Steel, I've answered your question to the best of my ability below noting the probable issues that might arise and my conclusions thereafter. I also offered my advice. Please take it all with a grain a salt as I took a few minutes to write from the top of my head and don't have much experience yet as a law student.
Here are the issues with your request:
(1.) The Equity Committee
The EC is acting on our behalf and representing our interests in the bankruptcy proceedings. I don't believe it is either required or necessary for individual shareholders to file objections to the DS/POR. Moreover, it would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome for the court to expect shareholders to act outside (and in addition to) the committee. I haven't because of these foregoing reasons.
(2.) Joinder and/or Survival of the Claim
Even in the event that you/we were required to file the objections, you basically need to have a few things - (a.) a legitimate claim for relief and (b.) standing in the bankruptcy proceedings to assert that claim.
In order for you to have standing in the bankruptcy court (and since your claim is directly related to the bankruptcy proceedings therein), you would need to retain counsel and file a motion seeking joinder - which would allow you to become a "party" to the proceedings. The problem here is that your motion will almost certainly be denied because the court will likely hold that your interests are being represented by the equity committee. At best, you can try to join the EC - but then you'll have to be careful with the sale/purchase of WAMU stock since there might be a conflict of interest due to the availability of inside information. If you are not a party to the proceedings or filing your motion through the EC then it will be dismissed for a lack of standing.
If the court granted your request for joinder, the next issue would be the assertion of a legitimate claim for relief. If you don't have a duty to answer/object then its going to be very difficult to assert that Rosen caused you any harm. On the contrary, Rosen will argue that the costs were self-imposed and accordingly seek to dismiss your complaint. If you sought to assert fraudulent conduct, you would probably have to follow the heightened pleading standard of FRCP Rule 9(b) in your complaint - and asset with particularity the grounds under which your claim of fraud is based.
In light of the issues, here is my advice:
(1.) Well Written Letter to the ABA and NYSBA
Draft a well written letter to the American Bar Association and the NY State Bar Association bringing up specific examples of Rosen's conduct as well as the breach of his duty of care to the estate by dropping valuable claims against JPM/FDIC in exchange for a highly unfavorable settlement. You should cite the EC's Motion for Rule 2004 Discovery and the facts showing that Rosen neither deposed nor fully investigated the claims (or merely sought to withhold the findings of his investigation from the EC) because this would be a material breach of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. However, if he has the informed consent from the WMI BOD to act in this manner, then he would not get in any trouble and instead the liability will likely fall on the officers of WMI - which will hopefully be ousted after our shareholder meeting.
(2.) Well Written Letter to the EC
Draft a well written letter to the Equity Committee and ask them to try to seek sanctions under FRCP Rule 11 for intentionally misleading the court and possibly even shareholders who thought they were required to personally object to the DS/POR, and sanctions under FRCP Rule 26 for discovery and disclosure violations. In the absence of egregious conduct, attorneys are usually hesistant to jump out and seek sanctions against and adversary. I'm sure Sussman is planning on filing such a motion in the near future - especially if Rosen gets in the way of our Rule 2004 discovery.
Good luck, Steel.
-RR
