InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 56
Posts 967
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/13/2009

Re: climberprof post# 82750

Monday, 07/27/2009 11:26:18 AM

Monday, July 27, 2009 11:26:18 AM

Post# of 730492
Climberprof / Jerle

I'm not sure I agree. If JPM does not settle before complying with discovery pursuant to the R.2004 Order, it will risk major exposure to additional claims and potential criminal/RICO liability -- and more exposure is the last thing JPM wants. From both a legal AND business perspective, it would be the most cost effective way for them to clean up this mess.

As for BOP's statement, I believe she/he meant that JPM would not be able to meet the legal standard necessary for a higher court to review Judge Walrath's decision on the Rule 2004 Motion on appeal. A party must have permission to file an interlocutory appeal (i.e., an appeal made before final judgment is rendered) for review by a higher court and it must meet the appropriate legal standard in order for permission to be granted. BOP was simply saying that JPM would not meet that standard -- thus any request by JPM to appeal would be denied as a matter of law.

MAKINGMOVES

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent COOP News