purveyor of FUD: then why court motion concerning NOLs and JPM's initial objection of the motion, before an amended agreement be ruled with inclusion of footnote stipulation which basically said JPM would not give-up any NOL which it might be entitled to... BUT the first motioned (as it was deemed even more important than the $4.4 billion cash ownership issue) ruled in favor of WaMu was ALL about preserving the NOL, which entailed having to put trading restrictions on major shareholders???
IF claims to the contrary are to believed... this prior courtroom procedure was all unnecessary and waste of time & valuable resources... which I believe the BK judge would not allow to happen. Therefore, I cannot believe that the commons can be canceled without the NOL also being negated.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
