MY LETTER TO UST, DOJ, & FRAUD ALERT HOT LINE
My letter below was mailed priority mail with tracker, they will have it Monday. In addition the bottom part was only sent to the DOJ – fraud alert department. The Trustee listed is the one overseeing this case. My copy was mailed to the DOJ home office his supervisor. I did remove my address info for this post. If others wish to use parts of it to send to DOJ please do so.
4/08/10
Office of the United State Trustee Delaware
Joseph McMahon, Esq.
844 King St Ste 2207
Lockbox 35
Wilmington, DE 19899-0035
Re: Washington Mutual case# 08-1229 (MFW)
Mr. McMahon:
I am an equity holder of WMI – Washington Mutual. I respectfully request your review of the lead attorney for the debtors, Brian Rosen. He appears to be more the lead attorney for JPMorgan. He has fought in every way to not get maximum value for all equity holders as his fiduciary duties requires of him. His 3/12 Plan of Reorganization report was a slap in the face to the many WMI employees and shareholders of Washington Mutual that lost not only their life savings, but confidence in the system.
How can our courts even remotely consider the Debtors Plan of Reorganization without financials attached and without a Global agreement? It’s clearly evident that Mr. Rosen is trying to hide the true asset value of WMI. He has delayed this case to the benefit of JPM. Without a Global Settlement that includes all equity holders this case will go on into “class action” status that expose the fraud, collusion, conflict of interest, and much more that these parties do not want exposed!
I request that you please review possible Conflict of Interest on Brian Rosen - as to most of us equity holders Brian Rosen is representing JPM, and not WMI as his fiduciary duties require.
Recently stated in a Wall Street Journal article; Conflicts Force Big Law Firms to Lose Clients:
“New York law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, with 1,200 lawyers, is representing Washington Mutual in its ongoing bankruptcy, but Weil was conflicted from squaring off against J.P. Morgan, according to Quinn Emanuel's Mr. Carlinsky. Quinn Emanuel has had 10 lawyers working on the litigation”, Mr. Carlinsky said. Does this Conflict concern the DOJ? Brian Rosen works for Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Mr. Rosen appears to be working both sides of the table.
I understand the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases. Does the DOJ have any concern with what appears to be not only this Conflict issue, but misrepresentation from the start? Why would Brian Rosen, who is lead council to WMI the Debtors, work so hard to keep out value to the common and preferred shareholders? It appears his main obligation is to his select group of bond holders
As an Equity holder of WMI, my request is to have Brian Rosen and the firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP removed from the WMI Council, and replaced by the Council of the EC Equity Committee. This will bring a Global Settlement that all parties can accept. If a Global Settlement cannot be reached there will be a global effort by the Common and preferred holders of WMI to take this into trial court to expose the possible fraud, collusion, conflict of interest, and much more!
Sincerely,
David
CC: USTP.Bankruptcy.Fraud@usdoj.gov
CC: DOJ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington D.C. 20530-0001
NOTE THIS PART WAS ONLY SENT TO FRAUD ALERT – DOJ
The above letter is the true copy of what I mailed to address listed above, however I would like to add the following concerns about this case, and those representing it:
There seems to be a strong case of collusion between the parties of Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the FDIC, and JPMorgan, one would have to be blind to not see how they worked together to take down Washington Mutual, and destroy as much as possible the value to the common, and preferred shareholders.
WMI nor WaMu never received a letter from the OTS to raise additional capital, in fact the OTS, even when placing WaMu into the hands of the FDIC, even stated that WaMu was well capitalized but stated that WaMu was “systemically risky” and that’s why it was placed into receivership. Also, there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) active and in-place between WMI and the OTS.
Worth pointing out again - the OTS said WaMu was "systemically risky" while Mr. Paulson did not add WaMu to the "Do Not Short List" which included 19 institutions Mr. Paulson considered "systemically important" - Which was it? Was WaMu systemically important or not? Within the tiniest of timeframes - the Office of Thrift Supervision, named the FDIC as receiver for the 100 year old institution, and then sold assets of $307 billion and total deposits of $188 billion to JPM within hours for 1.888 Billion. It’s absolutely amazing the timing behind the receivership and it’s even more amazing the ability of JPM to be right there, ready with slides and research - ready to make an offer that conformed to the FDIC’s requirements.
To be clear, if the OTS had attempted to close WaMu a week earlier (and the OTS would've notified WMI of the need to raise additional capital) - WMI would have been able to obtain additional funds through TPG or the Discount Window. And if the OTS waited just a couple of days, WaMu would have been able to access TARP if needed. When I say the tiniest of windows - I mean there was less than a 72 hour window for WaMu to be sold to JP Morgan without WaMu being able to put up a fight and 'in' the necessary environment where other banks could not bid. WaMu was blindsided for the benefit of JP Morgan.
Additionally, I would wish to have the DOJ review emails, internal memos, and the actions of market makers soon after the very private meetings that took place between FDIC Chairwoman Sheila C. Bair, together with JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon - a month before WMI was taken over (during trading hours) with what seems to be a very orchestrated effort to destroy all stock value of a public company. Was any inside information shared with market makers, and the traders that started a very active short selling along with using of put options – after those private meetings?
I would also request a review by the US Trustee, and the DOJ on the trading that took place during 3/12/10 hearing. Many of the shareholders using live level 2 - plus live court audio of Brian Rosen’s court speech heard him state that there would not be any equity for the common shareholders. We noticed a large volume of trading to the short side right before his speech. Did the very Hedge funds that Mr. Rosen appears to be working for have inside information on the content of his speech? I would like to have reviewed the time stamped trading slips, and who started shorting before and during that speech. It seems quite evident that some traders had prior information on what was to be read.
I could go on with more, and if you would request more I will provide.
David
