Soche Kosten zahlt JPM doch aus der Portokasse ~winkmitdemzaunpfahl~
Zurück
Weiter
|
nur ein bisschen OT, da JPM auch mit eine Summe von 68,6 Mrd. vertreten ist.
Peak borrowing: $68.6 billion, 10/1/08Like BofA, JPMorgan went on a crisis shopping spree that included a pair of other notable Fed borrowers, Bear Stearns, which it rescued several months earlier, and Washington Mutual, which it acquired following an FDIC seizure in September 2008.
Vollständigkeitshalber die Top 10:
noch mehr hier (interessant zu lesen):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/08/...le-ben-bernanke/
Gruß
Dude44
Rochelle's Opinions as a Impetus for a Writ
I listened to Bill Rochelle's podcast, and he puts equity's position in very clear terms. He says that equitable mootness WILL occur unless Walrath's order can be stayed. I've said the same thing many times, and as far as I know there are only two ways of avoiding this: (1) the D.C. withdraws the reference to the extent that Walrath is prohibited from entering a confirmation order until the appeal is determined; or (2) the EC (or a pro se shareholder) gets a writ of mandamus pursuant to FRAP 21(a) to permit the 3d Cir. to hear the appeal that certainly won't get to Judge Sleet in time.
When I say 'in time' I mean EXACTLY what Rochelle says when he says the plan will be implemented immediately after Walrath's signs the confirmation order. Walrath knew when she denied the EC's request to appeal to the 3d Cir. that so doing would put equity in the backlog for access to the District Court. I think equity can make a case to the 3d Cir. that the U.S. Constitution does not permit a litigant to lose his right to appeal because of a lack of judicial resources. Equitable mootness due to the backlog is a violation of equity's right to due process.
However, even if there were no backlog such that an appeal could be heard within days of confirmation, equity's due process rights would still be violated by Weil's conflict of interest because Rosen/WMI would INSTANTANEOUSLY distribute the money to the creditors, effectively mooting the EC appeal. (It is also my conjecture that the 'disbursement' would be a legal formality, only: the money would be paid to accounts for the benefit of the creditors, and immediately put in a fund that would be used to capitalize a new hedge fund run by the SNs. I'll say it again, the reinsurance business is just a red herring.)
In my view, the very issuance of a confirmation order is a denial of the EC's (and any individual equity holder's) due process rights. The appeal was timely filed, and equity has the right to have a higher court review Walrath's ruling before equity's rights are lost forever. That, in my opinion, is manifest injustice (see FRAP 21(a): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/ru... as the U.S. Constitution does not permit a litigant's right to appeal to be lost because of either lack of judicial resources (i.e., the 2-3 year wait to get before Judge Sleet) or the breach of fiduciary duty by its counsel (i.e., Rosen's move to immediately implement the confirmation order). (I think an inference of breach of fiduciary duty can be supported by providing the court with a copy of the retainer agreement WMI signed with JPM, and the testimony from the first confirmation hearing that Weil, not Quinn, was running the plan process. I think it may be established that the apparent conflict of interest was not removed by Quinn's retention.)
We have nothing to lose by such a move. If the 3d Cir. says 'no', we're no worse off. If it says 'yes', then we kill off the possibility of equitable mootness. The forgoing could be effected by the EC or a pro se shareholder (here's a template: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/arabbankma... but it is certainly worth considering.
If such a move were successful, the whole case would be changed. If not, there would be no harm. Finally, taking Rochelle's assessment to its logical conclusion means that the maximum recovery for equity would be the $3B disgorgement (which I say is more likely in the vicinity of $1B - $1.5B), and would leave commons at the mercy of TPS' (the majority of the preferreds') mercy.
I don't know if this is something the EC has considered, but if it hasn't, it should.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...t=2&off=1#-1
Gruß
Dude44
|
| Wertung | Antworten | Thema | Verfasser | letzter Verfasser | letzter Beitrag | |
58 | 14.572 | █ Der ESCROW - Thread █ | union | lustag | 13:48 | |
| 60 | 68.960 | Coop SK Tippspiel (ehem. WMIH) | ranger100 | rübi | 01.06.26 20:17 | |
| 162 | 87.096 | COOP News (ehemals: Wamu /WMIH) | Pjöngjang | noenough | 21.05.26 18:14 | |
| 10 | 1.638 | WMIH + Cooper Info | Orakel99 | Orakel99 | 17.05.26 21:50 | |
| 349 | 198.956 | Wamu WKN 893906 News ! | plusquamperfekt | union | 31.12.25 14:59 |
