investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56173596
Thanks for brining this up. IMO, Noteholders aren't in the know with the rest of the big dogs. IMO, the big players knew that "at best" the examiner might come up with something to show other activities that would be usefull tools for Susman. They were willing to gamble it. This will/would have create/d more or less value for possible settlement.
IMO, Susman has always wanted the examiner to get certain information. I believe that I've stated on this this board back when Susman brought the motion for the examiner. The examiner motion was just one tool that he was looking to use in the litigation. He has more than that. Obviously, as we have seen with his last minute presentation to the court that created the need for the examiner. Who knows what he has left. He could have more information that makes the examiners report look bad.
We've seen Susman reverse the direction of the case several times. I don't believe that anyone has been able to call Susman's actions dead on. So far, Susman has gotten what he wanted. Maybe he just got what he needed again.
I know that we're all groaning here, but maybe somebody on the other side is groaning too. There might be something in there that Susman plans to exploite or maybe he just wanted to see if the examiner could find more dirt for him so he could get more money out of settlement.
Maybe none of this matters to Susman's office. Maybe he has something else that is more damaging than the examiner stating that the settlement is fair. Because in truth that's all he said. "This settlement is fair." But Susman might have information for other misdeeds.
We don't know everything. Maybe he got what he needed with this report. What unequivicable statements were made by the examiner that would no longer have to be argued for months in open court? Maybe the statement about WAMU not being in financial trouble in 2008? Is that all that he was looking for? Because he would no longer have to debate that issue, it's over.
Who knows.
But, I know this. Susman is known for being a good lawyer. And, a good lawyer tells a client when to stop and take the money. Susman isn't going to let his client lose money. If they could have settled in July or possibly lose everything, he would have told them to take it.
If Susman did tell a shareholder "this is a long way from being over," he might have been referring to exactly this. I've seen enough litigation to know that even when it appears that someone is winning they surprisingly up and cry uncle.
Zurück
