das letzte Wort muß heissen...
"zurückgewiesen"!
So ist auch google nun mal nur eine Maschine, ohne menschliche Regungen!
"zurückgewiesen"!
So ist auch google nun mal nur eine Maschine, ohne menschliche Regungen!
Zurück
Weiter
|
Danke erstmal für die Tipps zum Forumwechsel! Habe heute wieder einen langen Tag gehabt, so dass dies erstmal Prio2 für mich ist. @C_P_: werde mich dann an ly richten - Danke!
Da in den letzten Wochen hier desöfteren "Chelsea" gefallen ist und ich gerne helfen möchte, könnte ich mir vorstellen, auf einen von mir administrierten Server entsprechende Webseiten zur Verfügung zu stellen. Eigentlich wollte ich ja nicht soweit gehen, aber es gestaltet sich dann wesentlich einfacher, wenn jemand aus dem Forum die Kontrolle über die Seiteninhalte hat (ohne fremde Zensur). Da wir schon dabei sind, könnte ich auch ein öffentlich zugängliches WAMU-Doc-Archiv anlegen?! (Versionskontrolle inklusive) Bitte lasst diesmal irgendwelche Verschwörungstheorien außen vor - ich bin nur ein kleines Licht...;-)
Muss jetzt in die Heiapopaia - ich lese euch und bin gespannt auf das Feedback - GN8!
To (mis)quote the now-defunct band R.E.M., Delaware bankruptcy judge Mary Walrath's shocker of a ruling in the Washington Mutual Inc. Chapter 11 was the end of the (bankruptcy) world as we know it. On Sept. 13, you'll recall, the judge refused to confirm the reorganization plan of WaMu Bank's onetime parent, concluding that WMI's out-of-the-money shareholders had managed to come up with a "colorable claim" that four big distressed debt hedge funds had engaged in insider trading, buying and selling WMI notes even as they were briefed on ongoing talks to settle the multibillion dollar bankruptcy. As Tom Hals subsequently reported forReuters, Judge Walrath's decision threw the business model of distressed debt funds-and the future of big bankruptcies-into doubt.
Now it's the hedge funds turn to have their say. And boy are they making the most of it.
On Tuesday, Aurelius, Appaloosa, Owl Creek, and Centerbridge filed motions requesting leave to appeal Judge Walrath's ruling, accompanied by a pair of briefs that can only be described as scathing. Judge Walrath committed "a series of fundamental errors," Aurlieus's Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel lawyers wrote in their54-page filing. She rewrote decades-old rules and produced a decision that "effectively declares open season for creative and aggressive bankruptcy litigation by allowing a deeply out-of-the-money constituency to bring a derivative suit found meritless by both the debtors and the creditors' committee," Aurelius asserted.
The other three funds, which filed a 54-page joint brief, were even more unbridled in their criticism of the judge. "This case presents a troubling instance of a bankruptcy court misapplying the federal securities laws to force an outcome that has no basis in law," the brief said. "Ignoring virtually every requirement of the insider trading laws as well as its own findings of fact, and in violation of Congress's express directive to apply heightened pleading requirements to the claims asserted here, the bankruptcy court authorized the equity committee to stand in the shoes of the debtors and bring an action against the [hedge funds]The absence of any legal support for the bankruptcy court's decision is palpable." (The joint brief is signed by Blank Rome;Paul Hastings; Schulte Roth & Zabel; and Latham & Watkins.)
The heart of both briefs is an account of how Judge Walrath supposedly went wrong in concluding there's evidence that the hedge funds engaged in insider trading-despite the judge's own factual finding that the funds agreed to confidentiality restrictions when they participated in good-faith settlement talks that ended up benefiting the entire WMI estate. Judge Walrath, the funds contended, found no evidence that they acted with fraudulent intent in trading WMI bonds, which is a necessary element of insider trading. But "the bankruptcy court waived these fatal deficiencies away, ignoring the absence of deception in the case and holding that the [hedge funds] should be required to prove the absence of fraudulent intent," the joint brief said. "That is not the law--in fact, it is the opposite of the law."
The whole insider trading enquiry, the hedge funds contended, was misguided. Judge Walrath allowed it under the theory of equitable disallowance, which holds that parties can't recover if they engaged in wrongdoing. But the funds said there's no such remedy in the Bankruptcy Code. Moreover, they argued, the equity committee's lawyers at Susman Godfrey only named Aurelius and Centerbridge in their proposed equitable disallowance complaint. Appaloosa and Owl Creek were never named, so, according to the joint brief, Judge Walrath violated their due process rights by lumping them in with the other funds and granting the equitable disallowance motion against them.
The hedge funds also assert that the judge should never have concluded they're insiders with duties to WMI. "On the contrary, at all times, the settlement noteholders, as in most large bankruptcy cases, were one of many interested parties acting in their own independent capacity and in their own interest," the joint brief said. Just because those interests happened to align with WMI's, the brief argued, doesn't mean the hedge funds are "temporary insiders" under Judge Walrath's flawed reasoning.
One final point the joint brief makes: Judge Walrath had cast a black cloud over the conduct of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, which was counsel to at least two of the funds during settlement talks. The funds said that was unfounded. "There was no evidence at trial that Fried Frank had violated [a confidentiality] agreement. Indeed, at the close of evidence, [WMI's] lead counsel, as an officer of the court, affirmatively represented on the record that 'the debtors have seen nothing, and no one has presented any evidence that such confidentiality agreements with Fried Frank, with White & Case, or with any other party that had one executed was breached by any of those counsel," the joint brief said. "Thus, as the debtors' attorney made clear, at no time did Fried Frank breach any agreements with the debtors or fail to adhere to its confidentiality undertakings."
I asked Parker Folse of Susman for comment on the briefs but he said he was traveling and hadn't read them.
Bitte weiter verteilen !
Da gibt es Foren, die sind aus lauter Hybris so tot wie die rheinische Provinz am Sonntagabend.
Hm, es gibt auch Foren, die sind wegen lauter OT so lebendig wie am Ballermann Samstag nachts...
Mir persönlich ist da die rheinische Provinz lieber ;-) Naja, da gehen die Geschmäcker auseinander.
Meiner Meinung nach kann eine kleine "Auflockerung" zwischendurch nicht schaden, aber wenn es nur noch um VT-OT geht, kann man so ein Forum, welches nun schon jahrelang existiert, ganz schnell demontieren.
Es ist, wie bei vielen Dingen, wohl der "goldene Mittelweg" angesagt. Und das haben wir ja jetzt wieder ganz gut hinbekommen. Finde ich.
neversurrender
... hier eingestellt hat, ist wirklich lesenswert. Es wird aus Briefen der 4 HF zitiert, die ich als Antwort auf die Opinion von Mary W. zur Ablehnung des letzten POR verstehe. Wirklich harter Tobak ...
Nochmal der Link:
newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/...+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27
Aber am besten gefällt mir der letzte Satz aus dem Artikel:
I asked Parker Folse of Susman for comment on the briefs but he said he was traveling and hadn't read them.
Übersetzung: Ich habe Parker Folse (Anm.: einer unserer EC-Anwälte) um einen Kommentar gebeteb, aber er sagte er wäre auf Reisen gewesen und hätte sie (Anm.: die Briefe) nicht gelesen.
Ich deute das mal so: Ist mir absolut wurscht, was die machen ... :-)
Gruß
Bombo
7:49 p.m. | Updated
Earlier this month, a federal bankruptcy judge authorized shareholders of Washington Mutual to pursue a lawsuit that accused four hedge funds of insider trading in the collapsed bank’s debt securities.
Those hedge funds have now appealed the ruling, criticizing the judge’s decision. The opinion, said one of the funds in its court filing, “radically distorts securities law and bankruptcy law and inflicts a gross injustice.”
Judge Mary F. Walrath, a United States bankruptcy judge in Wilmington, Del., rejected the reorganization plan of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in the country’s history. She also ruled that the Washington Mutual’s shareholders had stated a viable claim that the hedge funds traded on confidential information about the bank that they had learned during restructuring talks.
The pitched bankruptcy battle has shined a spotlight on the hedge funds trading in the debt of distressed companies. These funds buy companies’ bonds and loans at a discount in the hope of obtaining profits when the companies emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Critics of hedge funds’ tactics complain that the sharp-elbowed investors hijack the reorganization process for their own gain.
The four hedge funds — Appaloosa Management, Aurelius Capital Management, Centerbridge Partners and Owl Creek Asset Management — have denied the shareholders’ accusations of insider trading, and said that the court’s ruling has caused them “significant reputational harm.” The funds said that they followed well-established bankruptcy court rules that set forth when they can and cannot trade during a company’s restructuring.
Aurelius said Judge Walrath’s ruling “set off shock waves” in the bankruptcy world because it premised insider trading liability on procedures that it says are “relied on and used in virtually all large bankruptcy cases.”
Lawyers for three of the hedge funds also said that the court’s ruling would allow and encourage bankruptcy courts to become a forum for frivolous lawsuits.
“The decision below, unless promptly reversed, also would allow and encourage the types of ‘abusive practices committed in private securities litigation’ that Congress intended to avoid by enacting” securities litigation reform, the hedge funds said.
Washington Mutual filed for bankruptcy at the peak of the global financial crisis in September 2008. Federal bank regulators seized the savings and loan, which had excessive exposure to subprime loans, and sold it off to JPMorgan Chase.
Judge Walrath has asked Washington Mutual’s shareholders and the hedge funds to attend mediation to resolve the dispute.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/hedge-funds-appeal-ruling-on-wamu-reorganization/
neversurrender, vielleicht sollten wir uns mal im OFF-TOPIC-thread der united Grupper verabreden, um dort ungestört ON-TOPIC diskutieren zu können. Ansätze dazu gab es schon...ich glaube The_Hope und ein paar Andere wären auch dabei. Traurig aber wahr...
Erstmal eine interessante Idee.
Aaaaber...
erstens) ON-TOPIC gehört nunmal hierher
und
zweitens) führt das wahrscheinlich nur zu weiteren Streitereien, Anpöbeln, etc. pp
Also keine so gute Idee (meine Meinung).
neversurrender
|
| Wertung | Antworten | Thema | Verfasser | letzter Verfasser | letzter Beitrag | |
57 | 14.268 | █ Der ESCROW - Thread █ | union | rübi | 22.03.26 09:25 | |
| 10 | 1.605 | WMIH + Cooper Info | Orakel99 | Malecon71 | 16.03.26 08:22 | |
| 60 | 68.942 | Coop SK Tippspiel (ehem. WMIH) | ranger100 | rübi | 13.03.26 12:20 | |
| 162 | 87.090 | COOP News (ehemals: Wamu /WMIH) | Pjöngjang | lander | 02.01.26 23:32 | |
| 349 | 198.956 | Wamu WKN 893906 News ! | plusquamperfekt | union | 31.12.25 14:59 |
