Washington Mutual: WAMPQ und WAMKQ.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC. R.DEP.SHS R.1/40000 PFD K DL25 (A0Q35Q)

WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC. 7,75% PER.PFD CONV.SH.R DL1000 (A0M901)

www.quantumonline.com/search.cfm

www.quantumonline.com/search.cfm

eine aktuelle schätzung eines jpm mitarbeiters (glaubwürdig, grins) aus einem ami bord:

 Cash(JPM conceded ownership)……....4,572

Restricted Cash………………………………..........96

Investment securities……………………….......68

Cash Surrender Value of BOLI (50%....45

American savings Litigation……………...….55

Visa……………………………………………….…50

Investment in Subs (these are ???)……….0

Intercompany Issues………………………........179

WMI Investment cash……………..……….......274

WMI Other investments………………….......….58

Subtotal…………………………………………….............……5,397

Add First IRS Refund (30% per MOR)……..….780

Used lower end of range Second IRS Refund(40% per MOR)…...1,040

Subtotal……………………………………………….…............7,217

Less liabilities Senior Debt…………………………………….........4,132

Sub Debt……………………………………..........….1,666

Junior Sub Debt……………………........………….765

Accounts Payable……………………………….........…4

Payroll and other accruals………..………….493

Subtotal…………………………………………………............…7,060

Leftover to Preferreds…………………………...……………….157

dass würde bedeuten, die vorzüge kriegen 5%. (es sind zwar ein paar millionen nicht angeführt, aber zur diskussion gut genug. das skurile daran ist, danach würden die vorzüge die firma übernehmen. und die firma hat, was da nicht angeführt wird, etwa 20 mrd nol und 8 mrd capital tax losses, also verlustvorträge. dass könnte im endeffekt bedeuten, dass die vorzüge mehr als 100% kriegen. und die satmmaktien schauen wortlos zu, grins. tja, wer von euch daranglaubt, grüsst mir auch schön den osterhasen.

www.ariva.de/Wamu_WKN_893906_News_t364286

in DAB Bank nix
bei Flatex möglich

kuow.org/program.php

Washington Mutual Preliminary Settlement Has No Funds For Shareholders
Carolyn Beeler
03/16/2010

Washington Mutual shareholders might not recover any of the money they lost when the Seattle–based bank went under last year. A $6 billion settlement package announced Friday would only cover a fraction of what's owed to creditors.


J.P. Morgan Chase, Washington Mutual and the FDIC submitted their settlement plan to a bankruptcy court in Delaware on Friday.

A committee that represents shareholder interests was excluded from the negotiations that led up to the announcement. Hans Borst is a shareholder from California who has helped organize efforts to recover lost Washington Mutual holdings.

Borst: "It's a travesty. I mean they should have been involved in those negotiations, and they will be involved, because they're going to object to this settlement, I have no doubt. And in the end it'll be up to the judge."

Borst says people are already writing letters to the court to protest the preliminary settlement. But he knows the proceedings are only in their early stages.

The banks and FDIC announced their plan to a judge, but it still has to go through formal court proceedings before it's made official. Shareholders will also get the chance to weigh in.

Mark Northrup is a Seattle bankruptcy lawyer. He says the case might end up looking like a long courtroom trial.

Northrup: "It's a very large case and there are billions of dollars worth of creditors, and people who have claims against Washington Mutual, I would expect that the confirmation hearing to be complex and lengthy."

But even after everyone gets a chance to be heard, Northrup doesn't think there's much hope that ordinary shareholders will ever see any money.

Northrup: "General shareholders in any company are always at the lowest rung of the payment scheme in bankruptcy, and they typically receive nothing unless there's enough money to pay all general creditors. That typically doesn't happen."

The banks and the FDIC haven't yet outlined where the money in their settlement plan would go. A blueprint for how the funds would be distributed will be submitted to the court later this month.

**cancelled** Court hearing, Omnibus, 10:30 AM (Del)

www.my.calendars.net/wmi

Acceptance of the Plan of Reorganization my comments in bold red, emphasis in bold black. this post is dedicated to diamondguru-one. welcome home As noted earlier, only the debtor may file a plan of reorganization during the first 120-day period after the petition is filed (or after entry of the order for relief, if an involuntary petition was filed). The court may grant extension of this exclusive period up to 18 months after the petition date. In addition, the debtor has 180 days after the petition date or entry of the order for relief to obtain acceptances of its plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1121. The court may extend (up to 20 months) or reduce this acceptance exclusive period for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d). In practice, debtors typically seek extensions of both the plan filing and plan acceptance deadlines at the same time so that any order sought from the court allows the debtor two months to seek acceptances after filing a plan before any competing plan can be filed. If the exclusive period expires before the debtor has filed and obtained acceptance of a plan, other parties in interest in a case, such as the creditors' committee or a creditor, may file a plan. Such a plan may compete with a plan filed by another party in interest or by the debtor. equity commitee will file a plan when the current plan fails. earliest they are eligible to file is 61 days from march 26th. If a trustee is appointed, the trustee must file a plan, a report explaining why the trustee will not file a plan, or a recommendation for conversion or dismissal of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(5). A proponent of a plan is subject to the same requirements as the debtor with respect to disclosure and solicitation. In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case. Section 1123(a) of the Bankruptcy Code lists the mandatory provisions of a chapter 11 plan, and section 1123(b) lists the discretionary provisions. Section 1123(a)(1) provides that a chapter 11 plan must designate classes of claims and interests for treatment under the reorganization. Generally, a plan will classify claim holders as secured creditors, unsecured creditors entitled to priority, general unsecured creditors, and equity security holders. if A > L, we are next in line. wmb bonds are not wmi's responsibility. our A is definitely > L Under section 1126(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, an entire class of claims is deemed to accept a plan if the plan is accepted by creditors that hold at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number of the allowed claims in the class. Under section 1129(a)(10), if there are impaired classes of claims, the court cannot confirm a plan unless it has been accepted by at least one class of non-insiders who hold impaired claims (i.e., claims that are not going to be paid completely or in which some legal, equitable, or contractual right is altered). wmb bondholders objection don't mean sh!t. they're not wmi's responsibility. that's why rosen said they're prepared to file with or without their support. Moreover, under section 1126(f), holders of unimpaired claims are deemed to have accepted the plan. Under section 1127(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the plan proponent may modify the plan at any time before confirmation, but the plan as modified must meet all the requirements of chapter 11. When there is a proposed modification after balloting has been conducted, and the court finds after a hearing that the proposed modification does not adversely affect the treatment of any creditor who has not accepted the modification in writing, the modification is deemed to have been accepted by all creditors who previously accepted the plan. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3019. If it is determined that the proposed modification does have an adverse effect on the claims of non-consenting creditors, then another balloting must take place. Because more than one plan may be submitted to the creditors for approval, every proposed plan and modification must be dated and identified with the name of the entity or entities submitting the plan or modification. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3016(b). When competing plans are presented that meet the requirements for confirmation, the court must consider the preferences of the creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm. A > L. creditors will be paid in full. equity is next. Any party in interest may file an objection to confirmation of a plan. equity committee will surely do this AFTER weil submits their plan on march 26th. The Bankruptcy Code requires the court, after notice, to hold a hearing on confirmation of a plan. If no objection to confirmation has been timely filed, the Bankruptcy Code allows the court to determine whether the plan has been proposed in good faith and according to law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3020(b)(2). Before confirmation can be granted, the court must be satisfied that there has been compliance with all the other requirements of confirmation set forth in section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code, even in the absence of any objections. In order to confirm the plan, the court must find, among other things, that: (1) the plan is feasible; (2) it is proposed in good faith; and (3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. it is questionable if the debtor's plan, at its state from friday, is in good faith... Quote: -------------------------------------------------- Good Faith When examining good faith, the court attempts to ensure that the plan will fairly achieve a result consistent with the objectives and purposes of the bankruptcy laws. The most commonly used standard requires the court to look at the plan in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the plan. Other factors that courts may apply are: •Whether the plan is proposed with honesty and good intentions such as shutting out equity when A > L? •Whether there is a basis for expecting that reorganization can be achieved •Whether there was fundamental fairness in dealing with the creditors Indications of Bad Faith Courts have found certain factors that indicate that a plan may have been proposed in bad faith, including, but not limited to: •Filing a bankruptcy case after losing a case in a non-bankruptcy court •A finding that creditors have been manipulated in an effort to meet the requirement that at least one class of creditors accept the plan •When a competitor of the debtor proposes a plan with the intent to eliminate competition usually it's creditor vs. creditor. but now it's debtor vs equity. equity = competition. debtor tries to elmininate equity... if weil continues with this plan. •Plans proposed as schemes for delay plan proposed wasn't to cause delay. but there was a delay •Plans proposed solely for tax considerations -------------------------------------------------- so how did we get our equity committee? prior to or during december, somebody proved to the us trustee that A will become > L... he agrees. weil/fdic/jpm submits their pre-drafted plan to us trustee in december for his review and notices equity is not there. meanwhile rosen maintains A < L the whole time. probably because he meant for jpm and fdic to be in the money... if the us trustee knew earlier that A > L he would have assigned an equity committee when the case first opened. if he didn't think A > L then he surely wouldn't have assigned an equity committee during the middle of a case. if you want to argue that A <= L, then jpm and fdic shouldn't ever get paid. therefore A is always > L. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement, the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation (unless the plan is a liquidating plan) or the need for further financial reorganization. and another thing... commons can never be wiped under the current proposal. all the assets sufficiently fill in the liabilities leaving commons determinable only by the market as long as wmi stays open. if L > A then commons will be wiped. our A > L if we can afford to give fdic and jpm money.... http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/...sics/chapter11.html#reorg

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx

 

Überlegt Euch doch mal: Warum ist Rosen 18 Monate absolut diskret und läßt nicht die kleinste positive Information verlauten und ausgerechtet am "Tag der Tage" am Freitag läßt er eine Information "durchsickern" (per Statement gegenüber MW), deren verheerende Wirkung auf die Märkte ihm zu 100 % bewußt gewesen ist.
Ich habe einige Ideen dazu, warum er dies tat, bin aber nicht sicher. Fakt ist für mich aber, er tat dies mit voller Absicht und einem Ziel und nicht "aus Versehen" (Sorry, liebe Shareholder, hab mich verplappert) !

Also nochmals:
Warum läßt Rosen mit einer solchen "Indiskretion" eine solche Bombe platzen ? Es hätte doch vollkommen gereicht, ein Three-Way-Understanding bekanntzugeben und keine weiteren Zahlen zu nennen (man hat dies ja bisher auch niemals getan).
Warum werden aber genau nur die Zahlen genannt, die die Shareholder zur Verzweiflung treiben ?
Warum reagierte der Kurs auch bereits vor Rosens Statement ?
Wer war hier informiert und vor allem mit welchem Ziel ?
Warum wurden an diesem blutigen Tag 9-stellige Sharezahlen binnen weniger Stunden bereitwillig gekauft ? (wir reden hier nicht über 5-30 Mio. Stück, die gerne auch von Zockern gesaugt werden).

Der Kursverlauf gibt Erachtens die Antworten.

Hier läuft alles nach Plan und es läuft so, daß wir und alle anderen Shareholder es nicht verstehen sollen.

Sachliche Gegenargumente gern willkommen.

Grüße

Tizian.........."

Grüße

Vandelft

Sachliche Gegenargumente natürlich auch hier gern willkommen.

Dennoch muss ich jetzt auch mal eine Lanze für die Commons brechen. Die Situation bei den Commons hat sich m.E. durch den "Einigungsvorschlag" ebenfalls deutlich verbessert, was sich überhaupt nicht im Kurs wiederspiegelt. Während der größte Feind der Stammaktionäre in den letzten Monaten die WMI selber bzw. deren Vertretung Weil und Rosen schien, die kontinuierlich auf die Aussage A < L beharrten, scheint es mir jetzt eigentlich keinen Feind der Commons mehr zu geben. Wenn ich es richtig interpretiere, dann müssten jetzt sowohl JPM, FDIC, als auch WMI ein großes Interesse daran haben, dass bei dem Einigungsvorschlag A > L herauskommt, da alle 3 Parteien eines gemeinsam haben: Sie wollen ihren Anteil von den NOLs. Sollte am 26.03. ein Liquidationsplan und kein Reorgplan offeriert werden, dann würde damit nach meinem jetztigen Kenntnisstand eine wertlose Ausbuchung der WAMUQ angestrebt werden. In diesem Fall könnte WMI aber wohl (wenn ich es richtig interpretiere) keine Steuerrückerstattung mehr beanspruchen, so dass selbst die WMI-Bondhalter dann wieder mit einem Verfall ihrer Bondwerte rechnen müssten. Es ist also jetzt aus meiner Sicht eine Situation eingetreten, bei welcher alle beteiligten Parteien ein Interesse an einer Reorganisation der WMI haben sollten.

Auch charttechnisch scheint mir die aktuelle Situation geradezu ideal. Die Abwärtsbewegung der letzten Tage hat zunehmend an Dynamik verloren und es scheint mir so, als könnte der Kurs in den USA jetzt die aktuelle Widerstandszone bei 0,15x USD behaupten. Dass wir mit dem Kurs überhaupt so weit heruntergekommen sind, liegt sicherlich daran, dass hier viele mit Haus und Hof in der WAMUQ investiert waren und letztlich irgendwann die Reissleine ziehen mussten, um nicht vor einem finanziellen Scherbenhaufen zu stehen. Diejenigen, welche hier nicht nach dem Motto "Stahlhelme auf" agiert haben, sondern nach Bruch der 0,34 USD am Freitag ausgestoppt wurden, haben jetzt die Chance eines erneuten Engagements, hierbei bekommen sie aktuell die doppelte Anzahl an Shares, als wenn sie eben kein SL knapp unter der 0,34 USD gesetzt hätten. Das muss ich hier jetzt einfach auch mal loswerden, weil hier im Forum häufig die SL-Setzer wie Anfänger angesehen wurden. Bei einem Engagement in die WMI-Aktien würde ich jedoch weiterhin empfehlen, dies grundsätzlich nur mit Geld zu verwirklichen, welches man auch abschreiben kann ohne dann in finanzielle Probleme zu geraten und hierbei eben nicht alles nur in die m.E. risikobehafteteren Stämme zu investieren.

Alles nur meine Meinung und keine Handelsaufforderung!

Ich hatte es früher schon gelegentlich mal dezent geäußert: mich würde es nicht mal überraschen, wenn wir die alte Tante WaMu mal wieder an der Nasdaq ohne Q am hintern notieren sehen. Dann steht aber keine Null mehr vor dem Komma. Betrachtet das Ganze doch vielleicht mal nicht immer nur aus der Sicht eines Kurzfristzocks !

Nicht falsch verstehen: das ist nur eine Idee, die ich seit Monaten habe, aber Nachdenken kann man darüber auch mal.  
Wir wissen alle nicht, was Bonderman (möglicherweise auch Hughes) noch so für Ideen für ihr gefallenes Kind haben.

Weiterhin sollte man vielleicht auch nicht aus den Augen verlieren, daß zumindest nach meinem Verständnis noch nicht davon die Rede war, daß mit dem bisherigen Settlement-Angebot auch der Prozess gegen die FDIC (!!!) vollständig gesettlet ist. Dort gings ja auch um den einen oder andren Cent ;-).
Und denkt dran, alles, was ab jetzt an Cash reinkommt, dient der Lebensfähigkeit der Holding und den Shareholdern.
Stellt Euch nur mal vor, daß aus dem Settlement dieses FDIC-Prozesses nochmal 2-3 Mrd. USD kämen (ich weiß, jetzt werden mich viele verprügeln wollen, weil sie dort eher 10 Mrd. kommen sehen, aber ich rechne lieber konservativ).
Daß aus der Schiene Claims gegen WMI, insbesondere aus den Policemen-Claims noch was kommt, kann ich mir fast nicht vorstellen, denn andernfalls hätte man (MW, UST) ja sofort die Reißleine ziehen müssen.

Und grundsätzlich nochmals: jede kleinste Nachricht im Moment, sei es vom UST, von MW, von Salomon oder vom EC läßt das Ding hier m. E. binenen weniger Minuten um 180 Grad drehen !! Wir sind definitiv auf dem Negativ-Info-Peak und m. E. deshalb auf dem Sentiment-Low. Hier fehlt nur ein kleiner Anstoß und es sieht wieder "normal" aus oder gar wie vor 2 Wochen.

Grüße

VanDelft

How you can excerise your rights as a WMI shareholder Take action 3/17/10: A group of shareholders is organizing to file a joinder to the Equity Committee's legal action to compel WMI to hold a shareholder's meeting. A joinder is "a joining of causes of action in a lawsuit" or "a joining of parties in a lawsuit". Individual shareholders can choose to be added to the joinder, and we hope to get thousands of shareholders to participate and show their support for the Equity Committee's efforts. When the details have been finalized, each shareholder will be able to submit a form from this web site indicating that they would like to have their name added to the joinder. We are hoping to have the necessary shareholder form available on this web site within the next day or so. A very quick response from shareholders will be needed because the timeline for filing the joinder is very short. Please monitor this page for additional information.

wamuequityrights.org/

bondholders leverage in the bargaining.

Alleged grounds for WaMu's claims against Washington Mutual include
securities fraud, misrepresentation, mismanagement and fraudulent transfer of
billions from WaMu as it teetered on the brink of collapse.

Tuesday's ruling is a victory for an assortment of institutional investors
who say they thought they were backing a sound, regulated Seattle thrift, only
to find themselves with distressed debt.

WaMu bondholder attorney Philip Anker said the decision should drive "a
settlement, a settlement that is productive for everyone."

The attorney, who's with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, said his
largest client paid 100 cents on the dollar for WaMu bonds.

That's in sharp contrast to many parent company bondholders, who, he claimed
bought Washington Mutual debt in September 2008, paying less than 1 cent on the
dollar.

Parent company debt has been trading above 100 cents on the dollar, driven by
hopes of a deal that will send most of the billions left in the wreckage of
WaMu into the pockets of those who bet on the parent company.


(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and
those under bankruptcy protection.)

The news was bad, just shareholders try to spin it positively to comfort themselves and not sell. Remember before the hearing, everyone was saying how it will be the best news ever that the Judge will disallow the WMB bondholder claims and the reverse happened. The market is reflecting this. Any claims from WMB Bondholders will further slice the pie, now even the Hs are in danger of not getting anything.

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx

The news wasn't bad, it was the interpretation of Judge Walrath disallowing the WMB bondholders that was not fully vetted. On the surface, it would be great if they were gone, because that means more money for equity. However, what Judge Walrath did yesterday was bad news for JPM and FDIC because if will force discovery, and testimony about the state of WMB at the time the pre-seizure WMB bondholders bought in. It puts JPM and FDIC on a precarious position. The problem is that no one considered the deeper issue here - except the one person who really matters; Judge Walrath. The MM's would have tanked equity regardless of yesterday's outcome, they do it everytime after a court hearing. Here is a good analysis from Mary at Y: "However, this decision is very bad for JPM , the FDIC, and the WMI bondholders (who are running the debtor's shop at the moment). Now comes a lot of discovery and testimony about the condition of the bank at the time that the securities were sold which will be very damaging, I suspect, to JPM and the FDIC. This also destroys the POR that JPM and the WMI bondholders had been hoping for. The WMI bondholders were looking to a quick payout and a bonanza from the excess. Now they are going to have to get their money the old-fashioned way...by earning it. There will be no payout for them unless and until the WMB bondholders are defeated. Same for JPM. In the meantime, the litigation against JPM and the FDIC will likely get support and the cash and assets of WMB at the time of the seizure are brought into the record. For example, the EC will be able to defeat any POR that does not recognize and distribute the assets that can be shown as belonging to WMI at the time of the seizure. So...on its surface this decision was neutral for equity at best but since it hurts our opponents it should be very helpful under the surface. The main thing that we have to worry about now is that the debtors might reach some sort of new settlement with JPM, the WMB bondholders, and the FDIC but, based on the court's decision, such a plan would still face an insurmountable barrier to approval in bankruptcy court unless it resolved other outstanding claims which seems unlikely, to put it mildly. This case has acquired a momentum of its own that none of the concerned parties can stop now. Finally, the new Dewey and Leboeuf law firm looks much more appropriate to represent the EC for the litigation that is now upcoming. They are twice the size of Venable and are much more litigation focused. The only bad thing from yesterday that I can see is that a quick settlement (including all parties including equity) now appears very unlikely. "

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx

 

"Without any type of shareholder input in corporate governance since well before the bankruptcy, WMI (Washington Mutual Inc.) is attempting to settle its most significant outstanding claims while leaving shareholders with nothing," the equity committee argued. "Unless and until a board meeting is held to elect new directors, the equity committee harbors serious concerns that the global settlement may not reflect a fair and appropriate valuation of the underlying litigation."

That proposed "global settlement" of WMI's claims against JPMorgan and the FDIC, as outlined by WMI last month, would provide it more than $6 billion, including disputed deposits now at JPMorgan and a share of the bank's expected tax refunds. But that's a long way from covering WMI's debts.

WMI "very strenuously opposed the motion that was argued today — they very badly do not want there to be a shareholders meeting, and argued to the court that if a meeting occurred it would threaten the viability of the settlement," said Folse.

A spokesman for WMI was not immediately available for comment.

WMI called the shareholder committee's move an attempt to "seize control" and "implement new, imprudent 'swing for the fences' litigation strategies," according to court documents. It argued, among other things, that a lawsuit to force a shareholders meeting would be a "clear abuse" of the bankruptcy process.

It also requested 180 days to procure audited financial statements for 2008 and 2009 and to prepare a proxy statement for any shareholders meeting.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011662844_wamu22.html

NEW YORK, May 1 (Reuters) - Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.PK) on Friday asked a U.S. bankruptcy court to let it probe whether JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) had unlawfully damaged its former thrift unit's assets in order to buy it "on the cheap," at $1.9 billion, last September.

 

WaMu, the bankrupt holding company of what was Washington Mutual Bank, filed a motion in U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware, charging that JPMorgan engaged in "sham negotiations" designed to get confidential information out of WaMu and gain an unfair advantage in buying its assets.

 

The request cited a federal lawsuit brought by WaMu stakeholders against JPMorgan in Texas in February. The suit claims that in the summer of 2008 JPMorgan leaked false and harmful information from WaMu's financial records, in an attempt to deflate its value and purchase WaMu's assets at a fire-sale price.

 

A JPMorgan spokeswoman said the firm does not comment on pending litigation.

 

WaMu's collapse was the largest U.S. bank failure in history. The bank was seized by U.S. regulators on Sept. 25 and its deposits immediately sold to JPMorgan.

 

The surviving holding company filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware a day later, with $32.9 billion in assets, including several corporate entities, real estate assets and an insurance business.

 

WaMu said in court documents that if the claims in the Texas suit turn out to be true, JPMorgan could be held responsible for the "destruction" of the parent company and the "total losses suffered by its creditors and shareholders."

 

WaMu said it wanted to investigate whether the sale could be classified as a fraudulent transfer, so that WaMu's creditors could get their money back, or whether it could sue JPMorgan for other claims like unfair competition, breach of contract, and misappropriation of confidential information.

 

WaMu, once the largest U.S. savings and loan, claimed in court documents that JPMorgan had "long coveted" the bank's depositor base.

 

The request was the second legal action taken by WaMu against JPMorgan this week.

 

WaMu sued JPMorgan on Tuesday seeking the return of more than $4 billion in cash deposits it lost access to when its bank was sold last year. In that suit WaMu said that JPMorgan wrongfully claims it acquired the deposits as part of the takeover transaction, but that they should have been treated like any other deposit at the bank. [ID:nN28309126]

 

Also last month, WaMu sued the FDIC for more than $13 billion, arguing that JPMorgan paid too little for its bank business and that more money should be available for creditors.

 

A hearing on WaMu's request to investigate JPMorgan is set for May 20, according to court documents. (Reporting by Emily Chasan; Additional reporting by Elinor Comlay;

 

www.reuters.com/article/idINN0135928320090502

...artikel ist 1jahr alt :(

AH : 22.34 35,8295$ - 3600

WaMu Shareholders Win Court Investigation of Biggest U.S. Bank Failure

Shareholders of Washington Mutual Inc. won court approval of a new investigation of the biggest U.S. bank failure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath in Wilmington, Delaware, agreed that an examiner should be appointed to review WaMu’s assets, including the value of a potential lawsuit against JPMorgan and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for their role in the 2008 collapse of Washington Mutual Bank.

Shareholders claim that lawsuit could be worth $30 billion, a figure disputed by the FDIC, WaMu and its creditors.

“An examiner is necessary both to reduce the cost of litigation and to ensure that all parties have a forum,” Walrath said.

WaMu, based in Seattle, dropped its opposition today to a new investigation, provided that it did not cause a long delay in its proposal to distribute more than $6 billion to creditors.

Walrath said the examiner should file a preliminary work plan by Aug. 6. She also said the examiner would immediately meet with the FDIC and other critics of a potential lawsuit to hear their arguments.

A preliminary report on the examiner’s findings should be presented to the court at its Sept. 7 hearing, Walrath said.

WaMu argued that an investigation should be limited and last no longer than 75 days. Shareholders proposed giving an examiner 120 days to file a preliminary report.

WaMu agreed not to sue JPMorgan and the FDIC as part of a settlement that splits almost $10 billion in cash and tax refunds. That agreement expires Aug. 30.

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

www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/...of-biggest-u-s-bank-failure.html

JPM WManalystpresentation von 09/25/2008.

 

files.shareholder.com/downloads/ONE/416710485x0x236634/b5a3d70a-28ac-4148-8966-71b18408c8c3/JPM_WManalystpresentation.pdf

... wollen die Pref`s denn da auf einmal hin? ;)

Investors suing Washington Mutual Inc., the former owner of the biggest U.S. bank to fail, won certification as a class-action case of their suit alleging shoddy lending practices.

Shareholders who lost money on stock purchased from October 2005 to July 2008 can proceed with claims under a single lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle ruled Tuesday, according to court documents. The judge appointed the New York-based law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann to lead the plaintiffs' case.

The lawsuit consolidates more than 20 cases filed against Washington Mutual that claim the bank secretly lowered lending standards, artificially inflated home-price appraisals and failed to disclose its deteriorating financial condition when the loans began to fail.

John Wolfe, an attorney representing Washington Mutual defendants, didn't immediately return a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The named plaintiffs in the case include Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, the largest single-profession pension plan in Canada, and four other pension groups, according to court documents.

They seek to represent tens of thousands of shareholders who lost money on three types of preferred stock purchased between October 2005 and July 2008 and certain securities offered by the bank in 2006 and 2007.

The shareholders argued the case should be granted class-action status because their claims are typical of what other investors experienced and are based on common legal issues.

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

Pechman ruled Sept. 28 that a separate federal shareholder lawsuit in Seattle claiming the bank misled purchasers of $10.8 billion in mortgage-backed securities could proceed.

Separately, WaMu said Wednesday the Internal Revenue Service has paid it $4.77 billion of an expected tax refund of up to $5.8 billion. A proposed agreement on dividing that money between WaMu, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC requires approval by various parties to WaMu's bankruptcy case

.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013154427_wamu14.html

The several years it usually takes--and the attorneys' fees accumulated over those many years--is what often eats up a good percentage of the "per share" settlement any court grants.

Usually the court decision and final settlement notice itself will lay out the total award of the court, and how much is expected to be absorbed by attorneys' fees. The notice indicates that the final amount you receive may vary from the exact amount, because it's dependent on all members of the class returning their paperwork/proofs. It usually includes a line that says if ALL members of the class file their paperwork properly, that you are "expected" to receive $x.xx per share.

This way you can decide whether the amount you'll actually receive warrants filling out all the paperwork.

det

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview

The Preferreds Will Be The Final Battleground

 

The debtors' have stopped their POR waterfall right above the preferreds. They have attempted recently to insert the Caymans and WMB bondholders as higher priorities above the preferreds but that will not fly in BK court.

In fact their attempt to insert the WMB bondholders above the preferreds indicates to me they know there is too much money in the estate to try and keep preferreds below face value so they used this transparent scheme to divert money from the preferreds.

I have felt for the last 12 months that the battle will come down between the EC and the debtors over how much the preferreds will get paid. If they are made whole and commons are in the money then the debtors are out and equity takes over the company and the litigation.WGM is out and the scumbag allaince of the FDIC, JPM and the vulture hedge funds come squarely into Susman's gunsights.

If the debtors can manage to pay anything less than face for the preferreds then the commons are cancelled and the debtors retain control of the reorganized company. If the commons get even a dime after the preferreds are paid then the EC wins.

Make no mistake about it. This is a high stakes battle not only in terms of financial reward/loss but also in terms of potential criminal charges against those who are currently committing bankruptcy fraud.

It is imperative for Susman and the EC to make sure the preferreds gat paid off 100% because if they do not I am afraid enough of the preferreds are in weak hands that they would approve the debtors POR to cancel commons if they offer even 40% of face.

I personally think that the EC is aware of this and are prepared to counter any attempt by the debtors to do an end run via the prefferred voting block.

messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview