The EC was allowed to intervene in the adversary proceeding. To date they have not joined in the motion for summary judgment on the $4 billion. I would think if the ec was allowed to intervene before the global settlement was signed , that the proceeding is technically not disposed of yet despite a settlement by the fdic/jpm/debtors. Perhaps the por has to be rejected first before the joinder could be filed. There is probably no clear answer in the law as to this. Also, I presume that if they did at this point, it may cause the parties to walk away from the settlement table. In addition, it may be unnecessary because the examiner will draw his own conclusion as to JPM s claim to the $4 billion.
Did anyone notice that Walrath scheduled the Tps declaratory action on the Caymens for trial on November 1st. This action was filed on July 7th and I haven't seen any answers/response filed to the TPS pleading yet either by jpm or the debtors. One should reread that pleading. It contains debtors /jpm's allegations and statements to support Tps arguments that there was no conditional exchange and that the p and a specifically excluded jpm from acquiring wmi assets. I can't wait to see the responses to their own words. It is rather extraordinary to set something for trial before the responsive pleadings have been filed. I wonder what role the examiner will play in this proceeding. I wonder why the tps plaintiffs have not added the wmi directors as they threaten in a footnote. To do so would cause a delay of the hearing. Walrath has basically indicated to rosen that until the tps proceeding is resolved, the por is not going to get a confirmation hearing imho. So jpm and the debtors attempts to delay this trial is going to only delay the confirmation process.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
