If JPM claims assets of the holding company, it makes the holding company's claim for conversion of assets even better. So JPM really has to be careful about what it claims. Conversion of assets is a tort and punitive damages may be awarded. It is one thing for JPM to come into possession of the holding company's assets by mistake and unintentionally...i.e. JPM didn't know what they were and were not buying. But to make a claim for a holding company asset after demand has been made upon you to return the asset and the title ownership issue is clear and straightforward, well that shows jpm possession amounts to wrongful conversion. In the court system, in addition to discovery (i.e. depositions and interogatories) the holding company can send out a set of admissions whereby the holding company sets forth specific facts which must either be admitted or denied by jpm. Titles and stock certificates cannot be that easily denied under oath. Once these facts are admitted to, the holding company merely applies the facts to the law, and moves for a summary judgment on most of its claims. So I expect to see JPM make several concessions and not file a shotgun claim in bankruptcy. That is why Weil wanted the short bar date. To force JPM to give up its tenuous claims. IMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
