WaMu, you should study it in its entirety - meaning the mistaken seizure and subsequent fire sale too.

I wonder if they're ever going to publicly review the seizure.

No idea. In all honesty, I have no clue what is going on in that case, what stage in litigation they're in, or what strategy the attorneys are using.

Thank you kindly.

Rosen is purely unethical and I wouldn't work for someone like him (or a firm that permits such behavior) even if he offered me the job at 2x salary. With ethics like that, it's only a matter of time before his actions get him into trouble - and I wouldn't want to be part of the collateral damage if/when that happens.

I am very interested in securities law but some other areas interest me. I believe this whole WaMu debacle has sparked a bit of passionate interest in market regulation and curtailing the manipulation and fraud that we see regulators and politicians turning a blind eye to everyday. We'll see where the future takes me but I can assure you that any earnings from my WaMu holdings will help ease the navigation.

Thanks for putting in the time and effort to make the call.

I have a good feeling about Senator Coburn. He was very adamant about the circumstances surrounding the seizure and didn't seem to get overly carried away with the Long Beach Mortgage issue like Senator Levin did. I like the fact that he gave Killinger an opportunity to get the facts concerning potential suitors for WaMu on the record, even though those facts were not publicly revealed. I believe he is pushing for further investigation and wouldn't be surprised if he got the facts on record from Killinger after the conclusion of the hearing.

I have a good feeling about Senator Kaufman too. He has been pushing for regulation and restriction on naked short selling and manipulative short-selling practices for quite some time. I've been working on a pretty detailed paper on Market Manipulation for my Advanced Writing Requirement and hope to get it published. Those of you that read it will see I give much creedance to Kaufman's efforts, even if he is a liberal.

Senators like Coburn and Kaufman and Judges like Walrath and Collyer give me the peace of mind I need to sleep at night amidst all of the greed and corruption we're seeing on Wall Street. I am counting on them - and of course our EC - to bring these crooks to justice and get us all the retribution we deserve.

I believe the pre-seizure shareholders' interests are already being represented by the Equity Committee, so if the case is settled or resolved by the court they would be precluded from bringing a class-action forward by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. However, it seems to me that employees harmed by the seizure and subsequent fire-sale may have different claims and might be seeking different relief. If so, they might have standing to pursue those claims.

Those are my thoughts based on my understanding as a law student. I'm not an expert yet and although I did well in my Civil Procedure classes I have never been involved in litigation of this kind of magnitude - so please take what I say with a grain of salt.

Bienenstock is a very well-respected bankruptcy attorney and Dewey & LeBoeuf is no joke. I actually reached out to Mr. Bienenstock via e-mail earlier this week expressing my gratitude for deciding to represent our interests and letting him know I would be honored to join his team as a legal intern or summer associate should the opportunity present itself. I'm really hoping he finds the time to respond and gives me an opportunity to pass on my resume.

As for my DD, I've been following this case for almost a year now. Ask any of the other reputable longs on the board and they'll tell you how passionate I've been about this and how much I'd like to see justice against JPM/FDIC. See the following articles for a little bit of insight as to the Lehman case and how shareholders might now have an opportunity to get justice from the likes of Goldman Sachs and Barclays among others.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQgc6g6RT.FQ

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ao7ERhRBZN7o

Based on my understanding, the two actions are procedurally distinct - so the stipulated settlement (per contractual agreement which contractually bars future claims) or judicial resolution (per final judgment on findings of fact/law which bars relitigation of the same issues/claims) in bankruptcy action will likely have no preclusive effect on the Texas action unless parties within the Texas action have existing claims (or standing to assert their claims but failed to do so) within the bankruptcy action. Thus, JPM and/or the FDIC will probably have to settle that case separately.

I'm not quite sure whether pre-seizure shareholders or employees will have standing to file a class-action following settlement or judicial resolution.

While no one on these forums can advise you on the correct investment strategy, you should know that this would not be the first time courts have "made a harsh ruling against the banking gods." It's happening right now in the Lehman case and it's happened before in many other cases.

I think it would be prudent to hedge against potential losses while you're up - but I wouldn't discount the strong and likely possibility that Judge Walrath will apply the law and rule in our favor.

He sure does. If he manages to settle the case before it goes to trial the settlement would be a manifestation of his choice to avoid incriminating himself in court.

In contrast, if the case proceeds to trial he can be forced to testify by subpoena - which the EC (or WMI) can easily serve on him.

I would love to see Dimon get cross-examined by Bienenstock. My bet is that his credibility would fall by the wayside pretty quick.

The real question is whether Dimon would let it get that far.

Good letter. You should also forward it to the American Bar Association and the NY Bar Association.

http://www.abanet.org/contact/
http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Contact_Us

That all depends on whether JPM conspired and colluded with the FDIC - and as we know through discovery, JPM was neck deep in the "Project West" initiative, which might tie JPM into the FDIC's liability notwithstanding the FDIC's duty as the receiver.

I'm not familiar with the FDI Act, but without an express statutory exception I do believe that unwinding the P&A Agreement would be a breach of contract unless of course the parties were ordered to do so by court order.

Sorry for the brevity but I'm swamped today and need to get some more reading done before class tonight.

Not necessarily. As you already know, this is a court of equity, not a court of law - and accordingly, Judge Walrath's decision to spare the bondholders might be a classic case of judicial posturing. By refusing to dismiss the bondholders' claims, WMI is forced to show that it was solvent, well-capitalized, and wrongfully seized - thereby throwing the FDIC and JPM under the bus and theoretically bringing them closer to a serious settlement.

I hope this encourages the parties to speed up any/all negotiations as it will only get worse for JPM/FDIC from here - especially if and when the Judge grants the EC's motion for summary judgment and allows us to have our shareholder meeting.

It won't be extended to stock. Debt and equity are two wholly separate instruments with differing independent legal significance.

Well, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the $4B has already been fully briefed and argued, so I feel it might be a little late for them to file a memorandum in support of it. As for a wholly separate motion asking the court to proceed, well, I'm honestly not sure since I've never come across a case where the party seeking summary judgment (WMI) has asked the court to refrain from granting the relief ($4B) sought in the first place.

I'm not so sure the $4B would spoil the proposed settlement at this point because it is clear and evident that WMI-Weil is seeking to accomodate JPM, and in doing so is willing to forsake all of its claims - as well as the $4B and a large slice of its tax returns. Whether they have a legal right to the $4B is one question, but whether they choose to exercise that right is another. You should keep in mind that the proposed settlement will fail over its own lack of merit - and that's if it hasn't already with the FDIC and bondholders challenging it. There is no way the Judge would ever allow such a travesty to take place, where WMI actually pays the culpable parties to settle while wiping out equity that could have, and should have, been saved.

Unless WMI-Weil's efforts are all part of some inconspicuous plan meant to trick JPM and the FDIC into lowering their defenses - perhaps so that WMI-Weil could proceed with exploiting the facts to its own advantage and gain a more favorable position in the negotiations - I don't know any other way for justice to be served than for the EC to push for a trustee to oversee the bankruptcy while voting to replace WMI's current BOD.

Gotta jet. Need to prepare for class and I'm swamped at work. Goodluck everyone!

The EC's motion isn't asking the Judge to rule on the $4B, it's simply asking the court to allow a shareholder meeting (to elect a new BOD) or in the alternative, to modify the stay so the EC could ask the D.C. court to allow a shareholder meeting (to elect a new BOD).

I wouldn't be surprised if WMI's opposition papers were filed at the very last minute.

Based on my understanding, you have the choice to sell your shares or have JPM sell them for you.

I would consider moving your position into an IRA.

Jerle, you hit the nail on the head.

This is an excellent articulation of the past week's events. I wish I had more time to analyze and theorize with you but I just don't.

I hope the EC and UST successfully keep this proposed settlement from going forward. I would much rather see A>L and a new BOD elected so that WMI stays on course for trial against JPM/FDIC as oppose to seeing Weil and the current BOD sell out for some back alley deal with JPM and the FDIC. We need to cut our ties with Weil and any of the other tainted entities working on behalf of the estate. After seeing JPM/FDIC/WMI's true colors, I wouldn't be satisfied with a settlement. I want this to go all the way to trial while the US Department of Justice investigates all parties for criminal activity. People need to go to jail and examples need to be made so that the American people don't lose faith in our legal system, financial system, and ultimately, our government.

I've been long and strong since I picked up my first share almost a year ago. I'm hedging my investment this week out of sheer precaution but plan to retain a relatively substantial interest in commons within my portfolio.

Good luck to you and thanks for sharing your analysis.

-RR

Good luck to my fellow longs. I'll be monitoring the docket for updates.

IMO, the shake is due to stop orders being triggered across the board.

Haha, there's a thought!

We may have to discuss this after settlement.

Absolutely. I'll email it out to you guys or host it on a website for download when I'm finished with it.

It's going well but I'm swamped because my boss is giving me a hard time over using my PTO to study and get schoolwork done. I can't wait for this settlement to be reflected in my brokerage account so I can leave this place.

You'll be happy to hear that I finished most of my research on that paper I am working on for my securities regulation class on naked short selling and market manipulation. If everything works out, I'm going to try to have it published.

Looking beautiful this week. If I had to guess, I would say we can expect to see a joint motion to approve global settlement between the parties filed on Thursday night - in time for Friday's hearing. This would give shorts time to cover their positions and the parties ample time to review and re-review their agreement before Friday.