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.
<lets just say the fdic/jpm agree to go threw w/this plan w/out them getting releases...>
They will agree to extend the GSA. Without the GSA, the POR falls apart completely. WMI would then continue its pursuit of the claims against FDIC/JPM, here and in DC. That won't happen on Rosen's watch.
POR v6 was denied. Susman is now attacking the hedge funds/creditors. JMW's opinions and errors in the denied plan are being appealed.
Even if the "wrap" is allowed to proceed, there will still need to be valuations per JMW's opinion.
The GSA will be modified/extended.
This is normal and happens after every hearing.
I agree.
This topic has been covered previously on this board(I think by Withcatz).
Susman will make appearances in court when necessary.
To some of the people questioning Susman not appearing in court, I ask, 'do you know who Marcia Goldstein is?'
Susman is over Nelson as Goldstein is over Rosen.
How often is Goldstein in court?
Susman is a pro, and I have full confidence in him and his staff.
IMO, Nelson and Sargent have done an excellent job so far.
They got the POR denied and are now on the offensive.
Fsshon crafted a professional letter to Susman as a rep for UIE. I don't see a need for multiple letters to Susman, but people can do as they see fit.
Here is some good info on the last Federal judge to be impeached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Porteous
On June 18, 2008 the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted a certificate[8] to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives expressing the Conference's determination that consideration of impeachment of Porteous might be warranted.[8] The certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Porteous "repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath,"[9] thus concealing "cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him."[9] In a specific case, "he denied a motion to recuse based on his relationship with lawyers in the case . . . and failed to disclose that the lawyers in question had often provided him with cash. Thereafter, while a bench verdict (that is, a verdict by a judge sitting without a jury) was pending, he solicited and received from the lawyers appearing before him illegal gratuities in the form of cash and other things of value"[9]" thus depriving "the public of its right to his honest services".[9] The certificate concluded that this conduct "constituted an abuse of his judicial office"[10] in violation of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges".[10]
The certificate also stated that there was substantial evidence that Porteous had "repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath[9]" in connection with his bankruptcy, allowing "him to obtain a discharge of his debts while continuing his lifestyle at the expense of his creditors",[9] and that he had "made false representations to gain the extension of a bank loan with the intent to defraud the bank".[10]
On September 18, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to proceed with an investigation of the bribery and perjury allegations.[11][12] On October 15, 2008 House Judiciary Chair John Conyers announced that Alan I. Barron had been hired as Special Counsel[13] to lead an inquiry into Porteous' impeachment. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) were designated as Chair and Ranking Member, respectively to lead the task force conducting the inquiry.[13]
On January 13, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 15 by voice vote, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach Porteous.[14] The resolution was sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee[14] and was proposed because the investigation ended with the previous Congress and a renewal was needed.[15] In October 2009, Reps. Conyers and Lamar S. Smith introduced a resolution[16] asking to access the judge's tax returns as part of the investigation.[17] The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee[16][17] and, at the same time, a timeframe was established which called for the investigation to end in November 2009; the Judicial Impeachment Task Force would decide by the end of the year if impeachment would be recommended to the Judiciary Committee. If the recommendation was for impeachment, the Committee would take up the matter in early 2010.[17] The task force scheduled the first hearings on the case for November 17 and 18, with more meetings in December before a final recommendation was made.[18]
On November 13 Porteous sued the task force, claiming that the panel was violating his Fifth Amendment rights by using testimony given under immunity in making the case against him.[19] On January 21, 2010, the panel voted unanimously to recommend four articles of impeachment to the full Judiciary Committee,[20] which, on January 27, voted to send the articles of impeachment to the full House.[21] On March 4, 2010, the full Committee reported H.Res. 1031, a resolution of impeachment of Porteous, to the full House. The full House considered the resolution, which included four articles of impeachment, on March 11, 2010. The subjects of the articles of impeachment, and the corresponding vote of the House of Representatives on March 11, 2010, appear below:
Article I - engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge - Passed the House by a vote of 412-0.[22]
Article II - engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge - Passed the House by a vote of 410-0.[23]
Article III - knowingly and intentionally making false statements, under penalty of perjury, related to his personal bankruptcy filing and violating a bankruptcy court order - Passed the House by a vote of 416-0.[24]
Article IV - knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge - Passed the House by a vote of 423-0.[25]
On March 11, Judge Porteous was impeached, with each article passing unanimously.[26] The same day, Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) were appointed as managers to conduct the trial in the Senate.[27] In addition, Schiff and Goodlatte were designated as the lead managers.[28] The articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, where the proceedings were started on March 17.[29] On that same day, Senators passed two resolutions: one provided for a summons for Porteous to answer the articles against him,[30] and the other provided for a committee to analyze the evidence against him and report their findings to the full Senate.[31] Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) were designated as Chair and Vice Chair of the committee, respectively.[32] The committee met on April 16; The trial was due to begin in early August, with a vote before the Senate happening in late September, but due to delays, it did not begin until mid-September, with a vote scheduled for December 8, 2010 .[33]
On December 7, 2010, the full Senate began hearing the impeachment trial. On December 8 the Senate voted unanimously to convict Porteous on first of four impeachment charges, removing him from the bench. The Senate subsequently convicted him on the remaining three articles and moreover disqualified him forever from holding any office of honor or profit under the United States.
Article I - engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge - Convicted in the Senate by a vote of 96-0.
Article II - engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge - Convicted in the Senate by a vote of 69-27.
Article III - knowingly and intentionally making false statements, under penalty of perjury, related to his personal bankruptcy filing and violating a bankruptcy court order - Convicted in the Senate by a vote of 88-8.
Article IV - knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge - Convicted in the Senate by a vote of 90-6.
Disqualification - Forever disqualified to hold any office of honor or profit under the United States - Disqualified by the Senate by a vote of 94-2.[34]
I don't think that I would call WMMRC an "empty shell", although Rosen would probably agree with you. ;)
We know that the trusts under WMMRC are currently in run-off, but that is only because WMI is in BK.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48335682
There are assets there, $460mil plus NOLS, we know the hedgies want WMRRC for themselves, and we need a proper valuation of WMMRC.
I am thankful that Mr. Steinberg requested a new valuation of WMMRC/reorganized WMI yesterday.
<No such thing as "incurable".>
If you say so, lol.
That wasn't the disagreement I was expecting but, OK.
<And no judge I have ever known writes an opinion that they want, or believe will be, reversed on appeal. >
Well, there had to be some reason for her to write that opinion.
I believe she is pushing all parties to a true global settlement. It is possible that her clerks wrote the opinion and she failed to properly proofread. She could be kicking the case down the road to avoid a tough decision. She may want off of the case. She may have been paid off/compromised. We don't know why she issued that opinion.
We do know her opinion contained fatal flaws and I would go as far to say incurable errors(others may disagree).
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59000481
In regards to the Debtor's evidence that Piers are debt and not equity.
The Debtors will definitely produce that information. It will not help the Debtors to withhold that information.
EC wants to push confirmation to April.
Sounds like Sargent from EC is up.
Robert Stark with TPS.
<her Opinion is just that "an opinion">
The judge is there to adjudicate the evidence and argumentation which was presented to her by the parties to the case. Her "opinion" is supposed to be based on the facts and evidence that was presented TO her, not BY her.
From the EC's filing: "This effort by the Court to fill evidentiary gaps in the Plan Proponents case deprives the Objectors of their right to test the evidence used to support the plan."
The EC appeal filing can be best summed up in this once section:
"18. The Equity Committee has been unable to identify any legal authority that would support the Debtors' reliance on the Court as a legal expert. As such, this appears to be the first decision where a settlement has been approved over the objections of interested parties and without the proponents having introduced any admissible evidence of legal analysis supporting the conclusion that the settlement was fair and reasonable. With all due respect, and without any intent to disparage the Court's legal acumen, the Equity Committee maintains that no reasonableness finding can be made without evidence in the record setting forth the legal analysis supporting such a conclusion."
That is one heck of a stinger.
The EC is basically saying that the judge acted as a witness for the debtors and there was basically no evidence in the record to support the Debtor's conclusion, but the judge still agreed with the Debtor.
This type of judicial behavior may be common in Municipal Courts, where the judges commonly act as judge/prosecutor and sometimes witness in traffic/parking ticket "cases". This is definitely not conduct that anyone would logically expect from a federal BK judge.
JMW is by no means unintelligent, so her "opinion" is very perplexing. It almost seems like she wants to be recused from the case.
Judex non potest esse testis in propria causa.(A judge cannot be a witness in his own case.)
Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 605. Competency of Judge as Witness
The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm
<KISS THE $5Bil NOL good bye>
Incoming claim from FDIC/JPM for the $5.5bil NOL.
Rosen: "Sorry you honor, the NOL is now disputed so we don't need to discuss it any further.
FDIC and JPM have agreed to amend the GSA to not include equity releases.
How about an approval now?" (hypothetical)
Notice of Status Conference Regarding, Among Other Things, the Opinion with Respect to Confirmation of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110117000000000007.pdf
Thanks for that.
I couldn't remember if the docs were given to the EC as part of the CA, or if it was work product that was included in the data dump that contained the migratory pattern of humpback whales and studies of botulism, etc.
If I recall, the sealed docs have to do with an assessment of the WMB claims by QE. Not sure if my memory is correct there either lol.
Either way, as Hoffman's first motion stated, we(equity) do not know what the docs contain and that is why Hoffman is requesting them to be unsealed and/or make public the in camera hearing transcript.
Unless some evidence emerges that the third parties did learn of the contents of the docs, the motion to reconsider may be denied, which I then imagine would lead to an appeal.
I hope we at least get our hands on the in camera transcript.
Well, we know the docs got the judge to reverse her decision on the Examiner.
If the Debtors are telling the truth(for once lol?), and the third parties were not privy to the docs, then maybe a push to get the in camera transcript will be revived so that we can at least know what actually happened in the judge's chambers.
The sealed docs were "supposedly" inadvertently given to the EC by the Debtors.
The EC submitted the sealing motion, and the Debtors were the other party to that motion since it was their docs.
Everyone else are considered "third parties" to that motion.
What would they be looking up if:
"The Privileged Content was not provided to, or discussed with, JPMC, the FDIC, the U.S. Trustee or any party other than the Equity Committee."
?
A transcript of the in camera hearing might explain it.
I presumed it as well.
They were all in chambers but: "The Privileged Content was not provided to, or discussed with, JPMC, the FDIC, the U.S. Trustee or any party other than the Equity Committee".
Maybe the judge had them close their eyes and plug their ears while they discussed the docs?
According to the Debtors, "there has been no such disclosure".
Oh well.
First, it would go to the 3rd circuit court of appeals.
I can't wait to see Rosen's response to the Hoffman motion for reconsideration.
Were JPM and FDIC privy to the sealed docs?
We might find out today.
I have that same question about the capital raise.
It ended up being $11.5 billion.
This article explains how/why they did the capital raise:
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/29/how-jp-morgan-raised-115-billion-in-24-hours/
The capital raise issue also brings up the issue of bid rigging.
"Three weeks before J.P. Morgan bought WaMu’s deposits for $1.9 billion, officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had called J.P. Morgan to say that the FDIC was carefully monitoring WaMu and that a seizure of its assets was likely. J.P. Morgan was well-prepared, then, when the FDIC asked for bids on Tuesday, Sept. 23. On Wednesday night, the regulators told J.P. Morgan that the bank had won the bidding, one person close to the situation said."
Did the FDIC contact other banks 3 weeks before the seizure?
This article says that it was only JPM and Citigroup:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/12/15/story1.html
This article says there were 4 bidders:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/companies/JPM_WaMu/index.htm
"All told, Bair said four banks made bids for WaMu but JPMorgan Chase ultimately won out when the auction was held Wednesday. Several other large institutions, including Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and HSBC (HBC), were poring over the company's books, according to news reports last week.
JPMorgan Chase won because they were "the highest bid and the lowest cost resolution," Bair said.
"It was our cheapest option," she said."
Then there is the infamous (rumored) statement that Dimon said that he was the only bidder and could have bought Wamu for 1 dollar:
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/banking-finance/2009/12/28/what-a-deal-jp-morgan-got-for-wamu/index.html
(All of the above linked articles are good reads IMO)
Those 3rd party releases are VERY important.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/01/11/jp-morgan-dividend-boost-is-coming-jamie-dimon-says/
Start at 11:15 in.
"In an interview this afternoon with CNBC, Jamie Dimon was his usual awesome self. Oh, and he said J.P. Morgan Chase is ready to boost its dividend in the second quarter."
Geesh.
IP, that was the claims I was looking for, thanks for reminding me ;)
In my previous post I wrote about a $1 to $100bil estimation.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58617590
The $1 to $100bil estimation was for the IP claims. Goulding didn't know what the IP claims valuation was, because the Debtor's didn't do the evaluation.
That is probably why the judge said there was no value to the IP claims. The Debtor's didn't do an analysis, and the EC didn't submit an analysis.
As far as JMW was concerned, there was no way to valuate the IP claims hence her shocking(to equity) opinion.
Of course he didn't pull them out of a hat. I was being facetious, hence the lol after my statement.
My point was though, that although we all know that Solomon has done a proper valuation, it was not submitted to the court and as far as JMW is concerned, it doesn't exist.
<where did Nelson come up with these figures???>
Maybe he pulled them out of a hat? lol
As far as JMW and the court are concerned he might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat.
Her opinion even stated in multiple places that the EC had presented no evidence.
Yes, we can all assume that he got the numbers from Solomon(he probably did). But, as far as the court is concerned there is no evidence of the $33bil figure.
On a side note:
In the confirmation hearing, Justin Nelson asked Goulding if the Debtors had calculated or done an analysis on claims(can't remember which claims). Nelson asked, "Since you did not do an analysis, you can't tell us if the value of the claims is $1 or $100bil."
Goulding laughed and said, "I think saying up to $100bil is excessive"(or something to that effect)
Nelson said, "well how do you know if you didn't do an analysis of the claims?"
So, there Nelson talked about $100 billion in possible claims. Was there any evidence of it? No. He brought that number up to prove a point, much like the $33bil number. I remember when Nelson mentioned the $33bil in court, Rosen quickly changed the topic and didn't even dispute the $33bil comment. There are discussions that we aren't privy to, much like the meetings in chambers, or settlement discussions that may or may not have happened as of yet.
So far though, no actual evidence from Solomon has been submitted.
Yes, how did Nelson get his number of $33bil?
He didn't submit any evidence. Just because the counsel of the EC said $33bil in court, does not mean that it should be taken as evidence.
We have seen nothing from Solomon, and Rosen even said as much in his closing arguments for the confirmation hearing.
We will see something from the EC with analysis from Solomon.
It is absurd for anyone to assume that Susman didn't present evidence because he has none.
Do not assume for one moment that a top-notch legal firm would not present a case for their client(equity).
Susman/EC will present evidence and/or a competing POR at some point, unless the stars align and the other parties decide to settle.
This will move again once the EC starts presenting their case.
I've posted previously, and probably can't stress enough, that the denied POR was the Debtor's.
The EC didn't submit any witnesses. They even said at the beginning of the confirmation hearing that they would only be cross examining the Debtor's witnesses.
Solomon has been working on the numbers for quite a while now. We have seen nothing from Solomon...yet.
IMO, JMW is pushing the parties to a true "global" settlement based on her soft opinion on the POR.
At this time, I am looking forward to a settlement(equity included), or evidence/motions submitted by EC. I am confident that one of the two will happen, and I doubt the U's will stay in the current range once it does. IMO.
<What really worries me is the judge is accepting this on their best business judgment. Not one piece of evidence has been presented in any manner shape or form to support any decision in any direction. >
Unfortunately, that is how the BK game works.
This was the Debtor's POR. They did submit evidence, but most of it was protected by attorney/client privilege. The EC did not put forth any of their own witnesses. All the EC did was cross examine the Debtor's witnesses. The EC strategy apparently was to focus on the low-hanging fruit such as the broad releases. It worked and the POR was denied.
The judge gave her opinion bases on what was presented to her. She only based her decision on actual evidence submitted to her. She did not consider hearsay(except to deny Creditor Comm. releases out of caution), and she did not do DD like we have here. She did not have a slew of individual investors spending countless hours researching to feed her information.
All she had was what the Debtor's put forth.
She denied their Plan of Reorganization.
Now, the EC will go forward with their evidence. The judge will eventually rule on that.
So, there is no reason to be worries, at this time.
The judge gave her decision on what was in front of her. Most of us were shocked to see her opinions, because of all the information that we have. The judge does not, yet, have that information.
I think so. But, I'm listening to the entire hearing again.
One thing to note. At the beginning of Day 1, Justin Nelson told the judge that the EC's entire case was going to be through cross.
The EC did not submit any direct evidence or witnesses at the confirmation hearing.
Although many here already knew that, I though it was interesting to note the JN did in fact say that at the beginning of the hearing.
It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the EC will now start submitting their own evidence and/or motions to rebut the evidence that was submitted in the Debtor's denied POR.
And that is a main thing for everyone to realize. The POR that was just denied was the Debtor's POR. The only thing the EC needed to do was get that POR denied. And it was denied.
Things should really start to get interesting now.
Does anyone remember in the Confirmation Hearing if one of the debtor's witnesses said that the Creditor Committee created the draft for the GSA? I thought I heard that said, and I'm listening to the hearings again to find it.
I noticed that too.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in her opinion.
It is starting to look like this was a "soft" opinion to push all parties to settlement.
Was any evidence presented to her that $4billion would cause JPM to collapse?
Page 57.
"The FDIC as Receiver of WMB has significantly fewer
assets than the claims of creditors, making any recovery for
equity unlikely."
Really? How does she know that?
Page58.
"The Court disagrees with the Plan Objectors. The collapse
of WMB itself demonstrates that bank deposits (especially in the
amount of $4 billion) may not be easily collectible without
resulting in another bank collapse. Further, given the economic
turmoil in 2008, when even huge institutions like Lehman Brothers
and AIG faced financial difficulties, the Court concludes that it is not possible to say that any judgment against JPMC would not
face difficulty in collection, especially if it is in the
billions of dollars as the Plan Objectors contend. Finally, to
the extent that the Debtors are successful in proving any claim
against the FDIC as Receiver for WMB, it would be but one of many
claims against the receivership with little prospect of any
meaningful distribution."
Does the court also then conclude that there also may not be difficulty in collection?
Possible vs Probable?
What about claims against FDIC Corporate? She didn't mention those did she?
<The key to getting commons paid is a complete valuation. >
I agree.
I stand by my post on Tuesday.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58380341
We have all weekend to go over Mary's "opinion".
The plan was Denied.
Our Step #1 was successful.
<Susman wanted POR denied and he got it. His turn at bat.>
Exactly.
We know the Debtor's evidence and position.
Now we know Mary Walrath's opinions.
We haven't seen Susman's evidence, nor the analysis of Solomon.
<WON, with co-counsel, settlement of approximately $7 billion (subject to court approval) for estate of Washington Mutual in litigation with JPMorgan Chase.>
That describes the GSA, not necessarily the POR.
Yeah, they think they did a great job by settling for $7bil.
Old news.
Just the first line was in reply to your question. I know that you have been here for a very long time.
I started to explain my reason for saying a valuation hearing and trustee, and then just rambled on lol.
Although I listened to the confirmation hearings and have been reading every court doc, there hasn't been much DD for me to do, so I just listed some of my recent thoughts.
It is out of our hands right now, and we sit patiently(after 2 long years) and wait to see what the judge decides.
<unless I am missing something?>
Valuation hearings and/or a trustee. IMO.
The EC can't really put out a valid competing POR at this time, since there are too many disputed and hidden assets.
A trustee or possibly a shareholder meeting could enable equity to gain control from the current board, restructuring team, and counsel.
The current POR needs to be denied first.
The Hoffman motion may bring things to light to either guarantee the POR denial or prompt the removal of current counsel. We just don't know because we don't know exactly what the sealed docs contain.
Valuation hearings are almost guaranteed if the POR is denied.
Another thing to consider, is the fact that Susman did't present any evidence or analysis from Solomon. Although Rosen mentioned that fact in the confirmation hearing(I think day 4) as a negative and indication of a lack of evidence on the part of the EC, it doesn't take a legal brain to know why Susman didn't submit an analysis from Solomon.
Susman went after the low-hanging fruit to shoot down the POR. There was no need for him to give up "the goods".
With the constant "I don't knows" and "we didn't do an analysis of abc, only xyz" from the Debtors "witnesses"(I use that term very loosely), a valuation is paramount to any POR being approved in this case.
For me, the lack of analysis from Solomon was the tell-tale sign that the POR should/will be denied. The Boli/Coli debacle and 2011 tax NOL windfall were the icing on the cake. The lack of clarity on the equity releases was also pretty damning for the Debtors. I'll end my run-on post with that lol.