I have answered the first part of your question regarding the repeatedly mention of mom and pop investor by the judge.
Since I had to head back to the office after the hearing, I did not have the time to summarize my own narrative of what happened in the courtroom. Meanwhile I have asked WMIHSafe website on Facebook to publish the narration of Jay, the other shareholder present yesterday who introduced himself to me and with whom I the chance to briefly chat afterwards.
It contains all that I intended to ask the court permission to report on this board. Enjoy the reading and any questions regarding his dissertation please direct to the WMIHSafe page on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------
Recap from Jaysenese about yesterday hearing
OK, I'm home, so let me see if I can provide a little 'nuance'.
1. As I mentioned earlier, all the attorneys were there early (before 8:45). Almost all of the attorneys were there by themselves, sat quietly, and talked to no one the entire time.
2. To summarize what the judge is asking for: He understands that notices were sent to DTC, but he has no evidence that DTC forwarded the notices to banks or brokerages, or that those people forwarded them to the beneficial owners. The blonde attorney did a kind-of poor job of explaining why she had nothing further to offer. She said she thinks of DTC as 'Federal Express' in that you give them something and expect them to deliver it - you do not follow up the next day to be sure that FedEx actually delivered it. The judge said he doesn't need notifications from "200" banks that they received information or forwarded it to beneficiaries, but he wants confirmation that DTC sent the information to the banks.
3. At the beginning remarks, and again at the end, the blonde attorney said that they would remove the language in the settlement agreement involving releases. That seemed to appease the judge. (I guess, in theory, a beneficiary could envision suing if he wasn't happy with what he got, although we all knew how that would turn out.)
4. The other Deutsch Bank cases (not WAMU) also required a response about whether or not the pro rata distribution they had laid out was correct. Apparently someone had written a letter to the court to complain. That person was actually on the phone into the court, and he withdrew his objection, so that was over quickly.
5. I gotta tell you, I think it was a good thing that Fernandes and myself were there. The judge seemed happy to see 'beneficiaries' in the room, and he made it a point to ask us if we wanted to speak, and to hear what we had to say. As I said earlier, I thought that Fernandes made his appearance a little too personal (he talked about losing money in his 401K, etc), and the judge made a point of correcting him and making sure he understood that the rulings today did not have a direct impact on former WAMU shareholders. Fernandes said something about wanting to know what the assets involved were, and the judge made a point of stopping him and then saying something like "That's a good question. Can you answer him?" to the Boies attorneys. That's when Robin Henry from Boies said he would have to talk to the FDIC, but that she was not aware of any assets available to return to WAMU shareholders.
As for me, when I spoke and said I saw the initial information on the DB case on the FDIC website for the WAMU Receivership, the blonde attorney was staring at me and nodding and smiling. I guess that was the right thing to say. The judge asked me how, though, did I know about THIS particular hearing today, and had that information been posted onto the FDIC website as well. I told him I kept up with message boards like Fernandes does, and that I did not know if the FDIC website had information on the hearing.
The attorney for PIMCO said that they had received the notification from DTC about the hearing. The judge asked if PIMCO had forwarded that information to their individual customers. I believe the attorney said that they did not, that they didn't have to.
6. The biggest positive for me was when the judge mentioned "hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries" (that's a direct quote). To my mind, if he was just rambling then there would have been some surprised reaction from the attorneys, like looking at one another and wondering what he was talking about. But no one reacted at all, they just looked straight ahead and took notes or listened quietly.
7. I get the feeling that there's a big secret that everyone in the room, including the judge, was in on, other than myself and Fernandes.
AI
