InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

continuity

12/09/10 7:09 PM

#262916 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

No one has even seen the analysis on how the FDIC came to the conclusion that WMI was in trouble.
icon url

DISCO67

12/09/10 7:11 PM

#262919 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

one of the best big picture comments i've
heard in the last two months.

david
icon url

JMac9

12/09/10 7:24 PM

#262922 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

Unbelievable. What a joke. I hope JMW has been feeding rope and that she pounces. That's all I can do.
icon url

Lawrence 147

12/09/10 7:50 PM

#262925 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

This case should be decided upon a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a double-edged sword as it can cut both ways.
So far neither K or R have submitted any evidence that could cause a reasonable thinking person to come to any conclusion of any kind other than they did not do what is necessary to do in order to bring the company out of bankruptcy.

Nelson on the other hand has along with others (Thanks Ilene) and others brought to the attention of the court just how much egg Rosen has plastered over it.

So far a preponderance of the evidence would show the Debtors have not done their job, there is no emerging from bankruptcy and as for not showing the true value of the WMI claims on the grounds it would show their plans for future litigation; just how stupid do they think the court is? If the plan grants a blanket immunity or gives the power to prosecute to the liquidating trustee then there is no plan for reclaiming what belongs to the company and it is all just a straw man argument for further obfuscation of the facts.

Clearly the restructuring company does not know what is going on and did not have much, if anything to do with the GSA or the POR. If they were actually doing their job at the very least the disclosure statement would have been straight forward and not require the judge to declare what is acceptable or lawful. These are suppose to be professionals they are to know their job, and do it correctly the first time. We might just turn it all over to the judge if she is going to have to do their work. How many times did I hear that the judge would need to make that determination?

The outcome, I do not know; what I do know is that the debtors should not be given a second chance. Open this up to other interested parties, let them turn in their idea of a POR get a vote on them with a top two vote and then one more vote a disclosure statement and an approval. It could all be done before April.


IMO

OT:

UZ; yes I saw it, it was only a matter of time and inevitable.
icon url

mattchew

12/09/10 9:48 PM

#262947 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

All the Debtors of WaMu has are the declorations of these criminals saying this is a good deal!

The HJMJW has already stated that, "that testimony is hearsay!"
icon url

MONICALAW

12/10/10 12:48 PM

#263100 RE: uzualsuzpect #262915

How about unseal the SEALED DOCUMENTS ON 12/17??? will that solve our problem if Judge Rules positively on that If she suddenly doesn't get sick, or something? Can we ask for another Court to Rule on this????