Today's docs. My reading:
The way I see it is this: today 4 topics have been covered.
A) FDIC's intention to delay the AP: quite a slap for FDIC
In doc 63, the judge accepts that FDIC can be a part in the AP for only one purpose (nothing else): make a Motion to Stay or Dismiss the AP, then in docs 62b and 68, the judge rejects the motion presented by FDCI, ... game over for FDIC with the AP
B) JPM's intention to delay the AP:
In doc 62a and 64 this intention is rejected. The AP is not dismissed or delayed.
C) JPM's intention to gain time to answer WMIs request for Summary Judgement.
In doc 65, the judge gives JPM some more time, rejecting WMI's request to reconsider it.
D) JPM keeps trying to hold the 3.67B.
Given the fact that the judge stated that the 4B topic is to be decided by her and in BK,... now JPM - in doc 66 - repeats its known argument:WMI's 3.67B deposit in a WMBfsb account was a fake/fraud.
Although they keep insisting this shouldn't be ruled in BK but in DC, it seems they made up their minds about the fact that it's this judge- an not the DC's one, the one they have to convince. And - as far as I could read - they did not add new arguments.
MY CONCLUSION:
Before ordering clearly what we want she to order, the judge needs to clear and clean all possible "legal burdens" about her right to rule, the fact that she is really listening all arguments from all parties - FDIC included in an ashaming way -, etc.. and only then ... the final important order can be issued without any room for future "appeal or reconsideration".
The key argument of JPM about the 3.67B sounds to me very very weak. In essence they say WMI transfered the money to their WMBfsb deposit account, because they knew on 19/9 that - when the made the deposit - about an inminent seizure and that by making such a deposit they wanted to "create an artificial or fraudulent" deposit liability for the future post-seizure buyer.
I may be a fool but the natural way to react would be the other way around: moving the holding's money away from the entities under seizure risk. But this would have been unfair to their Bank's customers and would have worsened their only potential problem: liquidity. Instead of the famous 16B deposit run, it would have been a 20B run. It seems to me they did the right thing for their customers.. keep the cash in their bank.
Frankly - please correct me if I miss something - I don't see a point in JPM's argument.
All my opinions ... any feedback based in other eyes reading the docs would be much appreciated.
Cheers...
---------- the docs ----------
62 Order/ denying a) JPM’s motion to stay AP
denying b) FDIC’s motion to stay or dismiss AP
63 Order/ grants FDCI to intervene for the limited purpose of making the Motion to Stay or Dismiss.
64 Order/ denying JPM’s Motion to dismiss AP
65 Order/ denying WMI’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order granting JPM’s expedited Motion for additional time to respond to WMI’s Summary Judgment Motion.
66 Answer/ JPM answering:
• Denying everything
• Stating that the 3.67B transfer – 19th/09 from WMI to a deposit WMBfsb account (owned by WMI) was a “Book Entry Transfer” and was improper and fraudulent.
• Stating that the dispute over the 3.67B is not a matter for the BK court but for the DC court.
• Accusing WMI of fraud, unjust enrichment, etc … and asking for penalties
• Stating that other rights – 230M NOL – are JPM’s assets and not WMI’s
68 Order /Denying FDI’s Motion to Stay AP
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
