Wamu WKN 893906 News !

M.W.  hat Mary letzte Woche gesagt, das es ihr am liebsten ist, wenn  die Schlußplädoyers schriftlich eingereicht werden sollen. Und sie  wollte den Parteien zuvor 2-3 Tage "Bedenkzeit" dafür geben.

Wann  sie dann darüber entscheidet würde mich ebenso interessieren. Muss sie  das in wenigen Tagen machen oder kann sie sich wochenlang (ähnlich ihrer  damaligen Opinion) Zeit lassen?

Logischerweise dürften die Plädoyers erst am Ende der Hearings gestellt werden bzw. 2-3 Tage später.

Über  den weiteren "Verfahrensablauf" bin ich aber auch unsicher. Sehe ich  das richtig, dass es heute mit Sargent & Owl Creek weiter geht, oder jemand anderes vom EC, den nächsten von Owl Creek vornimmt.

Danach müssten dann noch die anderen 2 Hedschies  dran kommen. M.E. gehen da noch etliche weitere Tage ins Land, bis das  EC mit allen durch ist.

es ist immer noch nicht zu einem Settlement gekommen, und somit wird die Geschichte abermals teurer....Mit jedem Tag schwindet das Geld der Commons....Und wenn ich die letzten tage richtig interpretiere, dauerd es wohl noch sehr sehr lange.....7 Cent sind dafür noch viel zu hoch!! Man muss immer berücksichtigen, dass man bei dieser Wamu-Schlaftablette auf Kurz nichts erreicht. Und aufspringen kann man meiner Meinung nach immer noch....Also für mich bleibt es ein billiger Pennystock, nicht mehr und nicht weniger. Wer hier etwas erreichen will muss sich Long auf Jahre positionieren. Und bloß nicht zu viel erwarten! Bislang gab es nichts, als entäuschungen....

Ich bin und bleibe Long,

habe Wamu aber mittlerweile fast abgeschrieben. Es ist nur noch ein kleines Nebeninvest. Ein kleines Spaß-Los....

Washington Mutual                    began hearings last week to obtain court approval for its reorganization, which essentially distributes cash to creditors. A small mortgage reinsurance business would be the only operation to emerge from bankruptcy.

The company has been in bankruptcy, and creditors have been awaiting repayment, since                    September                    2008, when its savings and loan was seized by regulators in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.

The seized bank was sold to                    JPMorgan Chase                    & Co for $1.9 billion.

An attorney for shareholders began cross-examination of Gropper late on Monday and tried to get him to acknowledge that the scope of settlement talks were material and should have been disclosed to the public or kept from his firm's traders.

For example, he asked Gropper if JPMorgan's offer to turn over a disputed $4.1 billion to                    Washington Mutual                    in early 2009, even as JPMorgan filed court papers seeking to keep the money, should have been disclosed.

Gropper replied that he did not believe that was material information because he never doubted the deposit would be turned over and various parties to the talks disagreed on conditions for returning the money.

This is the company's second attempt to end its bankruptcy. In January, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath in Delaware rejected their last plan, in part because an individual investor accused four hedge funds of insider trading.

Since the last plan was rejected, the official committee of shareholders has been investigating the funds, which also include Owl Creek Asset Management LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Centerbridge Partners LP.

Unlike recent high-profile government probes of hedge-fund managers and insider trading, the funds in this case do not face criminal penalties.

The judge could penalize the funds by cutting the amount of interest they can collect on their                    Washington Mutual                    debt, or she could even reject the reorganization plan if she finds it was not negotiated in good faith.

http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/...sider-reuters-1690454605.html?x=0

Gruß
Dude44

Shareholders want U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath to reject for the second time WaMu’s reorganization plan. Shareholders would get nothing under the plan.

Aurelius met with WaMu officials to talk about how to implement a settlement, should a deal be struck, Gropper said. During those meetings, Aurelius never received any non-public information, Gropper said.

Public Information

He said the fact that there were settlement talks under way in January 2010 was public. Details of the proposed settlement weren’t, he said. That settlement was announced a few months later and formed the basis of the current reorganization plan.

Aurelius and the other hedge funds, Centerbridge Partners LP, Appaloosa Management LP and Owl Creek Asset Management LP, all deny that they engaged in insider trading. They have argued in court papers and in hearings that the information they used to buy and sell WaMu’s debt was either publicly available or wasn’t “material,” and therefore its use was legal.

The former owner of the biggest U.S. bank to fail, WaMu is seeking Walrath’s approval for the reorganization plan that would pay creditors more than $7 billion.

WaMu, based in Seattle, filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 26, 2008, the day after its banking unit was taken over by regulators and sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion. WaMu’s Washington Mutual Bank was the biggest bank to fail in U.S. history, with more than 2,200 branches and $188 billion in deposits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/...-shareholders-claims.html

Gruß

Dude44

patience360-han:

"To be brief, (1) I thought the reason for EC asking for “investment  model” in the Compel Motion was to connect the information passed on  from their attorneys to Hedge Funds trade decision making processes.  It’s tough to crack open the attorney-client privileges wall and the  defense of often one-sided story of no influence whatsoever of  settlement negotiations knowledge on trade decisions. However, no  trading models will be useful unless they incorporate all available  pertinent information. It’s inconceivable that Aurelius will ignore the  information from settlement negotiations if there was such a model  existed. If we can disassemble that “investment model”   and show part  of its inputs were from on-going settlement negotiation communications,  no amount of defense/denials will hold water. I’m glad that Parker Folse  forced the guy from Aurelius to admit (knowingly or unknowingly) their  investment model regarding WMI was constantly updated with information  including settlement negotiations (Did I read this part of exchange  correctly?).

(2) sleepless was right when he said last night “It looks like one big  fight in this confirmation hearing is going to hinge on the definition  of ‘material’.” It’s common sense that the determining factors in BK  case on debt values or equity appreciations are court proceedings and  outcomes including litigation or settlement outcomes. To say emails and  term sheets about settlement proposals are “non-material”, and such  information is not important to reasonable investors is unreal. Those  hedge fund people are living in a different world.

(3) The last exchange on WMMRC/NOLs between D. Walker and Owl Creek guy  reinforced Maxwell’s valuation theory that no one will sit on WMMRC  doing nothing. There are “opportunities that the Settlement Note Holders  could realize in Reorganized WMI beyond run-off scenario”, and the  “possibility that Reorganized WMI will be operated as a going concern,  …” Owl Creek didn’t even bother with checking up with Section 269. I  don’t think they overlooked that. Those guys live and die on  manipulating distressed assets. They certainly know the way around IRS  rules.

(4) Like I said, another key point (out of two day IT cross  examinations) is did the Court know about JPM's real position on $4B  deposits early on? Were those funds (deposits) truly disputed as  displayed in public or the whole turnover issue was just theatrics? This  goes to the core of "good faith" issue. Even though the Court  acknowledged there is a high likelihood the debtors would prevail on the  turnover issue, I believe the appeared-to-be highly contentious nature  of the issue had some influence on the Court's view of GSA in general.  She might view the settlement of deposit issue among GSAs as a good  (reasonable) bargain for the debtors' estate for mitigating some of JPM  and FDIC claims. If the turnover fight was just an illusion, the Court  should feel outraged at deceptions and reconsider her "fair and  reasonable" opinion."

 

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...p;mid=803210&tof=8&frt=2

nach läuft das hearing gut für uns,eine große unsicherheit ist mary die richterin.

Desweiteren frage ich mich was haben wir wirklich in der hand?in den verhandlungen sieht man das es viele ungereimtheiten gibt.

Die zeugen leiden  an gedächtnissaussetzern und wissen nur das was sie wissen möchten.

Ich frage mich ernsthaft ob wir wirklich nen handfesten beweis haben?Denn den könnte mary nicht mehr ignorieren!!!

Der Kurs wird im mom am boden gehalten-die angst zu  kaufen ist da-da niemand weis wie es hier weiterläuft.Was ich nicht verstehe ist weshalb susmann nicht erscheint-klar die andern machen auch nen guten job. aber auch wenn er ev. nicht so eingearbeitet sein sollte (in unser fall) so würde er ein zeichen setzen und damit auch druck erzeugen (denke rosen würde ne nasse hose bekommen).

Auch der kurs würde wahrscheinlich reagieren.Das ist wie im Fußball der beste mann ist drausen weil er angeschlagen ist,kurz vor schluss wird er eingewechselt (nicht weil er fußballerisch der manschaft weiter helfen könnte)nein weil es ein zeichen ist.das hat was mit psychologie zu tun.!!!!!!!!!!