Wamu WKN 893906 News !

Als ich vor 8 - 9 Monaten in diesem Forum stöberte, was aus der Wamu werden könnte, fand ich ich die Kommentare echt schön und interessant.

Was in den letzten Monaten hier aber abgeht, ist so ein Mist, voll mit Rechtschreibfehlern, so dass man wirklich nur noch Hilfe schreien könnte.

Isch doch war - odder????????????

bin gerade erst von der Arbeit....

aber wie es aussieht ist wieder nichts passiert. Wie bei jeder Verhandlung sinkt der Kurs!

eine Entscheidung zu unseren gunsten wurde immer noch nicht gefällt...

Aber wie ich sehe, darf nur das Verhandelt werden was verhandelt werden soll und darf!

Warum haben wir immer noch keine Entscheidung zum Por6...

ganz ehrlich ich kann jeden hier verstehen, der echt die schnauze voll hat, die Krawatte dick, dem diese Geschichte mächtig auf die Eier geht, oder einfach nur die feder aus der Matratze kommt!

Mir gehts nämlich genauso...

Die Verhandlungen sind gefühlt nur noch lari fari, es wird nichts entschieden, es wird nur wertlos rumposaunt, und jeder "Drecksack" versucht auf kosten der Commons zu bereichen...

"Naja ich sags mal ein bisse überspitzt, wenn die so weiter machen...hat irgendwann mal wieder einer von den feinen Herrschaften eine Kugel im Kopf"

Aber das darf man ja nicht so laut sagen "denken"

Gruß an alle

Also für mich ist eines Klar, die Tatsache das der POR 6 nicht zum sprechen kam bedeutet für mich das er nicht abgelehnt wurde, aber auch nicht angenommen wurde!! Von daher frage ich mich nur warum denn nicht. Eigentlich war doch schon alles klar für Rosen, Coomons kein Geld, ExBericht usw. Aber dann wurde der EX-Bericht zerpflückt und der POR6 ist immer nocht nicht durch. Ich denke die Chance auf ein settlement ist somit immer noch gegeben.

Ich dachte, sie würde um 18:30h unserer Zeit starten?!

Ein lichtblick hat das ganze schon(grins),
so wie es aussieht geht es nächstes jahr weiter und nicht wie es rosen und co. sehr sehr gern gewünscht hätten das es im sinne ihre (und manche user) vorstellungen ein schnelles ende 2010 hat, also eigentlich ein Punktgewinn für uns.


Alles hat ein sinn auch wenn es im ersten moment nicht danach aussieht(ablehnung der öffnung der sealed Docs heute am hearing), vielleicht ist es ein zeichen von mary w.. das wir nicht unnötig den verlauf der verhandlungen( die evtl. hinter den kulissen schon bestehen) nicht in gefahr bringen ...,oder das es so besser ist das diese docs erstmal zu bleiben(im Interesse das es doch zur einigung kommt)-wir werden sehen..(Alles meine meinung)..

Geduld ist wichtig im moment-hoffe unser geduld wird belohnt(ich gehe davon aus).

MfG
Sonnenschein1

Order Approving Settlement Agreement Between Washington Mutual, Inc. and Certain Employee Benefit Plan Participants
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000003.pdf

Order Authorizing the Debtors to File Under Seal Certain Portions of Settlement Agreements Between Washington Mutual, Inc. and Certain Employee Benefit Plan Participants
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000004.pdf

Order Approving Stipulation and Agreement Between Washington Mutual, Inc. and Principal Financial Group, Inc. (I) Disallowing Proof of Claim Number 2385 and (II) Allowing Proof of Claim Number 3835
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000005.pdf

Order Approving Stipulation and Agreement Among Washington Mutual, Inc., McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Reducing and Allowing Proof of Claim Number 3747
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000008.pdf

Minute Entry and Court Sign-in Sheet for Hearing Held on December 17, 2010
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000009.pdf

Blue Wizard Member Profile   Blue Wizard       Share     Friday, December 17, 2010 1:07:20 PM
Re: None Post # of 264662
Is anyone else not seen the ask price??? No ask price showing on my fidelity screen. Weird...

Certification of No Objection Regarding Docket No. 5911
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000001.pdf

Certification of No Objection Regarding Docket No. 5913
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000002.pdf

und ein weiteres genehmigtes welches nicht in der liste steht
www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229101217000000000007.pdf

I don't have the exact verbiage, but the reference was regarding the ultimate decision to appoint an examiner. In effect, she was arguing that the documents were used to justify her appointing the examiner which gave a win for the EC, since we were the ones who wanted the examiner.

The docs were useful to her in convincing her to appoint examiner, but she continued to uphold the attorney-client priviledge today regarding those docs. She and attorneys for both sides know what is contained therein. I am not certain that this is a big issue...except that a lot of people put time and effort into this motion. In the final analysis, it may be a moot point.

Ilene

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57889863

Zitat:

Yep. Had she said that the documents have no bearing or have bearing on the case going forward she would have been giving us a signal as to the content. She did not do that. She simply ruled based on maintaining attorney-client privilege.

This is a good lesson. We realized that those documents helped get the Examiner. What we didn't realize was just how fixed THJMW is in upholding standard operating procedures on such matters as attorney-client privilege. The idea that it is so clear to her and not so clear to Charles Brown is disturbing. It seems that Brown and Walrath disagreed on a key factor to open court proceedings and he did not back down. There is something to be said for his/our side of this argument. I don't know where or when this might come up again.

As far as the POS POR, I am not expecting it to be approved but from what I heard from THJMW today, I am not comforted. By siting meal charges in the A&M bill she is saying, by default, the "rest look fine". That is not what I want to hear.
Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57890550

Zitat:

Biz, I have no problem with the billings as long as justice prevails. Where you will feel really bent over is when they do this and you also lose on the other end. You must realize that attorney's do this all the time. I posted this months ago and compared it to divorce counsel on both sides milking the estate, while golfing and having Martini's together, until money is just about dryed up then settling. This, unfortunately is the way this works. Totally unethical for sure. One company, NOT, padding the bill is Susman Godfrey! Their bills are considerably small when compared to debtors billings for sure. But, again, this is the way the corrupt system works. Same way folks suck off the government's coffers too. Basically, boils down to human nature. When one can take advantage of a situation, then they will especially when it comes to money. I choose NOT to live by these principles...
Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)

Alterra Conclusion

Conclusion

The Alterra Healthcare case is instructive as it highlights the risks that documents previously filed under seal pursuant to an unopposed, unappealed order may nonetheless become publicly available as a result of a vacatur of the sealing order long after the matter to which the documents pertained is completed. Sealed documents are particularly vulnerable to subsequent disclosure if the original purpose in sealing them under court order does not fall within the narrow exceptions under section 107(b). The result in Alterra can be avoided if the party seeking to seal documents takes greater care to ensure that the statutory exceptions truly apply to the specific facts presented.

In re Alterra Healthcare Corp., No. 03-10254 (MFW), 2006 WL 2946055 (Bankr. D. Del. October 16, 2006).

www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=8547

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57886744

ZItat:

Well it was worth a try, we now know how she stands on attorney-client privilege. She is a good judge very smart and is not going there. Good Argument, she said "they were sealed in conjunction with Mr Hoffmans representative the EC, I granted the Examiner Motion, so that is what the EC wanted."

Why would I need to unseal them, when I granted the Motion his representative wanted..

I'm not going there..

The Judge has spoken..

~Don~
ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57890906

Zitat:

Her reasoning seems to be flawed. On the one hand she states that Mr. Hoffman's representative the EC. This was brought by a shareholder not the EC. If the EC were truly his representative he would be capable of getting the document from the EC. He can't. Remember with regard to the voting, the ec lawyers flat out said they couldn't give advice to individual shareholders because they were not their clients. She begged the question put before her. Hoffman should appeal the issue. I didn't think she was going to unseal the document, by delaying a decision, not by ruling so quickly. Her comments about it possibly benefiting us is very good news though.
ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57891916

Zitat:

Alterra Conclusion

Conclusion

The Alterra Healthcare case is instructive as it highlights the risks that documents previously filed under seal pursuant to an unopposed, unappealed order may nonetheless become publicly available as a result of a vacatur of the sealing order long after the matter to which the documents pertained is completed. Sealed documents are particularly vulnerable to subsequent disclosure if the original purpose in sealing them under court order does not fall within the narrow exceptions under section 107(b). The result in Alterra can be avoided if the party seeking to seal documents takes greater care to ensure that the statutory exceptions truly apply to the specific facts presented.

In re Alterra Healthcare Corp., No. 03-10254 (MFW), 2006 WL 2946055 (Bankr. D. Del. October 16, 2006).

www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=8547
Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57891175

ZItat:

Fish, if this issue is so simple and cut and dry as you state, then, it probably should have never been argued in the first place, with all due respect. Just sayin'. These were NOT your setiments yesterday evening....
Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57892634

Zitat:

No that is not true, the idea that "I granted the motion, so why does Mr Hoffman want these docs" was not even in my head. In Alterra, which the Motion to unseal was based upon, the Movants argued and proved to the court that they had a legitimate reason for the unsealing of the documents. The Judge said they were a different type of documents (confidential) instead of attorney-client privilege and Alterra facts are not applicable to these facts..

www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=8547

You know, hindsight is the benefit you have today after the ruling, before the Judge opened her mouth, the idea of using the law to our advantage to get the docs unsealed, is what we supported. Getting involved in an effort to work to benefit all shareholders is why we started United International, we have a great group and we can accomplish many things by working together.. Those who do not try, can never fail or succeed, failure is part of success..

So instead of sitting on a message board and doing nothing, we sprang into action (with the support of yourself and other shareholders) and made this happen. If we would have won, you would be giving accolaldes, but you can not win everytime, you take your licks and move on to the next order of business.

~Don~
Zitatende
--------------------------------------------------
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57893038

Zitat:

She made a point to say the documents moved her to appoint the Examiner. The Motion was granted, so Mr Hoffman being represented by the EC has prevailed on the merits. It was the EC point she made, that proved she believes the EC is representing all shareholders even though they can not come on here and talk with us. It was revealing in the way she explained it..

EC has seen the documents, if they want to discuss their contents with the committee members, then that is allowed by attorney-client privilege, but telling all shareholders is not allowed, so as a shareholder MR Hoffman should have access..

She didn't buy that argument.
~Don~
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)

WaMu filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 26, 2008, the day after its banking unit was taken over by regulators and sold to JPMorgan for $1.9 billion. Before it failed, Washington Mutual Bank had more than 2,200 branches and $188 billion in deposits.

Shareholders claim New York-based JPMorgan didn’t pay enough, and that federal regulators were too quick to close the bank. JPMorgan and federal regulators deny those claims in court papers.

The case is In re Washington Mutual Inc., 08-12229, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

--Editors: Fred Strasser, Andrew Dunn

To contact the reporter on this story: Steven Church in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, at schurch@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-17/...n-examiner-ruling.html

Wieso geht es im nächsten Jahr noch weiter....




hahaha

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57895868

Zitat:

You to Steel, Yes this is a very complicated case in many ways and I too am confounded. This is a very smart judge and I believe she is pushing this case to a fair settlement for all parties. That is why I own this stock, I feel she will get what she wants.

If the debtors make her deny this Plan, things change dramatically. We either want the settlement or the plan denied.
We will go from there. If she approves the Plan, she has to know there is going to be an appeal. Also the EC has asked to be in charge of the liquidation trust and that would be good for an ultimate recovery of shareholders/equity.

I can't wait to see what Bop says about this on Y.

~Don~
ZItatende
--------------------------------------------------

MfG.L:)

Dec 16, 2010  0.06  0.07  0.06  0.06  3,208,760  
Dec 15, 2010  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06  3,434,040  
Dec 14, 2010  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06  4,108,833  
Dec 13, 2010  0.06  0.07  0.06  0.06  3,266,691  
Dec 10, 2010  0.06  0.07  0.06  0.06  11,628,699  
Dec 9, 2010  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06  6,020,422  
Dec 8, 2010  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06  10,671,074  
Dec 7, 2010  0.07  0.07  0.06  0.06  13,398,189  
Dec 6, 2010  0.06  0.08  0.06  0.07  11,870,532  
Dec 3, 2010  0.08  0.10  0.06  0.06  49,528,935  

wie schön man eine Aktie auf Kurs halten kann, egal mit welchem Volumen und das schon seit Tagen.
Sollten wir unter eine Mille Umsatz fallen, wird sich auch nichts ändern.

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=1&frt=2

Zitat:

Hoffman Results and More
   1 minute ago    I would have posted earlier but had an appointment starting right after the court rendered her decision on Item 42 and wasn't able to get to a computer until now.

I'm not at liberty to say anything beyond that I'm disappointed, of course; helping equity was the goal, but I am sanguine because we certainly didn't hurt equity.

Now everything hinges on the EC and Susman. I remain positive for several reasons, chiefly the (1) critical aspects of the plan/GSA are unlikely to be acceptable (i.e., most notably the releases which appalled even the examiner), (2) lack of valuation (which the court said months ago was a prerequisite to confirmation (specifically she said she didn't see how confirmation could be achieved without it)), and (3) weaknesses of the witnesses put forth by WMI to endorse the plan.

Myadad1 said on GB that he expects things to be very quiet until the New Year, and I agree with him. While I don't know what WMI is up to but I do think the myriad versions of the plan indicate its desperation to achieve one satisfactory to Tepper (i.e., killing off equity) which the court will approve. I maintain that JPM and the FDIC won't remain with the GSA unless they get the releases, something the EC will see that they don't get sans consideration for equity.

Not a cause for celebration, but no harm to the cause either.

ZItatende
MfG.L:)

wird nicht endlich mal willi dauerhaft gesperrt. es ist doch echt zum kotzen hier!

Hä mein Post ist verschwunden ich will auch das Wilhelm2006 endlich gesperrt wird!!!!!!

... in der Ruhe liegt die Kraft!

Wünsche allen ein schönes ruhiges WE.

MfG.L:)

http://www.ariva.de/...KN_893906_News_t364286?page=4634#jumppos115871
"Hä mein Post ist verschwunden ich will auch das Wilhelm2006 endlich gesperrt wird!!!!!!"
ý
"Hä! Mein Beitrag ist verschwunden! Ich will, dass auch Wilhelm2006 endlich gesperrt wird!!!!!!"

Wenn wir schon im Kindergarten sind, dann aber richtig, also mit Deutschkursen!
(K:O bleibt weiterhin neoliberal-asi-anarchisch. Davon unterscheiden wir uns wohltuend.)

Gruss, St. JCF

Karten schaut, dann hat es doch zu bedeuten, dass sie schon einen Plan hat, oder?

Immerzu winzige Aktienanzahl......ich denke mal, der Kurs geht wieder hoch.....mal so ein Wunsch!

Negativ : keine Entscheidung zu PoR6
                    §: keine lesbaren hot Docs

   Positiv          §: In weiterhin vergehender Zeit kommen immer mehr Negativ-Schlagzeilen
                    §und Erkenntnisse zu unseren Gunsten zum Vorschein. Je länger gesucht wird,
                    §je eher wird gefunden. Siehe z.B. eben Kesi231 #115846
                    §: Wikileaks im Januar ?
                    §: Unser Anwalt kann das heutige Dümpelhearing analysieren und sich besser
                    §auf MW einstellen
                    §: der Kurs hat sich nicht ereignisreich verändert, auch nicht negativ!

Ich begrüße den heutigen Ausgang, da nun evtl. Enthüllungen von Wiki für uns nur positiv sein können. Weitere Gerichtstermine nach einer Negativen Presse für JPM (?) sind doch viel explosiver.
Der Inhalt der Hot Docs soll für uns wichtig sein? Wieso? Es weiß doch niemand was drin steht. Ablehnung von PoR6 geht auch ohne Einsicht in die Docs. Und danach werden diese von höherer Instanz wohl eh geöffnet. Ich warte wie "der_ich" erstmal weiterhin auf eine evtl. schriftliche Stellungnahme von MW.

ich halte wilhelm beiträge für völlig überflüssig, und gelegentlich belastet mit einer beklagenswerten tendenz zu faschistischen untertönen, aber deswegen sperren, das muss doch nicht sein.

setzt die leute, die ihr nicht lesen wollt oder könnt, einfach auf ignorieren. wenn ihr mit dem vielen grau nicht zurechtkommt, dann könnten wir ariva ja bitten, die ignorierbalken umzufärben, blasgrün wär vieleicht was für unsere berliner.

tja, und zum heutigen tag, das beste war die verschiebung der entscheidung zur wmb löschung auf den 6.1.2011, das schlechteste valencia, grins.

alles andere war mehr oder weniger gut, aber nicht weltbewegend.

geniesst die nächsten tage, falls ihr vorzüge haltet, denkt daran, uns guido eure weihnachtswünsche für ein knallhartes durchgreifen zu übermitteln, grins. wenn schon die amis nicht wissen, was sache ist, westerwelle kann hier mal durchaus als vorbild wirken, so in sachen recht und ordnung, und liberaler grundeinstellung.

falls ihr keine vorzüge besitzt (ich meine jetzt die aktien, nicht euren charakter), lasst euch nicht zu sehr gehen, denkt dran, thmw kann jederzeit zuschlagen.