wonderfull
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.
I generally just ignore those types of questions .
And as you can see there was/is quite the reasons for such.
There may still be more to come out but nobody knows yet.
I guess that could be considered a very vauge and general statement and having little meaning if any at all. To me that means there's still skeletons in the closet there that folks want to stay in and others folks are trying to dig out. Nobody knows yet if they come out or stay hidde
Its something someone wants hidden so it must be good, however I Don't have a clue what it is specifically about.
Best thing to do is check my posts.
Yea I'm getting that pit in my stomach feeling too
Mr Heros for luch does it every time
Oh I see what's on the surface same as you and the rest of the world can. Too big to fail in all reality is a negative connotation toward these banks that pose such a huge systemic risk that, should failure happen the results would be catastrophic. It in no WAY mean the institution is so big and stable that it is simply is too big to fail.
Should ( re-read should) jpig become more unstable and approach failure or insolvency AGAIN, who's going to bail it out this time? The pig is more at risk now than it was before IMO and others opinion. The "too big to fail" designation means the GOVT needs to do what ever it takes to prop it up.
Splitting up the TOO BIG TO FAIL institutions into more manageable pieces is something the government wants. Look at the Dodd Frank extravaganza and all the new laws and empowerment the FDIC has to do it.
For the moment, the DC issues are in BK court. They are not in front of LIBR to decide directly and certainly not preside over but those issues are none the less there.
As stated in the gsa these actions are to be settled and those releases are to be given like m&ms. Jmw didn't bring them there, federal BK rules don't put them there, collyer didn't put them there, the parties brought them and again for the moment those issues are in BK court.
What I'd like to see it SS squeeze the bean bags until he gets what the releases are worth and have this over with. Heading back to Collyer's court for resolution could take many years. The action is back on and that certainly is not a victory for jpig or FDIC in DC.
Now another question, what sort of consequence would SG face if (BIG IF) they disregarded the confidentiality agreement and came forward with irrefutable proof of the many criminal acts that have happened?
PS. Thanks for the BDay wishes Don !
Pure speculation here :
With all these new laws being established and the FDIC acquiring this new power - BOY COULD THEY PUT A HURTING ON THE JPIG AND JAMIE if they wanted to or needed to. Anyone see why FDIC might need some leverage on the pig?
So FDIC could walk into jpig, sell assets to cover costs, pay creditors.
I would think having the worlds largest short position on metals, 70 TTTTTTT trillion in derivatives exposure would be considered negligent. That leaves Jamie and a few others open to 2 years compensation claw backs.
Jpig better play nice with FDIC and cough up some "fair and reasonable " cash for WAMU. 1.8000 billion is missing a few decimal points. Couldn't be simpler, two places to the right 180.00 billion and we'll call it good.
That figure is in alot of places isn't it! !
How about on document # 1 of this WAMU bankruptcy
Or the last financial documents WAMU produced before Sept 25
Or on jpigs balance sheet
Or awe hell you get the idea, right?
The cases have very little if nothing to do with each other on the surface but are still related.
The way that they are related is by the players involved and the issue of WAMU being taken down. The reason the same players are involved in these many cases is because of the conspiracy and collusion involved in taking down WAMU.
The FDIC is at the most fault ultimately because it was their decision and action that started the process. According to that attorney they are pointing fingers and trying to establish blame on another party . In doing so the same blame goes to different parties and renders them invalid. When these parties get blamed, the idea is " not me, don't know who but it wasn't me" & sometimes the only way you can prove "not me " is with bombshell evidence as to who actually is at fault. FDIC is going to really really pi$$ somebody off and the truth will come out with proof.
Killenger probably has more proof than anyone about WAMU. Because he was an officer of a
publicly traded company, he can be held personally liable for his actions. If you were in that situation, wouldn't you have kept impeccable records to back yourself up? Wouldn't you be able to smell a rat and make double sure you had proof knowing someone would/could be putting your butt on the line.
One thing is for sure, the same issue keeps coming up, WAMU wasn't ever insolvent. And rodent is doing a Houdini impression with 29 billion of liquidity.
Thanks for posting that Drrugby!
That pesky 30(29) billion again (sigh) what's rodent going to do
In it's lawsuit, the FDIC “says nothing about the worldwide economic crisis that would have led to the failures of virtually all large banks but for unprecedented government intervention that was not extended to WAMU.
that's a significant fact that they will have a hard time with.
Paulson, Whatcha think, Got an answer ? Want an easier one? ok if you're not going to help wamu with tarp or govt help i can appreciate that. How about excluding WAMU from. the no short list, at least WAMU could fight for itself, right?
Who's the third parties involved in this case FDIC vs killenger, rottella ect and spouses?
I also had an interesting wamu conversation last night.
I was listening to a rooster, strange at night but not unheard off.
The rooster had some great advice
Buy more WAMUUUUUUU!!
BUY MORE WAMUUUUUUU!!
He also croaked out a few of these.
Hey BRIAN Rodent FUUUUUU! !
HEY BRIAN RODENT FUUUUUU!!
And some of these that I though were stunning
Jamie's going to prisonnnnn!
JAMIE'S GOING TO PRISONNNNNN!
I was having trouble believing what I was hearing so I asked for some verification from my friends and they intact did confirm the rooster's ramblings.
they also pointed out to me the bull frogs were chanting "you'rerich! You'rerich! You'rerich"
Then I heard some of the most astounding thing coming from the worm in the bottom of my tequila bottle, but he made me sign a confidentiality agreement so I can't tell you what he said.
Assets and money certainly do not grow on trees, nor can they just disappear. Houdini, Copperfield and Rodent can make them vanish before your very eyes. Jamie and Sheila will swear there never was any but the assets are still there and gave value to something if they were sold. PJ Solomon fashioned a nice report to explain and show this phenomenon of disappearing assets in one column and the appearance of "money from a tree" in the other column.
What's the bottom line of Solomon's report ? Don't know but since it was hand delivered someone is pretty proud of the outcome.
Somehow the incompetent, wishy washy, chummy w BR Judge has gotten the two most powerful teams aiming in the same direction. The EC and TPS now have common enemies and share at least one common goal. Getting face value for WAMPQ. That's just one of the screw up the judge made. Can you think of a better way to pair them up? Must have been a way for an unintentional consequence of an incompetent judge to get something she thought might be needed long ago. Now these two can share info&its a BIG BIG DEAL to those trying to hide it or find it and assemble it.
Remember when she said to TPS, "some may want to ride your coat tails." Not only are the EC&TPS sharing an enemy list now but they are sharing all of the discovery the EC got. I wonder how that fits in with the discovery that TPS got previously; any missing pieces or eurika documents there?
I'm uncertain of what would or could happen to them if they both disregarded the confidentiality agreements and brought the facts to light. I doubt it would be much at all if they did so because of exigent circumstances and brought forth proof of corruption needed for RICO indictments.
Last time he sealed something, his team was the "ONLY " ones happy after a 2hr chambers hearing. I suspect this will be no different. Lawyers only resort to BS and obfuscation and confusion when they have nothing else. Please show me one instance where susman's team resorted to such and more importantly show me one instance where WMG, FDIC, JPM, OR the HEDGIES DID NOT!
PS. NOTE ITALIC use for paraphrase and collective sarcasm
Exactly! The threatened recipient of unwanted events generally have more a determined attitude towards compromises. The only time that doesn't hold true for any human is when only a few circumstances are present. Insanity, Zero fear of the threat, or nothing left to lose.
Once the treat has become an actual event the attitude towards compromise diminishes. However escalation of the threat in increments can increase the willingness.
EC reason for filing under seal was just posted by ilenes
These two documents are stated by SG to be the governing reasons why.
They are the confidentiality agreements
Thanks a bunch Ilene!
Filed Under seal per docket # 4683 & 6831
Anybody got those handy?
Sounds like catz is getting ready to dot some eyes lol
Mondays my birthday, suggestions on what I should wish for when I blow out the candles?
Have a great 4th of July everyone!
Under seal per docket # 4683 & 6831. Anybody got those handy?
Filed under seal means alot of things
I'm going to save the best for last here
The EC is bound by confidentiality agreements that required SG to file under seal if anything is used from the discovery or shared info.
It's more than likely full of damaging truths and more seriously deadly"(lol) accusations
There's the possibilities of on going talks
The 48 pages damned everything and everyone involved with this case.
Rockie, I have found that whomever or whatever party is initiative of the extension isn't getting their way. Also whomever is causing a delay needs to stall for time because they aren't getting their way.
Just hypothetical here based upon this potential extension that may or may not be coming.
Do you think susman asked rodent for some more time and rodent said " sure Steve, how much time do you need to file your objection against my pos por? " or would it be more likely that rodent said," uhhh hold on a min here, lets not be too hasty and lets talk about this" . You're going to have to know what's in their fillings to give an honest guess as to which is more probable.
Remember that's hypothetical
IMO here :
But ill tell you that EC really has no reason to initiate an extension. I'm sure they would take full advantage of one if rodent asked for it though. I also don't think EC would entertain the idea unless someone was talking real numbers and brought the checkbooks!
Lawrence, my question was specifically towards your post here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64832702
Your angst of the instruments being canceled or balancing the books and somehow this will effect the estate financially. It really doesn't work the way you're posing and I believe that's why its not making sense.
As I have come to understand D&O liability insurance, the provider has an obligation ( no entitlement ) to provide indemnity for the insured for any wrong doing, any means from sexual harassment to mismanagement of the highest degree. Side A, provides reimbursement directly to the officers being sued, side B directly to corporation if the corporation has an obligation to cover the officers and side C when corporation is named in a third party.
If D&O providers paid anything, technically it was paid directly to the officers who are being reimbursed for settling the damage. In this case the damage just so happened to be a loss of investment. The damages would have been handled the same if it was a sexual harassment case. I think you'll agree that the D&O liability provider wouldn't be entitled to the victims assest because of settlement. Nor are they entitled to the financial instruments in this case because they aren't paying for them. They are paying reimbursement personaly to the officers because the officers are personally liable.
The estate will not be effected financially as far as having double exposure to some financial instrument.
I'm 98.5% certain that I am correct on this, if you have info to the contrary I'd love to hear it and possibly reassess my understanding of D&O liability insurance.
Wouldn't the D&O insurance provider that paid that settlement need to now file a claim for th. Estate to feel any of that.. I would assume the losses far surpassed the 2xx million settlement and the terms very well could include a provision to let the holders keep the damaged investment. I think that's very plausible.
She opined "fair and reasonable " based on what was presented to her. People seem to forget that all the EC needed to do was stop the conformation at the hearing last December. I do Not believe anyone submitted any evidence or testimony to say anything contrary to the information rodent submitted. They only discredited the witnesses and ARGUED why rodents info must be bad. No testimony that it was in fact incorrect or substantially different . At that time there was no need to do anything more.
Her opinion also included the likely hood of recovery from a case that had been dismissed. Although it was on appeal, any reasonable person must assume the likely hood of recovery from a dismissed case must be close to nonexistent. That has changed now, how much remains a mystery for us to see but its not the same.
So, today the judge has so much more evidence to look at than She did 8 months ago. First some other form of valuation from PJ Solomon, more depos that are sworn testimony , the reopened case in DC, the insider trading issues, jpms true thoughts and disposition on the 4 billion deposit, the continued lack of cooperation over clearly defined discovery issues.
Should be good
The company's (WMI) true value is being hidden. That's a fact see Aurelius objection page 14, #28 excerpt from sworn deposition testimony. The hidden value is higher that the stated value. That's a fact. How much higher hasn't been revealed publicly yet but the PJ Solomon valuation report has delivered last week. As of todays date there has been no value assigned to the restitution required to right the damages caused by the following : The Fdic (government ) and jpm have been accused of a laundry list of unconscionable acts such as fraud, conspiracy, collusion, bid rigging, theft, breach of contracts, tortuous interference, and many more, that's a fact.
So with that in mind early retirement, you need to ask yourself and not the board this :
what has more potential, the truth stays buried along with the share price or the truth is brought to daylight and the share price goes up and how long will that take?
The answer to your question lies within your own DD.
Tidbits like this deserve more attention! !
Thanks for pulling that out.
I'm not sure how anyone could possibly think susman would make the "seriously deadly " allegations and not be able to back it up.
Never mind the hedgies gave up the newco in order for them, EC & SG, to drop it and somehow think they may genuinely have nothing to hide.
To me it sounds like SG has fashioned a beautiful 13 coil noose for these guys out of all the rope they were given.
Testimony doesn't come from lawyers who are representing clients.
Testimony requires an oath by definition.
Lawyers present argument, what we hear in court by the lawyers is not testimony its argument. Unless one of them rat bastards gets put on the witness stand or deposed its not testimony.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html
Look there its against the law for ANYONE to give false info to any government official
Anyone EXCEPT LAWYERS, part b.
I wonder why our great legislation officials saw fit to exempt lawyers representing clients in a judicial proceeding from this law.
They lawyers, can say any lie they want with a catch me if you can attitude. Prove the argument as BS with the probable truth via discovery or have a bigger better faster BS argument to win your case. Ethics of the practitioner would determine the course.
ATM daily limits no?
The closest date is most important until it passes.
Like tomorrow is more important than yesterday.
Radium, purely hypothetical
With respect to your hypothetical question however you tied reality into it.
If there were no insider trading and therefore no Nate and therefore no 2004 discovery on the hedgies we would be long gone by now, we would be hanging our hats on a different hook.
The odds that they are free of wrong doing is about 307 billion :1
What if frogs had wings? Would they still bump their a$$ on the ground when they try to fly?
Now does anyone know about judiciary law 487?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64762849
Any lawyers/ legal experts in the house?
Judiciary law 487 ?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64762401
Any input
I believe that susman will show everyone the draft of his objection today.
You know -" good morning gentleman, for your reading enjoyment while you're waiting to get started. "
I think he'll file it no matter what but may be under seal if someone yells uncle today & pending negotiations are a concern.
Everything lines up for it to happen possibly.
The potential is there and I don't believe that there has ever been a better time to do it or more at risk to not do it.
Specific legal question for the experts
Judiciary law 487 offers severe penalties and remedies for the lying done by lawyers.
I can find its use only in the state of New York.
Does that or can that be applied to Delaware and Washington DC?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428307615
It seems it should be federal law without argument but that is why I'm asking. Thanks
Other than fillings, EC has spoken!
Specific legal question for the experts
Judiciary law 487 offers severe penalties and remedies for the lying done by lawyers.
I can find its use only in the state of New York.
Does that or can that be applied to Delaware and Washington DC?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428307615
It seems it should be federal law without argument but that is why I'm asking.
Thanks
Remember when Cross from Venable said " this will be very difficult of they try to settle with equity's money" I think his words are ringing truer everyday since.
The whole thing thus far has been predicated on BS, GREED, & saving the insolvent JPM. All the while keeping it a secret and making the ugly truth seem more palatable. Somehow the perpetrators think feeding everyone BS but saying its ice cream will make it better.
Its WMIs money, always has been and everyone knows this.
We will get it back and that will happen without jpm calling it a contribution to the estate.
Now that's pretty interesting there side
http://blog.bluestonelawfirm.com/legal-malpractice-news-a-judiciary-law-487-claim-is-stated-in-legal-malpractice-case.html
Tremble damages against the attorney. Yea!
Keep lying MF
That 4 billion is probably the biggest part of the gsa.
That's jpig contribution to the matter. Lol
Take That out of gsa and return it to rightful owners step one.
A>l by far cram down step 2
No gsa no release sue step 3
Or 4bil comes back and jpig pays? And FDIC pays? And releases are issued.
Big part of the water fall by itself we get wet. Add? +? From dose idiots and were happy.
Here's the whole law side, read part b
Eliminated lawyers I'm court proceedings
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html
I sure could use some help understanding what the hell all this perjury talk is about.
There is a huge difference between fraud and perjury.
#1 perjury involves an oath, no oath no perjury
#2 fraud involves evidence, no evidence no fraud.
#3 the penalties for each are very different
Today the judge said this : lawyers comments are not evidence in one sentence. In a very next remark she said lawyers comments are not testimony but are argument.
Help me see the perjury you guys saw today,
I can see the lawyers lying their butts off OH CAN I SEE THAT!
Its all I heard today, but I can't see that as under oath W perjury looming. Nor can I see a lawyer arguing as fraud. Both of those by there definition & LIBR comments were eliminated.
Help me out on the perjury thing.
Edit::please make no assumption that I'm discrediting those who believe there is perjury involved I'm asking because I don't see it.
Pssssst : hey BR - GFY