Wamu WKN 893906 News !

LinK:
blogs.wsj.com/deals/?p=34997

By Peg Brickley

A bankruptcy judge Thursday rebuffed a bid by the remaining piece of Washington Mutual to win confirmation of its twice-rejected plan to exit bankruptcy protection. She instead directed the company into a wide-ranging mediation.

“All the issues have to be on the table,” said Judge Mary Walrath, ruling at a hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. She set a Nov. 7 date to hear from the mediator about the results of the effort to bring peace in Washington Mutual’s Chapter 11 proceeding, which has already seen two all-out Chapter 11 plan-confirmation contests.

Ps:
Bin immer noch stolzer Besitzer aller vor 3 Jahren gekauften Wamus und bleibe auch, kann kommen was will.

Odin

6. Oktober 2011, 12.17 Uhr ET.

Von Peg Brickley

Richterin entsendet den WaMu-Fall in die Vermittlung

Die Konkursrichterin hat am Donnerstag ein Angebot über das Reststück der Washington Mutual zurückgewiesen, um eine Bestätigung des bereits zweimal abgelehnten Plans, den Gläubigerschutz verlassen zu können, zu erhalten. Stattdessen ordnete sie der Firma in eine breit angelegte Vermittlung an.

"Alle Ergebnisse müssen auf den Tisch", sagte Richterin Mary Walrath in Bezug auf ein Urteil bei einer Anhörung im US Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington. Sie legte den 7. November als Datum fest, um vom Vermittler über die Ergebnisse der Bemühungen, eine Einigung in dem Washington Mutual-Chapter11-Verfahren herzustellen, informiert zu werden …

blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/10/06/...ds-wamu-case-into-mediation/

LG T-Rexi

bin ich mal gespannt ;-)

"Alle Ergebnisse müssen auf den Tisch", sagte Richterin Mary Walrath in Bezug auf ein Urteil bei einer Anhörung im US Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington.

aber wieso die Ergebnisse? die "Ergebnisse" hat sie doch bereits?
Was fehlt ist die Einigung/Settlement bzw. die Fakten (die überhaupt zur "Übernahme" bzw. Diebstahl führten) und die Möglichkeit JPM/FDIC später vors Strafgericht zu bringen!

Und Rosen hat sich noch mal blamiert und Kosten verursacht, mit einer völlig unnötigen weiteren POR!? Hat er noch eine Villa oder Yacht abzuzahlen?!

da hätte sie doch mal sagen können: "Rosen bist du blöd, die POR-Kosten kannst du aus eigenen Tasche zahlen!"

ich kann mir gut vorstellen, wenn die Proteste sich ausweiten bzw. anhalten, dass unser Fall ein Bauernopfer findet die ganze Aktion während der Mediation in ein schönes Paket der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert wird und dass dann die "Bankster" sauber aus der Geschichte raus kommen. Wer weiß wie es weiter gehen würde, wenn die ersten anfangen Wamu-Shirts zu tragen? Es war ja schliesslich Volkes größte Sparkasse. Das einzige was mich daran stört, es sind zu viele "wenn", mir wäre lieber man könnte darüber diskutieren weil es so ist. Naja abwarten alles meine Meinung - mcpomm

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=6&frt=4

After doing some thinking, today was a really good day. Here is what I like about the Judges mediation opinion.

1. I had low expectations after some of the crazy decisions in this case. Her opinion was better than I expected.

2. Rosen got slapped around and the tone of her questions to him were somewhat telling. He is the only one I remember getting questioned, and the NOL issue she hit him was unexpected.

3. Dual track dead.

4. All confirmation issues will be included, not just the IT.

5. No POR until after good attempt at mediation.

6. I like her mediator choice of a BK Judge and especially like the way she spoke of him. Wish I could have watch her speak of him as it appears he is somewhat up to speed with the nature of the players and seems to be no-nonsense. Go back and listen to this portion of the audio when she gave his thoughts on a sufficient time. Gave me warm fuzzies. 1:40:40 in the audio.

7. EC seems very serious with making this mediation fruitful. After three years of watching and waiting, this is welcomed.

8. The Judge wants a fair deal she can sign off on, and that is continually being made clear. She wants a settlement.

9. Did I mention it was almost a total loss for Rosen today?

As I posted on the GB, happiness factor 9 out of 10.

www.delawareshareholderservices.com/qnews.html

October 6, 2011 Washington Mutual

Boy, was I surprised when I walked into court today! Somehow, in my mind, the Judge had been clear enough with her order denying plan confirmation and ordering mediation, that I thought today was going to be a slam dunk...yes, I know that the Debtors had tried to position themselves as the saviors...opening the door to the possibility of a quick end to the bankruptcy...but I never expected the salvos of gunfire to be heard. Boy, was I wrong!

Arriving late, because of an accident clogging the city streets, I squeezed in to the last seat available in the courtroom. Later arrivals carried chairs in and made a new row in the back of the room. Key players from every party were there,,,Debtors, JPM, FDIC, TPS, UCC, Tricadia, EC, HFs...it was a sea of alphabet soup in the room, and everyone felt compelled to rise to speak.

As usual, Brian Rosen was well spoken and attempted to navigate to a quick settlement and payout of all creditors, including the disputed SNH's claims. A slick potential loophole in both the underlying BK law and the language used by the EC allowed him to at least try this approach. It was clever, and while ultimately unsuccessful, he was confident in his presentation. Unfortunately, at this point in this case, I'm not sure there are many in the case who trust that what the Debtors say is what they mean...we all have enough experience getting burned at their hands to know to look for the hidden agenda. Luckily, JMW has also gotten hip to this and asked several questions that helped to uncover potential hidden agendas...like after all the time spent previously in the case schooling us on the use of NOL's and their decreasing value to the estate as the year progresses, JMW is savvy enough to ask "why now" vs waiting until after the first of the year...

Parker Folse speaking for the EC, handily rebutted Rosen's arguments...deftly and with his quiet strength. Having seen Parker on several occasions, I could tell that he was pissed and incredulous with the way Rosen painted the EC and our intentions. Point by point, Parker showed JMW just what the issues for mediation actually were, vs. the slick presentation made by the Debtors. As each party to the GSA rose to speak, the arguments were fairly predictable and along fairly clear party lines. Aurelius was a clear exception, with Ken Eckstein choosing to be politically correct and stradle the line, agreeing with parts of both the EC and Debtors arguments.

Sachs for JPM and Califano for the FDIC both took the opportunity to remind JMW that the GSA was due to expire shortly, and would then be open to re-crafting. And while I believe that one or both may need to come to the table to see a settlement accomplished, both denied any intention of doing so.

In the end, JMW saw the folly of allowing a settlement to go forward now, with SNH's owing the money back should they be found guilty of IT allegation, and encouraged all parties to play nice with the mediator and get this quickly wrapped up. She directed both JPM and the FDIC to stay in the GSA for at least a month until the next omnibus hearing, at which time she expects to get one of three reports...1) with more time, we can achieve settlement 2), we have achieved settlement or 3) no way!

There is still one item that needs to be heard tomorrow, so I'll be back tomorrow afternoon with more...until then...these are just my observations.

Ilene

pg. 29

www.haynesboone.com/gfg/492.pdf

"69. The Receiver claims entitlement to possible future Tax Refunds. It asserts that such refunds are the property of the FDIC and not property of the Debtors. Significantly, however, the Receiver offers no legal basis for its alleged entitlement to these funds. That very point was made by Wilmington Trust in its opposition to the Receiver‘s Relief Stay Motion. In that opposition, Wilmington Trust showed that there existed uncertainty both as to whether the Tax Refunds are the property of the Debtors or the property of the Receiver, and the actual dollar amount that may be owing to each. The Receiver grounded its allegations of entitlement to refunds in unspecified and uncertain amounts merely on its stated belief that its own allegations of ownership were true. Wilmington Trust, however, demonstrated that rather than allow the Receiver to avoid a challenge to its claims, ―a more prudent course would be to postpone setoff until such time as the disputes, contingencies, and liquidation issues surrounding the FDIC‘s claims can be resolved appropriately.‖ (Wilmington Trust Opposition 11). Again, the moving papers give no indication that that more prudent course was followed..."

"70. In opposition to the Receiver Claims and Relief Stay Motion, the Debtors established, as the Receiver conceded, that any entitlement to any Tax Refunds was unknown at the time, and the relief sought by the Receiver was premature."

"71. Moreover, two recent court decisions have held that tax refunds belong to debtor holding companies rather than the FDIC. In Zucker v. FDIC (In re Netbank, Inc.), No. 08-00346, slip op. (Bankr. M.D. Fl. Sept. 30, 2010), a receiver for a bank asserted its right to a tax refund based on a tax sharing agreement which the debtor holding company opposed. The court concluded that the tax sharing agreement was not specific so as to provide that the debtor held any portion of the tax refund in trust for the bank or restrictions on how the money might be used. Further, under the tax sharing agreement the debtor was obligated to pay the bank an amount of benefits to which the bank would have been entitled based on its tax attributes if the bank had filed separate tax returns. The obligation was not conditioned upon the receipt by the debtor of a refund but rather an independent contractual commitment. Accordingly, the court concluded that based on the debtor-creditor relationship established between the debtor and the bank under the tax sharing agreement, the right to the tax refunds belonged to the debtor rather than the FDIC. See also Team Fin. Inc, et al., v. FDIC (In re Team Fin. Inc., et al.), No. 09-5084, slip op. (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2010) (denying FDIC summary judgment as the tax sharing agreement created ordinary contractual obligations with respect to tax liability and refunds akin to that of a debtor and creditor which allowed claims against the estate but that the tax refunds were property of the debtor holding company‘s estate). Case 09-35582-bjh11 Doc 492 Filed 04/18/11 Entered 04/18/11 15:06:32 Desc
Main Document Page 30 of 41"

" (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2010) (denying FDIC summary judgment as the tax sharing agreement created ordinary contractual obligations with respect to tax liability and refunds C Case 09-35582-bjh11 Doc 492 Filed 04/18/11 Entered 04/18/11 15:06:32 Desc"

> the tax sharing agreement created ordinary contractual obligations with respect to tax liability and refunds akin to that of a debtor and creditor which allowed claims against the estate but that the tax refunds were property of the debtor holding company‘s estate<

Doesn't this imply that if JPMC filed no timely claim for the tax refund then despite the tax sharing agreement JPMC is not entitled to any of the tax refund on WMB's behalf?

If that is the case then wouldn't using the tax sharing agreement to channel tax refunds to a TARP prohibited entity be tantamount to illegal collusion to subvert value from the estate? Wasn't JPMC toying with the notion of releasing 100% of the tax refund to Debtor?

Posted by Michael DeBaecke on May 27, 2011
Turning Losses Into Gains: Bankruptcy Battles Over Tax Refunds
By: Michael D. DeBaecke and Victoria A. Guilfoyle

The severe economic turmoil of recent years has resulted in a significant increase in both the number of domestic banks seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the number of parent bank holding companies filing bankruptcy petitions under Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. These bankruptcy cases can involve hotly contested battles over the ownership of tax refunds generated from an extended carryback period now available for net operating losses (NOLs).

The Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009 extended the NOL carryback period from two years to five years for taxpayers incurring losses in either 2008 or 2009. These disputes over tax refunds in bankruptcy proceedings can include the added complexity of involving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), which is normally appointed by the OTS to serve as the receiver (FDIC-receiver) for failed banking institutions.

A debtor’s bankruptcy estate is composed of, at least in part, "all legal and equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case," according to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). As reflected in this expansive language, Congress intended a broad range of property to be included in property of the estate, as seen in United States v. Whiting Pools Inc.

Not surprisingly, bankruptcy courts may be called upon to determine who is permitted to claim available tax refunds resulting from the extended carryback period for NOLs. Depending on the facts of a particular case, the available tax refunds at issue may range from tens of millions to billions of dollars.

The extended period for NOL carrybacks affords creditors a golden opportunity to obtain a recovery in the form of a substantial tax refund. The availability of such a valuable asset has not been lost on FDIC-receivers, which are with apparent increasing frequency trying to assert ownership over some or all of the available tax refunds resulting from NOL carrybacks. In recent cases, FDIC-receivers have sought to file competing tax returns on behalf of the seized non-debtor bank — that utilize NOLs to offset gains of the seized bank in prior tax years.

To simplify the tax reporting process and perhaps take advantage of certain tax benefits afforded by the Internal Revenue Code, parent companies may elect to file consolidated tax returns for themselves and their subsidiary/affiliate companies. In doing so, the parent company and affiliates may enter into a tax sharing agreement (TSA). Under some TSAs, the parent company maintains the sole discretion to, among other things, determine the manner in which tax returns are prepared and filed. These TSAs may require subsidiaries to calculate any tax owed and pay the corresponding amounts to the parent companies, which, in turn, make tax payments to the IRS. Likewise, with respect to refunds, some TSAs can create contractual obligations on the part of the parent corporations to pay affiliated group members a share of tax refunds received from the IRS.

As recommended .... here's the transcribed (from me) questioning by JMW to Rosen on NOLs. He was going along with his rehearsed spiel until she stopped him in his tracks. Wonder if he ever got the answer for her or if he will try to ignore it and hope she doesn't ask again!!

www.viewip.net/WMI/Hearing/audio/20111006.mp3 @ 15:00

Rosen: With respect to the NOLs, Your Honor, here the Equity Committee totally misunderstands the issue again as was made clear several times over including at the confirmation hearing, Your Honor, and then your court’s subsequent hearing with respect to the abandonment of the stock of WMB at which hearing the EC totally concurred in the position of the Debtor based upon the 5 year window closing with respect to taking a strike it made sense to abandon the stock subsequent to the effective date and the limitation that we talked about is no longer as relevant an issue.

With respect to claims against the SNHs, Your Honor, here the law is what it is ….

JMW: Let’s go back.

Rosen: Yes, ma’am.

JMW: Would there be more unlimited NOL if the stock were abandoned January 2 versus this year.

Rosen: No.

JMW: Why?

Rosen: Because the period has changed, Your Honor, and it no longer … because confirmation has been delayed so long it’s no longer as relevant to the issue. …

JMW: It may not be relevant but will in fact the amount of the unlimited NOL be larger? Because it can be …? I understood that the unlimited portion of the NOL was that portion that was after the effective date on a prorata day-by-day basis.

Rosen: Your Honor, my understanding is “no” but when we are done I will have that exact answer for you. …


*******
Then she recommends a BK Judge as the mediator that has a strong tax background!! Any coincidence??

der link zu 164859
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=9&frt=2

und der link zu 164860
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...tof=17&frt=2

As usual, Brian Rosen was well spoken and attempted to navigate to a quick settlement and payout of all creditors, including the disputed SNH's claims.  A slick potential loophole in both the underlying BK law and the language used by the EC allowed him to at least try this approach.  It was clever, and while ultimately unsuccessful, he was confident in his presentation.  Unfortunately, at this point in this case, I'm not sure there are many in the case who trust that what the Debtors say is what they mean...we all have enough experience getting burned at their hands to know to look for the hidden agenda.  Luckily, JMW has also gotten hip to this and asked several questions that helped to uncover potential hidden agendas...like after all the time spent previously in the case schooling us on the use of NOL's and their decreasing value to the estate as the year progresses, JMW is savvy enough to ask "why now" vs waiting until after the first of the year...

Parker Folse speaking for the EC, handily rebutted Rosen's arguments...deftly and with his quiet strength.  Having seen Parker on several occasions, I could tell that he was pissed and incredulous with the way Rosen painted the EC and our intentions. Point by point, Parker showed JMW just what the issues for mediation actually were, vs. the slick presentation made by the Debtors.  As each party to the GSA rose to speak, the arguments were fairly predictable and along fairly clear party lines.  Aurelius was a clear exception, with Ken Eckstein choosing to be politically correct and stradle the line, agreeing with parts of both the EC and Debtors arguments.

Sachs for JPM and Califano for the FDIC both took the opportunity to remind JMW that the GSA was due to expire shortly, and would then be open to re-crafting.  And while I believe that one or both may need to come to the table to see a settlement accomplished, both denied any intention of doing so.

In the end, JMW saw the folly of allowing a settlement to go forward now, with SNH's owing the money back should they be found guilty of IT allegation, and encouraged all parties to play nice with the mediator and get this quickly wrapped up.  She directed both JPM and the FDIC to stay in the GSA for at least a month until the next omnibus hearing, at which time she expects to get one of three reports...1) with more time, we can achieve settlement 2), we have achieved settlement or 3) no way!

There is still one item that needs to be heard tomorrow, so I'll be back tomorrow afternoon with more...until then...these are just my observations.

Quelle: www.delawareshareholderservices.com/qnews.html

na was ne show gestern....

und wiedermal: warten, warten, warten.... was soll heute noch gross besprochen werden? sind die "Mediationen" dann "geheim" wenn sie beginnen?

07.11 also?

wurde das Jahr auch erwähnt?

@mcpomm: ich trag nur Wamu-Shirts!

gruß
never

schönen freitag! schönes WE.

also ich hätte gerne ein shirt mit den 10 schlimmsten dinge von JPM

1. wamu
2. silber
3. bofa

usw...

und dann STOP JPM

und vorne:

still calling it washington mutual
powerbande ariva.de
neverenough

Gauner und Ganoven.... Gauner und Ganoven sinds.....

Guten Morgen!

Als ich die Überschrift gelesen habe, habe ich sofort einen Artikel über unsere WAMU erwartet!

www.godmode-trader.de/nachricht/...a-republic,a2660061,b1.html


Schönes Wochenende!
Zion

... zu einem richtigen Presseorgan:
www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,790191,00.html
www.spiegel.de/video/video-1153884.html
www.spiegel.de/video/suche/tag/Proteste.html

Die BILD-Schriftbeiträge sind zwar nicht schlecht recherchiert, aber können nach meiner Erfahrung im nächsten Moment umschlagen, ähnlich wie beim Kopp-Verlag. Ich würde mich nicht auf die verlassen.

Nie vergessen, dass deren Besitzer dieselben sind, die auch wallstreet online besitzen!

Gruss, St. JCF

wurde hier schon gestern angedeutet (Faster?)

www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm

...JPMorgan Chase donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation...

dann immer feste drauf :-)

Glückauf

Da wird doch keiner glauben, dass die Mediation nicht den Focus ein paar Jahre nach vor verlegt. Auf die kurze Periode, an dem JPM/FIDIC ihre Nachtspielchen getrieben haben und NIEMALS mit so einer Nachwirkung gerechnet haben. Sie fühlten sich in den Turbulenzen der damaligen Krise sehr sicher. Dieser arrogante Dilettantismus MUSS ihnen jetzt auf den Kopf fallen.

Wir brauchen die Beiden nicht am Verhandlungstisch. Es spricht sich leichter, wenn nicht permanent einer dieser beiden Verbrecherinstitutionen drohend mit der Faust auf den Tisch schlägt.  

Aber es wird massiv um diese beiden Institutionen gehen. Um was denn sonst. Um Rosens Hamsterrädchenklatsch.....??

Deswegen drohte gestern JPM/Sacks alles mit dem Fallenlassen des GSA zunichte zumachen. Somit zog er alle Sieger des vorliegenden GSA auf seine Seite.

......es gibt aber auch die GSA-Verlierer. UNS. Wenn die Mediation ein neues GSA erringen sollte, dann werden sich die Sieger/Verliererpositionen massiv verschieben.......

.....und womöglich der erste richtige "Dreck" an die Oberfläche gespült........

wie immer sprach brian rosen mit wohlgewählten worten und wollte schnell in richtung settlement und ausbezahlung der creditors gehen (anmerkung: natürlich exklusive prefs und commons) - einschliesslich der SNH claims. ein schlupfloch im insolvenz gesetz sowie die wortwahl des EC erlaubten es ihm diesen versuch zu starten. das war geschickt zu diesem zeitpunkt im laufenden fall, rosen war sicher/zuversichtlich während der präsentation. aber ich bin mir nicht sicher ob akutell noch viele daran glauben dass die debtors auch an das glauben was sie sagen ... wir alle sind gebrannte kinder und wissen dass wir hier auf die versteckten absichten schauen müssen ... so wie bei der geschichte als man und über die NOLs belehrt hat und ihren wertverfall mit dem lauf des kalenderjahrs, JMW ist schlau genug nach dem 'warum gerade jetzt' zu fragen bzw. ob man nicht bis beginn des nächsten jahres warten kann

parker folse spricht für das EC und schlägt rosens argumente zurück - geschickt und ruhig aber bestimmt. nachdem ich parker folse nun schon mehrmals erlebt habe kann ich sagen dass er angepisst war wie rosen das EC sowie die absichten des EC darstellt. punkt für punkt zeigte parker folse JMW auf was die punkte für die mediation waren im gegensatz zu der 'schleimigen' präsentation der debtors. im anschluss sprachen die parteien des GSA und die argumente waren ziemlich vorhersehbar. aurelius war die ausnahme, ken eckstein war sehr korrekt und wich etwas ab, er stimmt einzelnen punkten des EC sowie der debtors zu.

sachs für JPM und califano für die FDIC erinnerten JMW an die tatsache dass das GSA bald ausläuft - damit wäre das GSA offen neu definiert zu werden. und obwohl ich glaube dass diese beiden parteien (JPM/FDIC) mit an den verhandlungstisch müssen für eine erfolgreiche einigung ... haben beide parteien dies abgelehnt.

zum ende hat JMW dann eingesehen dass es keinen sinn macht dem settlement (bzw. dem ansinnen rosens) zu diesen zeitpunkt statt zu geben und geld an die SNHs zu verteilen welches sie dann zurückgeben müssen falls sie des insiderhandels für schuldig befunden werden sollten. sie ermahne alle parteien mit dem mediator zusammen zu arbeiten um das ganze schnell zu einem abschluss zu bringen. sie wies JPM und FDIC an das GSA bis zum nächsten omnibus hearing in der aktuellen form bestehen zu lassen bzw. dieses um weitere 30 tage zu verlängern.
beim nächsten hearing am 7.nov möchte JMW einen mediation report und erwartet 3 mögliche aussagen vom mediator.
1) wir brauchen mehr zeit, settlement ist erreichbar
2) wir haben das settlement bereits erreicht
3) keine chance für ein settlement

am freitag (heute) kommt noch ein weiteres thema dran (anm. welches?).
ich bin morgen zurück im gerichtsaal und werde berichten
ilene

beim nächsten hearing am 7.nov möchte JMW einen mediation report und erwartet 3 mögliche aussagen vom mediator.
1) wir brauchen mehr zeit, settlement ist erreichbar
2) wir haben das settlement bereits erreicht
3) keine chance für ein settlement

die chancen zu den einzelnen punkten sehe ich wie folgt:
1) 60%
2) 10%
3) 30%

so looong *klonk*
/paketix

Dieses Jahr könnte das 1968 unseres Jahrhunderts werden. Aber um Erfolg zu haben, muss die Bewegung alle Bürger und alle sozialen Schichten mit einschließen. Klicken Sie hier, um sich der Forderung nach echter Demokratie anzuschließen -- wir werden einen riesengroßen Live-Zähler für alle Unterzeichner im Herzen der Besetzung in New York errichten, und live auf die Petitionsseite webcasten:

www.avaaz.org/de/the_world_vs_wall_st/?vl



Die weltweite Protestwelle ist das neueste Kapitel in der Geschichte der globalen Bürgerbewegungen in diesem Jahr. In Ägypten nahmen die Bürger den Tahrir-Platz ein und stürzten ihren Diktator. In Indien brachte der Hungerstreik eines Mannes Millionen von Menschen auf die Straße und die Regierung zum Einknicken -- und zu wichtigem Handeln gegen Korruption. Seit Monaten protestieren Griechen gegen drastische Sparmaßnahmen im öffentlichen Sektor. In Spanien haben sich tausende “Indignados” einem Demonstrationsverbot vor den Wahlen widersetzt und ein Protestcamp auf dem Sol-Platz errichtet, um sich gegen politische Korruption und die Art, wie die Regierung mit der Finanzkrise umgeht, auszusprechen. Und in Israel haben die Bürger diesen Sommer “Zeltstädte” gebaut, um gegen ansteigende Wohnungspreise und für soziale Gerechtigkeit zu protestieren.

Diese nationalen Bewegungen verbindet eine weltweite Entschlossenheit, der gemeinsamen Sache zwischen korrupten Eliten und Politikern – die in vielen Ländern zu schädlichen Finanzkrisen beigetragen haben und nun wollen, dass einfache Familien dafür zahlen -- ein Ende zu setzen. Die resultierende Massenbewegung kann nicht nur sicherstellen, dass die Hauptlast der Rezession nicht auf den Schultern der Verletzlichsten lastet, sondern auch helfen, die Balance zwischen Demokratie und Korruption wiederherzustellen. Klicken Sie hier, um der Bewegung den Rücken zu stärken:

www.avaaz.org/de/the_world_vs_wall_st/?vl



In jedem Aufstand, von Kairo bis New York, ist der Ruf nach verantwortungsbewussten Regierungen, die ihren Völkern dienen, laut und deutlich zu hören -- und unser weltweites Netzwerk hat die Menschen dort stets unterstützt. Es ist an der Zeit, der Liebesaffaire zwischen Politiken und korrupten Hintermännern ein Ende zu setzen, und stattdessen wahre Demokratien von und für die Menschen aufzubauen.

hat jemand ne liste mit den TOP-JPM-Schandtaten zur Hand?

gerne per BM.

danke

nimm doch einfach den Geschäftsbericht der letzen 10 Jahre zur Hand ;-))))))

schön das dich die „Occupy Wall Street“ Story beschäftigt aber ich glaube mitlerweile hat es auch der letzte Idiot kapiert.

Könnten wir uns bitte wieder mit WAMU beschäftigen?
Danke!

Gruß
Dude44

Alle Schweinereien im Sinne vom normalen Menschenverstand vom man mit keiner Leistung Geld und Macht bekommt und möglichst viele anderen schädigt.

Krieg Finanzieren
Bestechung
Betrug
Unterschlagung
Gesetze (mitkreieren)
Wie werden denn Geheimdienste finanziert!
Umweltvernichtung (BP)
WAMU
Bilanzverschönerung
ect.