is making moves.
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.
Its not about setting precedent. On the contrary, Judge Walrath would be following clearly established law if she ruled on summary jugdment. There can be many reasons as to why she hasn't ruled yet - she may be giving parties time to reach fair settlement including equityholders or she may be putting together an "appeal proof" opinion.
I don't know if we'll see one before then but I'm sure they'll be working on one. March is going to be a HUGE month for us because there are so many things going on and everything seems to be pointing in that direction. My gut is telling me this will all be over before April but I guess we'll see what happens.
We never saw a motion or stipulation adjourning the date. On the contrary, this was done internally by the court and/or the result of written memoranda between the court and the parties giving the court a good cause reason for adjourning the date another month.
I think there is a reason this was pushed out another month, and while I could be wrong I don't think it was a delay tactic employed by the FDIC. I still don't think they're expecting to argue this motion - they know its bogus.
I suspect the parties will be sitting at the settlement table for the next month or so throwing numbers around. Hopefully they'll hit the right ones soon.
Interesting.
Like I said, they (FDIC/JPM) never expected to argue this motion.
Indeed. If justice is not served then I am picking up and moving to Europe, lol.
Not necessarily.
Truth be told, I don't know what the chances are. The SJ isn't on the docket for tomorrow's hearing because it was already briefed and argued - so if she rules on it tomorrow, it'll only be because she wanted to get a decision on the FDIC's motion out on the table beforehand.
We're all going to be grateful that Walrath took her time once we see the fruits of settlement.
If she adopted the arguments made by WMI then she could have ruled de novo and allowed for the dissolution of the EC - neither of which occurred here, thank God.
She may have let the FDIC off the hook in adjourning the hearing on their motion to modify the stay until tomorrow, but remember the circumstances under which their motion was filed - they threatened the judge at the SJ hearing by stating they would just "take back" the deposits. I believe the judge wanted to address this issue fair and square - giving them no opportunity to claim that the FDIC wasn't afforded due process and giving them no grounds for an appeal. I would much rather know that her decision is guarded behind an appeal-proof wall than to have a quick judgment rendered and overturned on appeal. She is acting in the interests of justice and the law - and I can't argue with that.
IMO, the FDIC never expected to argue this appeal because the parties were likely expecting to settle this - without the EC - beforehand. Now that the EC has been formed, the FDIC will have to face it's own music as its motion will almost certainly be denied. If she denies it from the bench - as I strongly believe she will - it will send a strong message to the parties urging them to move their talks along quickly, because SJ will soon follow.
You're letting your impatience get the best of you. Walrath has granted our Motion for Discovery (Rule 2004) and allowed us to establish and retain the Equity Committee. Without those two major breakthroughs we would be nowhere. Moreoever, if Judge Walrath granted summary judgment prior to the formation of the EC, we (equity) might have been left out in the cold while the other parties settled.
There is a method to her madness and she knows more about this case than any of us could ever hope to know. I am also beyond frustrated with the impatience because God knows I need this settlement to happen, but I'm not going to hate on the one person that has been fair and honest through and through.
Keep your head up. We're close.
Nice find. Thanks!
Many thanks JHD. I think I'll do the chicken soup now and the nyquil/saltwater when I get home. Might be skipping class tonight so I'll be watching the boards 'till bedtime.
It shows how hard the MMs are working to keep the price down.
lol, I figured that. Sorry, I'm at work today with a sore throat and mild fever.
FDIC doesn't have a back door out of this mess. They're done - Walrath just has to say the word.
What do you mean by "back doors" for the FDIC?
They will not be getting any special treatment because they're a quasi-agency. Judge Walrath's decision will stand. That's it.
Agreed, especially if SJ is finally awarded.
I think the FDIC is to blame for the delays.
Yes, it does.
I think we'll get a major hint at 2AM EST when the Frankfurt market opens up. In the meantime, I'll be sure to check PACER before bed and first thing in the morning. The anticipation is killing me!
I like your plan. Where do we start?
I would be interested in partnering up with you on something like that Fish, but I'm strapped and tapped until WAMUQ settles.
If I have my own practice, sure. I have to build a client base somewhere.
Thank you very much, Bradinski. I can't tell you how much I've learned as a result of this case. Hopefully I will be able to apply this knowledge to my career.
Under the model rules of professional responsibility, counsel has a duty of candor to the court. This includes disclosing evidence of criminal wrongdoing if such evidence is revealed during the discovery process. Accordingly, if the parties came across evidence of criminal activity, they wouldn't use the evidence as leverage to encourage settlement. However, if JPM and the FDIC know that such evidence exists, they may be reluctant to divulge such information in the discovery process and as a result, become more increasingly cooperative in settlement negotiations.
Thanks, that means alot!
I have another year left after this semester. I can't wait to finish.
Perhaps. I don't think the parties ever expected the FDIC to actually argue its motion - which was largely based on a threat to Judge Walrath - in her court. Hence the timing of the settlement negotiations which were close to execution but swiftly interrupted by the EC formation. Even Rosen sought to push the FDIC's motion to the end of the docket so as to try to see through the dissolution of the EC and getting another crack at the settlement negotiations before putting the FDIC on the spot like that.
It varies. The legal profession isn't what it used to be and it largely depends on where you work and what you do. I think a J.D. a versatile degree and the sky is the limit if you have the right combination of smarts, credentials, experience and personality.
Anytime, Climber!
I can't answer that because I don't know the process or rules associated with such a change. Does anyone care to venture their insights on this?
I love your viewpoint and I embrace it as my own too. In all honesty, we would not be where we are right now but for the collective effort of our members. We are a force to be reckoned with and it makes me proud to see others willing to stand up against the injustices that have come upon us - as perpetuated by government and banks alike.
I owe you a drink in Vegas, my friend. Good luck!
Same here, brother. I'd like to finish out the rest of law school without slaving behind a desk for 40hrs/week and without the ridiculous loans I have hanging over my head right now.
A global settlement will resolve all related litigation and generally preclude any future/add'l claims from being filed. The criminal charges, if any, will probably stand if the parties allow it to get that far by uncovering evidence of criminal activity during the discovery process. This is exactly why time is of the essence here.
Fair enough, but you're assuming JPM was in fine shape when it acquired WaMu. I don't know if JPM would be willing to part with the leverage associated with $4B in cash when it can finance the settlement via other means. In this market, cash is king.
I don't know much about the $6.5B capital contribution claim but I can tell you once the judge rules on the $4B in deposits WMI will be a judgment creditor of JPM for the purposes of those deposits - and like any (DDA) deposit, they will be due upon demand. Call me crazy, but I cannot see JPM turning over a dime and I think they'll settle before they do.
There is urgency in the air because we are nearly 1-1/2 years into the litigation and settlement can come at any time. Take some time to read up on posts by some of the well-informed members and it'll all come together. Good luck!
It's an analogy. WAMUQ is going to head north like a freight train and in order to be aboard you need to pick up shares of stock.
The final, accepted offer is made public. In this case, it will probably be made public via a motion asking the court to approve the settlement between all parties.
Then the "free press" will jump on it and push it into the media.
This is exactly what angers me about the last hearing. I don't understand how opposing counsel has the nerve to state that "there just isn't enough money to go around" to cover equity. There wasn't enough money to acquire WaMu through honest means but that doesn't make the seizure/conveyance to JPM right.
Don't forget to spread the royalties...a penny for our thoughts, lol.
That's exactly right - they never expected to argue this before the court but now that their conspiracy to leave equity out of the settlement has flatlined, they have no choice.
IMO, the FDIC and JPM made their bed. Now Judge Walrath will let them sleep in it.