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.
It just seems to me that any settlement with us would have to be approved by the judge, and would obviously be a problem with whoever's "lunch" we'd be eating. It would have to be part of a new por and approved, correct?
Thanks J&B. I used to drink J&B.
Settlement - How would a settlement work? If wmi is impairing another class by settling with dime, can they do that? Our settlement money would come from another class wouldn't it?
Don't rotate too much or you'll get yourself dizzy.
If you stand on your head, it'll look like someone's been buying shares, and your worries will all go away.
Sorry. You have to be prepared for this to be a zero. If you're worried, sell some.
I don't understand how a settlement would work. Money paid to dime would come out of assets and take away from another class. Wouldn't it have to be part of the por and the judge have to rule on it? How can they decide to impair the preferred for example?
When you speak of "absolute duty of candor" I think back to what I remember was the first meeting in court I heard between Rosen and Steinberg. Rosen said something about having previously spoken to Steinberg, and Steinberg said when? Do you mean just in the hall there? There was mumbling and Rosen actually said something to the effect of "I'll talk to you later about it." It was like he was trying to put one over on the judge and everyone listening and Steinberg and the judge took an immediate affront to it. The weasel was trying to cut us out in a back room deal. It was kind of comical at the time.
You can search by the case number, 95-039C , or the name, ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Pacer is not too user friendly. I usually wind up opening a lot that I don't need, partly because I don't know what I'm looking for. But it's only 8 cents a page. You can download documents to pdf and save them. The motion to dismiss was 8/2/2010 so when you get to the search with time parameters include that.
I'm not a lawyer. I've only used pacer for two stocks and much of it I haven't understood.
Good Luck.
I haven't said anything. Just copy and pasting.
What it's saying imo is that JPM never had a right to the anchor proceeds. They should still belong to wamu. Jpm never had the right to take over the case. What do you know, the gov't is making sense!
I don't think the line about the judgement belonging to creditors means much. They don't know that dimez exists probably.
But yeah this is a shock to me.
Monksden was bought by someone and is now monksden.com. I'm not monk and I've never looked at it. Just answering the question.
On November 3, 2008, the United States filed a motion for a 90-day stay, explaining that
the identity of the real party in interest was uncertain and seeking a stay pending a determination
on this question by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the
Washington Mutual, Inc. bankruptcy action and by the receivership.6 In an opposition to our
motion to stay, Anchor asserted that JPMorgan was the real party in interest.
How's that for fiduciary responsibility?
Although JPMorgan purchased some assets from FDIC-R, JPMorgan did not purchase
the right to pursue Anchor’s claim against the Government under the Anchor goodwill contract.
It is axiomatic that, because FDIC-R did not transfer its Anchor claim to JPMorgan,
JPMorgan is not entitled to the judgment entered in favor of Anchor, nor is it entitled to pursue
Anchor’s claims.
Instead, our understanding is that the general creditors and senior debt holders of
Washington Mutual Bank may be entitled to this judgment, distributed through the receivership.
I was just posting things as I found them and finally found the motion to dismiss. I haven't read it all.
http://www.pacer.gov/findcase.html
I recommend opening a pacer account. Documents are 8 cents a page and below a certain amount each month or quarter is no charge.
Check your email I have to run. I sent you a pdf
JPMorgan Lacks Standing To Pursue Anchor’s Complaint
The terms of JPMorgan’s agreement to acquire assets from Anchor’s successor-ininterest
demonstrate that JPMorgan did not acquire the Anchor claim. JPMorgan, therefore,
lacks standing to assert Anchor’s claim in this Court.
Dumer - Start of motion to dismiss. Filed 08/02/10 whole doc is 11 pages long -
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC” or
“Rule”), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claim
asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”), as successor-in-interest of Anchor
Savings Bank, FSB (“Anchor”), for lack of jurisdiction. As a result of developments following
the Court’s March 14, 2008 opinion and July 16, 2008 order, Washington Mutual Bank, FSB
(“Washington Mutual Bank”), the former successor to Anchor, is in receivership and may no
longer assert the claim in this case. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim asserted by
JPMorgan, however, because JPMorgan is not Anchor’s successor-in-interest and, therefore,
lacks standing. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss JPMorgan’s claim in order to ensure that
the judgment is awarded to the proper recipient.1
1/
Plaintiff Anchor Savings Bank respectfully provides notice to the Court that the three
motions currently pending on remand of this matter from the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution by the Court.
? Plaintiff’s Motion on Remand for Correction of Award of Mitigation Damages,
filed June 11, 2010 (Dkt #320), followed by Defendant’s opposition (Dkt #325)
and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt #327);
? Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Award of a Tax Gross-Up, filed June 11, 2010
(Dkt #321), followed by Defendant’s opposition (Dkt #332) and Plaintiff’s reply
(Dkt #338); and
? Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed August 2, 2010 (Dkt #329), followed by
Plaintiff’s opposition (Dkt #335), Defendant’s reply (Dkt #337), Plaintiff’s surreply
(Dkt #339-1), and Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply (Dkt #340).
Plaintiff is available for a hearing at the Court’s convenience, should the Court believe that a
hearing would be of assistance to it in resolving the pending motions.
The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s “Notice of Submission,” filed this date, in which plaintiff states that the following three motions “have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution” by the court: (1) plaintiff’s motion for correction of award of mitigation damages; (2) plaintiff’s motion for award of a tax gross-up, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”); and (3) defendant’s motion to dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant RCFC 12(b)(1). The court notes that a fourth motion, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s bill of costs, is also pending before the court.
In light of defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, it is ORDERED that ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS, though fully briefed, are not ripe for resolution and ARE hereby STAYED. The court will schedule oral argument on defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss in the near future.
s/Lawrence J. Block
Lawrence J. Block
Judge Case 1:95-cv-00039-LB Document 343 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 1
Thanks Bluzie.
I think the price is reflecting the higher possible upside with a slightly better chance of winning.
It still seems to me that we've cleared one hurdle but we haven't won. I hope I'm missing something but this price doesn't seem so cheap to me.
BK That's great advice, thanks. If we get to that point I'll have to put more thought into it.
As far as handicapping the future goes you're better off bypassing my opinion and waiting for better legal minds.
Jared - Thanks for responding. It's interesting that you feel we've won the major battle. That's good to hear.
We are not yet class 12 though, correct? We still have to prove that, despite winning the summary judgment case.
JPM assuming the obligation is to me what should have happened in the first place. That would satisfy me.
I saw that on your first reading you extracted that we won the right to sue the board. The portions I heard of Steinberg grilling witnesses were brutal. I think he's already made it clear they weren't even aware they had any fiduciary responsibilities to us. He said something like " who in that room was representing the ltw holders?"
And, the judge agreed with the point you'd been making that we should have the option of receiving the new stock. I know I'd prefer the bird in the hand.
Well, football is on. Enjoy what's left of the weekend.
Timetable? What's next for dime as far as our case for moving up to class 12?
By separate Opinion and Order, the Court has denied WMI’s motion for summary
judgment
To the extent that
the LTW Holders win their suit and are not subordinated, the
Debtors agree they will be entitled to treatment as general
unsecured creditors under class 12 and get paid in full with
interest.
he LTW Holders
contend that even if they are successful in the LTW Adversary and
their claims are allowed as general unsecured claims in Class 12,
they have been discriminated against because they are not given
the option other general unsecured creditors have to take stock
in the Reorganized Debtor rather than cash.
The Plan must be modified to afford the
same option to all claims in the same class that other claims
have, if they are allowed.
I was just writing that if the sixty million had been decided Bluzie or someone would have reported it here, and he answered.
I was just doing some reading and was reminded that that this case started in 1995 and was the result of the 1988 purchase of Residential Funding Corporation. And Anchor was obviously wronged by FIRREA. My how time flies in the legal system when you're having fun.
If dime is ahead of equity more money for dime is less money for equity. Someone on wamu board calculated that the increase for dime cost wamu equity 8 cents/share. I can't say that number is correct, but that's the idea.
The judge said "in the morning." The wamu consensus is that the ruling will appear on pacer. There is no court time scheduled.
I shouldn't be a buyer but now you had to go and put the idea in my head. Actually I'm hoping it trades at a price where I'll want to sell rather than buy. Like $2.
I have no legal understanding, but from the first day I heard the judge speaking to Steinberg and Rosen I had a good feeling about this. That hasn't changed. On top of that, Steinberg has been fantastic.
Will there be audio tomorrow?
I'm going to set the reserve at 337 million.
That helps me Jared. It's been so long I almost forget why I own them.
Much longer and I'll be asking myself "what does this company do?"
Closed. I thought it was a half day. I wish everyone the best for the holidays and 2011.
If you want to get upset on Christmas eve, I just read an an article on the Merrill mortgage blowup. The department that created the cdo's couldn't invest too much in their own creations. They created a department that would position the slices of cdo's that they had no buyers for. They called this risk management! Ironically these were the highest rated portions that weren't high yielding. To get people to work in this division that would soon blow up, the cdo guys promised a share of their own bonus pool. "You won't receive a bonus because you will lose the firm tons of money, so we'll pay you some of ours." This bonus sharing was new information for me. As a shareholder I lost money, while they received millions in bonuses and are now working all over Wall Street.
Something needs to change in our corporate structure to give shareholders more power.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-subsidy-how-merrill-lynch-traders-helped-blow-up-their-own-firm
Merry Christmas
Founder77 That was a sweet deal for the buyers of the bank, but did nothing for the old common stock holders. It's the bank that will be going public not the holding company.
Looks like someone agrees with the WOW assessment.
I use that line with my wife, "your argument is thus eviscerated!"
It never seems to work.
Kudos to you for your analysis Bluzie. Thanks.
Everyone else as well. Great work.
I was under the impression that as a class action Steinberg and others would be paid by someone other than Broadbill, the class maybe. Turning it into a class action was cheaper for Broadbill. No?
I think from the start they were representing a larger group than just Broadbill. The knixx action was helpful in turning it into a class.
Broadbill certainly knew who to hire. This would all be painfull to listen and read if they'd hired some hack.
This has actually been entertaining.
Judge: Please don't argue. Steinberg is tough. Wow.
Steinberg Who decided that jpm would not take on the obligations of the ltw's?
Making the point that no one negotiated for the rights of ltw holders.
Harder and harder? It's down from 4 cents. You'll have to put in a bid if you want to "pick up" shares. Bid 2 cents and I think you'll own a bunch.
I'm sorry but I think you guys are being a little too optimistic with all this talk about no real sellers and no volume. You could just as easily say that there are no real buyers.
Ouch. I was actually starting to think we might have seen the end of these gut wrenching drops. No such luck.
"WMI ... offered a claims reserve in its proposed plan of reorganization to only Broadbill and then
Nantahala (but not to all the LTW Holders)"
I don't think I've seen it in print before that wmi intended to include only Broadbill and not the rest of us. We assumed that was the case but I didn't know it was fact. I remember Steinberg's obvious disgust with Rosen's weasling.
It seems like a long time since Knixx and the pro se "irate ltw holders".
I hate to admit it, but it seems obvious to me that this could still go either way. The defendants do have their arguments. What stands out hers is just how obnoxious they are - plaintiff's arguments "fails miserably". It's childish.