Jason, I think both of us (Kuwl and myself) are looking in the same place for info because someone posted the same info Kuwl posted above (and the info in his prior post) in the same place I've been reading. However, my post you quoted is not referring to the same thing Kuwl posted just now. My post referred to someone outright buying shares at the close on Friday. He's talking about calls/puts, totally different. However I think both seem to indicate that good news on the horizon, potentially very soon.
Here's some great info from another invidivual that I find highly intelligent as to the happenings of WAMUQ (these are usually from Investorshub, not yahoo ... i dont care for the yahoo board guys, they fuss all the time):
"It appears to me that Weil/Quinn were very smart to keep the assets off the table. Last December we all waited anxiously to see what the A/L ratio would be. After all in WMI's intial BK filing they claimed $32B in assets and $8B in debt. Surely assets would be well ahead of debt. Then we get an incomplete report reporting: Assets $7B and debt $8B. What happened? All of the disputed assets were put into a holding escrow, eg. Providian, Bank of America Stock, WMBfsb, etc. By insuring assets less than liabilities we are held tight in THJMW's court. If assets exceed liabilities we could be thrown out because technically we are not bankrupt at that point. Next, Weil sues JPMC and the FDIC over the disputed claims. JPMC and the FDIC counter sued WMI. Huge mistake! By doing so they enacted the 2004 discovery rule, which has become the driving imputus for settlement. JPMC has since tried to dismiss their own suit. Too late, too bad. Once it has entered into the court proceedings it cannot be withdrawn and THJMW will ultimately have to rule. The only exception would be a settlement.
Weil was extremely clever in not accounting for the disputed assets but rather allow THJMW to determine the outcome. JPMC has lost in court, they were simply out manuvered by Weil. Now with the 2004 discovery rule on WMI side it is only a matter of time. JPMC has no where to run and no where to hide. I am confident JD's plan was simply to allow this to run in court for years, while JPMC got all of the benefits from having raped and assumed WAMU. Now, they are going to have to settle or go thru discovery and a jury trial. Their goose is cooked.
Weil/Quinn have been brilliant to this point which leads me to believe they are not asleep behind the wheel regarding the delays surrounding discovery. The only rational answer is that the two parties are extremely close to settlement. Hence allowing the delays as a measure of good faith by WMI. I like Dr.R's idea of comparing Bears Stearns settlement to our own. For some reason known only to the board of JPMC they like a two stage approach, offer a little followed by alot. Probably helps their stockholders grasp what's going.
IMHO, I think the one year anniversary date is significant. Up until that date the purchase agreement can be altered. It would be very easy for JD to simply change that agreement and say in light of all we have discovered WMI is worth $4/s. Having placed a value on Providian, the $4.4B, WMBfsb & $17B, and all other assets, we feel a fair price is $4/s. Approved by THJMW, not! Then later the "global settlement" $12/s+. It would be much more pallitable for JPMC shareholders if delivered in such a manner."
"It appears to me that Weil/Quinn were very smart to keep the assets off the table. Last December we all waited anxiously to see what the A/L ratio would be. After all in WMI's intial BK filing they claimed $32B in assets and $8B in debt. Surely assets would be well ahead of debt. Then we get an incomplete report reporting: Assets $7B and debt $8B. What happened? All of the disputed assets were put into a holding escrow, eg. Providian, Bank of America Stock, WMBfsb, etc. By insuring assets less than liabilities we are held tight in THJMW's court. If assets exceed liabilities we could be thrown out because technically we are not bankrupt at that point. Next, Weil sues JPMC and the FDIC over the disputed claims. JPMC and the FDIC counter sued WMI. Huge mistake! By doing so they enacted the 2004 discovery rule, which has become the driving imputus for settlement. JPMC has since tried to dismiss their own suit. Too late, too bad. Once it has entered into the court proceedings it cannot be withdrawn and THJMW will ultimately have to rule. The only exception would be a settlement.
Weil was extremely clever in not accounting for the disputed assets but rather allow THJMW to determine the outcome. JPMC has lost in court, they were simply out manuvered by Weil. Now with the 2004 discovery rule on WMI side it is only a matter of time. JPMC has no where to run and no where to hide. I am confident JD's plan was simply to allow this to run in court for years, while JPMC got all of the benefits from having raped and assumed WAMU. Now, they are going to have to settle or go thru discovery and a jury trial. Their goose is cooked.
Weil/Quinn have been brilliant to this point which leads me to believe they are not asleep behind the wheel regarding the delays surrounding discovery. The only rational answer is that the two parties are extremely close to settlement. Hence allowing the delays as a measure of good faith by WMI. I like Dr.R's idea of comparing Bears Stearns settlement to our own. For some reason known only to the board of JPMC they like a two stage approach, offer a little followed by alot. Probably helps their stockholders grasp what's going.
IMHO, I think the one year anniversary date is significant. Up until that date the purchase agreement can be altered. It would be very easy for JD to simply change that agreement and say in light of all we have discovered WMI is worth $4/s. Having placed a value on Providian, the $4.4B, WMBfsb & $17B, and all other assets, we feel a fair price is $4/s. Approved by THJMW, not! Then later the "global settlement" $12/s+. It would be much more pallitable for JPMC shareholders if delivered in such a manner."
Info above, but here's another great theory that gives you indicators to watch for in JPM's stock price:
"Dr. is on track with the low-ball initial offering. I feel Weil is on target of 3X initail offering in March = $24 pps. Jpmc can not settle this until treasury auctions the warrants, treasury will not auction the warrants until the share price allows a good return for the tax <NOBR style="COLOR: darkgreen; FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_2_0>payer
</NOBR>. We may see an artificial run-up in share price of JPM starting this week, to get their price up 10%.
Geithner has promised to be a "good stewart" of the people's money and he will maintain the "good will" he has promised to Congress. He has shown that the TARP plan profitable in regards to ROI originally. He wil make sure those warrnats make at least 10% for the people. 6% is allowable, but 10% is a major accomplishment, Imagine if he was obtain 20%.
PPS for Warrants as per drrugby's post of doc is $42.24 X.10 =
$4.24 = total pps of 46.50. A fixed price point for the warrants. Do the math, the treasury is still holding the warrants, JD says "Auction them" because they can not arrive at a fair price for buyback "JPMC is GREEDY!"
Now JPM does not have the capital to buyout all of WMI, but they do have the capital to buy out the prefs, assume the bonds (with back interest paid [as per no bds plz's post]) and swap the stock of WMI on a 1:3 basis for ours. JPMC has 10BIL A/S and 3.9 bil O/S dilluting further is not a problem, since the warrants will do the same. If JPMC buys back the warrants, that is a sign, they do not want to dillute the compnay further or they need to get that debt back in order to make the board happy about bringing in a :whole boat load of new shareholders."
AS per my own observation, all of this is my own opinion and I love to start the mind up and figure out these things. Kind of like a puzzle. 'The mind is like a parachute, it must be open to work!"
"Dr. is on track with the low-ball initial offering. I feel Weil is on target of 3X initail offering in March = $24 pps. Jpmc can not settle this until treasury auctions the warrants, treasury will not auction the warrants until the share price allows a good return for the tax <NOBR style="COLOR: darkgreen; FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_2_0>payer
</NOBR>. We may see an artificial run-up in share price of JPM starting this week, to get their price up 10%. Geithner has promised to be a "good stewart" of the people's money and he will maintain the "good will" he has promised to Congress. He has shown that the TARP plan profitable in regards to ROI originally. He wil make sure those warrnats make at least 10% for the people. 6% is allowable, but 10% is a major accomplishment, Imagine if he was obtain 20%.
PPS for Warrants as per drrugby's post of doc is $42.24 X.10 =
$4.24 = total pps of 46.50. A fixed price point for the warrants. Do the math, the treasury is still holding the warrants, JD says "Auction them" because they can not arrive at a fair price for buyback "JPMC is GREEDY!"
Now JPM does not have the capital to buyout all of WMI, but they do have the capital to buy out the prefs, assume the bonds (with back interest paid [as per no bds plz's post]) and swap the stock of WMI on a 1:3 basis for ours. JPMC has 10BIL A/S and 3.9 bil O/S dilluting further is not a problem, since the warrants will do the same. If JPMC buys back the warrants, that is a sign, they do not want to dillute the compnay further or they need to get that debt back in order to make the board happy about bringing in a :whole boat load of new shareholders."
AS per my own observation, all of this is my own opinion and I love to start the mind up and figure out these things. Kind of like a puzzle. 'The mind is like a parachute, it must be open to work!"
By: Staff Writer
Mffais.com
Published: Friday, September 4, 2009
American Funds Insurance Series-Growth Fund Added More shares of Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.OB). The number of shares affected was 13,280,000 which was a 5810.01% change from the 228,571 number of shares. The ending number of shares of Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.OB) owned by American Funds Insurance Series-Growth Fund at the time reported was 13,508,571, these transaction(s) occurred on/as-of 2009-06-30 but information regarding them was just made public today.
http://www.mffais.com/newsarticles/2009-09-04/2576300-100246
Mffais.com
Published: Friday, September 4, 2009
American Funds Insurance Series-Growth Fund Added More shares of Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.OB). The number of shares affected was 13,280,000 which was a 5810.01% change from the 228,571 number of shares. The ending number of shares of Washington Mutual Inc (WAMUQ.OB) owned by American Funds Insurance Series-Growth Fund at the time reported was 13,508,571, these transaction(s) occurred on/as-of 2009-06-30 but information regarding them was just made public today.
http://www.mffais.com/newsarticles/2009-09-04/2576300-100246
any comments ?
“People lost so much money last year and they are so desperate to recoup their losses, that they are willing to invest in anything,” said Brad Golding, portfolio manager of CRC Financials Opportunity hedge fund in the Cayman Islands. “Everyone wants a lottery ticket.”
After Lehman collapsed last September, Barclays Bank and Nomura bought substantial parts of its business. That left a holding company largely containing toxic mortgage assets and derivatives potentially amounting to billions of dollars that are still being unwound.
Lehman shares peaked last week at 32 cents, having spent much of the year at less than 5 cents. When the rally in Lehman began in late August, trading volume soared above 100m shares on one day, compared with virtually no activity earlier in the year. Lehman shares closed last week at 14 cents with trading volumes on Friday reaching just over 11m shares.
Shares in Washington Mutual and IndyMac, two other bankrupt financial institutions, have also risen sharply in recent days.
Traders say Lehman and WaMu have more debt than cash, meaning they have no equity value and that buying their shares is a forlorn cause.
“It is tulip mania,” said Mr Golding. “People have decided [a stock] is worth something based on nothing. The facts are quite the contrary.”
Trading in the delisted stocks of companies that have filed for bankruptcy takes place in private, over-the-counter deals, rather than on a registered exchange. More often that not, a sharp rise in the stock price of a bankrupt company reflects speculation about the recovery value prospects.
The rally in Lehman shares has followed explosive rises in the share price of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage companies taken over by the US government last year. Shares in AIG and to a lesser extent Citi, two companies with significant US government ownership, have also risen sharply in recent weeks.
“People lost so much money last year and they are so desperate to recoup their losses, that they are willing to invest in anything,” said Brad Golding, portfolio manager of CRC Financials Opportunity hedge fund in the Cayman Islands. “Everyone wants a lottery ticket.”
After Lehman collapsed last September, Barclays Bank and Nomura bought substantial parts of its business. That left a holding company largely containing toxic mortgage assets and derivatives potentially amounting to billions of dollars that are still being unwound.
Lehman shares peaked last week at 32 cents, having spent much of the year at less than 5 cents. When the rally in Lehman began in late August, trading volume soared above 100m shares on one day, compared with virtually no activity earlier in the year. Lehman shares closed last week at 14 cents with trading volumes on Friday reaching just over 11m shares.
Shares in Washington Mutual and IndyMac, two other bankrupt financial institutions, have also risen sharply in recent days.
Traders say Lehman and WaMu have more debt than cash, meaning they have no equity value and that buying their shares is a forlorn cause.
“It is tulip mania,” said Mr Golding. “People have decided [a stock] is worth something based on nothing. The facts are quite the contrary.”
Trading in the delisted stocks of companies that have filed for bankruptcy takes place in private, over-the-counter deals, rather than on a registered exchange. More often that not, a sharp rise in the stock price of a bankrupt company reflects speculation about the recovery value prospects.
The rally in Lehman shares has followed explosive rises in the share price of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage companies taken over by the US government last year. Shares in AIG and to a lesser extent Citi, two companies with significant US government ownership, have also risen sharply in recent weeks.
Lol, who cares about silly postings like that ... these analyst dont know anything. But I love the publicity, more attention to WAMUQ for us. Any news is good news in this situation.
I cant recommend you buy anymore than you have, because I dont know your financial situation. I'll repeat myself by saying this is a Win/Win situation from the current price level. It's up to you if you feel like putting more on the line. I currently have 45000 shares now, been adding at .16 today. I dont mind putting more on the table because I'm confident we'll get settlement money. Do you own DD and make that decision for yourself. : )
I cant recommend you buy anymore than you have, because I dont know your financial situation. I'll repeat myself by saying this is a Win/Win situation from the current price level. It's up to you if you feel like putting more on the line. I currently have 45000 shares now, been adding at .16 today. I dont mind putting more on the table because I'm confident we'll get settlement money. Do you own DD and make that decision for yourself. : )
Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Rules 2004 Exam Proper Even Though Four Adversary Actions are Pending
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ba...ough-four-adversary-actions-are-pending-.html
Brief by UWLA Law Student, Sara Hussain:
In re Washington Mutual, Inc., 408 B.R. 45 (Bkrtcy D. Delaware, June, 2009)
ISSUE: Does the existence of four pending adversary proceedings or other litigation between the parties require denial of a requested 2004 examination?
HOLDING: No.
Judge Mary Walrath
The chapter 11 debtor filed a motion for a 2004 exam directing the examination of JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JPM”). “For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Debtors' Motion.” Prior to the filing of a chapter 11 petition, Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) was a savings and loan holding company, which owned Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”). “Deteriorating confidence in WMB fueled a bank run beginning September 15, with $16.7 billion in deposits withdrawn over a ten-day period.” On September 25, 2008, FDIC took over WMB. It was the largest bank failure in the nation's history. Immediately after its appointment as receiver, the FDIC sold substantially all the assets of WMB to JPM. On September 26, the Debtors filed chapter 11 petitions.
The Debtors filed proofs of claim with the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of WMB which the FDIC denied. On March 20, 2009, the Debtors filed suit in the United States District Court against the FDIC (the “DC Action”) with the following five counts: (1) seeking review of the FDIC's denial of the Debtors' proofs of claim; (2) wrongful dissipation of WMB's assets; (3) taking of the Debtors' property without just compensation; (4) conversion of the Debtors' property; and (5) seeking a declaration that the FDIC's disallowance of the Debtors' claims is void. JPM moved to intervene in the DC Action; the Debtors have opposed JPM's motion to intervene.
JPM filed an adversary proceeding against the Debtors seeking declaratory judgments regarding the ownership of various assets which JPM asserts it acquired in good faith and for value from the FDIC (the “JPM Adversary Action”). The Debtors then filed an adversary proceeding against JPM seeking turnover of approximately $4 billion in cash held in demand deposit accounts in the name of the Debtors at WMB at the time WMB was seized and sold to JPM. JPM filed a motion to dismiss the Turnover Action; the Debtors filed a motion for summary judgment.
A fourth action was filed, in state court in Texas by a group of insurance companies which held common stock of WMI against JPM (the “Texas Action”). On March 25, 2009, the FDIC and JPM removed the Texas Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
ANALYSIS:
Rule 2004(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure states that “on motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.” The scope of a Rule 2004 examination is “unfettered and broad.” “The examination ... may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate. Additionally, in a case under chapter 11 ... the examination may also relate to the operation of any business and the desirability of its continuance, the source of any money or property acquired or to be acquired by the debtor for purposes of consummating a plan and the consideration given or offered therefor, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.”
“At issue in this case is the potential limitation on the use of the Rule 2004 examination device caused by the shadow of pending adversary proceedings or litigation in other forums. The ‘pending proceeding’ rule states ‘that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026 et seq., rather than by a Rule 2004 examination.’” In addition, courts have also recognized that Rule 2004 examinations may be inappropriate “where the party requesting the Rule 2004 examination could benefit their pending litigation outside of the bankruptcy court against the proposed Rule 2004 examinee.”
In this case, JPM argues that the 2004 examination is improper because it seeks to elicit information directly related to issues and parties already named in the JPM Adversary Action as well as the DC Action. However, the Court held that nothing in the document production request seeks any information related to the Turnover Action. “The requested Rule 2004 examination does seek extensive discovery related to the Texas Action and because the Debtor is not a party to the Texas Action, the requested 2004 examination is proper, even though it seeks information related to the Texas Action.”
JPM then argues that the Debtors' requested 2004 examination seeks documents related to the JPM Adversary Action. The JPM Adversary Action primarily seeks a series of declaratory judgments that JPM owns a number of disputed assets it asserts that it purchased when it acquired the assets of WMB from the FDIC. The Debtors' Motion seeks production of documents and related depositions relating to potential business tort claims, potential fraudulent transfer claims, potential turnover claims against JPM, and potential preferential transfer claims against JPM.
“The Court concludes that the Debtors' Motion does not seek the discovery of evidence ‘related’ to the JPM Adversary Action. With respect to the potential business tort claims, the Debtors seek to investigate conduct which occurred before the OTS closed WMB. In contrast, the JPM Adversary Action seeks to have the Court determine the ownership of certain disputed assets from the sale of WMB's assets to JPM, which occurred after the OTS closed WMB. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Debtors' Motion does not seek to discover evidence related to the JPM Adversary Action.”
JPM also argues that the Debtors' requested 2004 examination seeks documents related to the DC Action. However, JPM is not a party to the DC Action. “The possibility that JPM may intervene in the DC Action is not a sufficient reason to deny the Debtors' Motion at this time. The “pending proceeding” rule is predicated on there actually being a pending action involving the two parties.”
“[T]here is no justification to prevent the Rule 2004 examination of JPM simply because the Debtors may obtain evidence which could be used in a pending proceeding in which JPM is not yet a party. One of the primary purposes of a Rule 2004 examination is as a pre-litigation device. Consequently, the Court should not permit a party to avoid examination by simply filing a motion to intervene in a pending proceeding against a third party. Since JPM is not a party to the DC Action, the concern that the Debtors are attempting to circumvent the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not present. The ‘relatedness’ of the DC Action to the Debtors' requested 2004 examination is not relevant.”
With respect to the DC Action, the “Debtors seek to discover evidence regarding JPM's alleged malfeasance prior to the seizure and sale of WMB. JPM argues that discovery of this evidence is related to the Debtors alleged causes of action against the FDIC for dissipation of WMB's assets and the taking of Debtors' property without just compensation. However, these causes of action are premised on the FDIC's failure to maximize the value of the receivership's assets in the sale of WMB to JPM. Specifically, the Debtors assert the FDIC would have received a higher value through the liquidation of WMB than the sale to JPM. The requested 2004 examination does not seek to discover evidence related to the hypothetical liquidation analysis implicated in the dissipation and takings causes of action asserted in the DC Action.”
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ba...ough-four-adversary-actions-are-pending-.html
Brief by UWLA Law Student, Sara Hussain:
In re Washington Mutual, Inc., 408 B.R. 45 (Bkrtcy D. Delaware, June, 2009)
ISSUE: Does the existence of four pending adversary proceedings or other litigation between the parties require denial of a requested 2004 examination?
HOLDING: No.
Judge Mary Walrath
The chapter 11 debtor filed a motion for a 2004 exam directing the examination of JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JPM”). “For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Debtors' Motion.” Prior to the filing of a chapter 11 petition, Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) was a savings and loan holding company, which owned Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”). “Deteriorating confidence in WMB fueled a bank run beginning September 15, with $16.7 billion in deposits withdrawn over a ten-day period.” On September 25, 2008, FDIC took over WMB. It was the largest bank failure in the nation's history. Immediately after its appointment as receiver, the FDIC sold substantially all the assets of WMB to JPM. On September 26, the Debtors filed chapter 11 petitions.
The Debtors filed proofs of claim with the FDIC in its capacity as receiver of WMB which the FDIC denied. On March 20, 2009, the Debtors filed suit in the United States District Court against the FDIC (the “DC Action”) with the following five counts: (1) seeking review of the FDIC's denial of the Debtors' proofs of claim; (2) wrongful dissipation of WMB's assets; (3) taking of the Debtors' property without just compensation; (4) conversion of the Debtors' property; and (5) seeking a declaration that the FDIC's disallowance of the Debtors' claims is void. JPM moved to intervene in the DC Action; the Debtors have opposed JPM's motion to intervene.
JPM filed an adversary proceeding against the Debtors seeking declaratory judgments regarding the ownership of various assets which JPM asserts it acquired in good faith and for value from the FDIC (the “JPM Adversary Action”). The Debtors then filed an adversary proceeding against JPM seeking turnover of approximately $4 billion in cash held in demand deposit accounts in the name of the Debtors at WMB at the time WMB was seized and sold to JPM. JPM filed a motion to dismiss the Turnover Action; the Debtors filed a motion for summary judgment.
A fourth action was filed, in state court in Texas by a group of insurance companies which held common stock of WMI against JPM (the “Texas Action”). On March 25, 2009, the FDIC and JPM removed the Texas Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
ANALYSIS:
Rule 2004(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure states that “on motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.” The scope of a Rule 2004 examination is “unfettered and broad.” “The examination ... may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate. Additionally, in a case under chapter 11 ... the examination may also relate to the operation of any business and the desirability of its continuance, the source of any money or property acquired or to be acquired by the debtor for purposes of consummating a plan and the consideration given or offered therefor, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.”
“At issue in this case is the potential limitation on the use of the Rule 2004 examination device caused by the shadow of pending adversary proceedings or litigation in other forums. The ‘pending proceeding’ rule states ‘that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026 et seq., rather than by a Rule 2004 examination.’” In addition, courts have also recognized that Rule 2004 examinations may be inappropriate “where the party requesting the Rule 2004 examination could benefit their pending litigation outside of the bankruptcy court against the proposed Rule 2004 examinee.”
In this case, JPM argues that the 2004 examination is improper because it seeks to elicit information directly related to issues and parties already named in the JPM Adversary Action as well as the DC Action. However, the Court held that nothing in the document production request seeks any information related to the Turnover Action. “The requested Rule 2004 examination does seek extensive discovery related to the Texas Action and because the Debtor is not a party to the Texas Action, the requested 2004 examination is proper, even though it seeks information related to the Texas Action.”
JPM then argues that the Debtors' requested 2004 examination seeks documents related to the JPM Adversary Action. The JPM Adversary Action primarily seeks a series of declaratory judgments that JPM owns a number of disputed assets it asserts that it purchased when it acquired the assets of WMB from the FDIC. The Debtors' Motion seeks production of documents and related depositions relating to potential business tort claims, potential fraudulent transfer claims, potential turnover claims against JPM, and potential preferential transfer claims against JPM.
“The Court concludes that the Debtors' Motion does not seek the discovery of evidence ‘related’ to the JPM Adversary Action. With respect to the potential business tort claims, the Debtors seek to investigate conduct which occurred before the OTS closed WMB. In contrast, the JPM Adversary Action seeks to have the Court determine the ownership of certain disputed assets from the sale of WMB's assets to JPM, which occurred after the OTS closed WMB. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Debtors' Motion does not seek to discover evidence related to the JPM Adversary Action.”
JPM also argues that the Debtors' requested 2004 examination seeks documents related to the DC Action. However, JPM is not a party to the DC Action. “The possibility that JPM may intervene in the DC Action is not a sufficient reason to deny the Debtors' Motion at this time. The “pending proceeding” rule is predicated on there actually being a pending action involving the two parties.”
“[T]here is no justification to prevent the Rule 2004 examination of JPM simply because the Debtors may obtain evidence which could be used in a pending proceeding in which JPM is not yet a party. One of the primary purposes of a Rule 2004 examination is as a pre-litigation device. Consequently, the Court should not permit a party to avoid examination by simply filing a motion to intervene in a pending proceeding against a third party. Since JPM is not a party to the DC Action, the concern that the Debtors are attempting to circumvent the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not present. The ‘relatedness’ of the DC Action to the Debtors' requested 2004 examination is not relevant.”
With respect to the DC Action, the “Debtors seek to discover evidence regarding JPM's alleged malfeasance prior to the seizure and sale of WMB. JPM argues that discovery of this evidence is related to the Debtors alleged causes of action against the FDIC for dissipation of WMB's assets and the taking of Debtors' property without just compensation. However, these causes of action are premised on the FDIC's failure to maximize the value of the receivership's assets in the sale of WMB to JPM. Specifically, the Debtors assert the FDIC would have received a higher value through the liquidation of WMB than the sale to JPM. The requested 2004 examination does not seek to discover evidence related to the hypothetical liquidation analysis implicated in the dissipation and takings causes of action asserted in the DC Action.”
I got 25,000 shares at an average of $0.1204 per share. I will be happy if this shit gets to $0.25 per share. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THIS TO GO TO $0 YOU DON'T NEED TO BE IN IT.
Thanks for all your insight and posts to this forum. I am in several of your recommendations with mixed results for now. Keep up the good work.
:toast:
Okay i bought 10,000 shares of wamuq as a flyer. Lets see if you are right. Ill send you a nice little gift if this hits $3.00
Just so we are clear.... i aint sending anybody shit if it hits $3. I will buy you a drink in a bar at a caribbean resort where all the expenses were paid via the gain on this. You will also be rewarded with me seeing you as my "sugar daddy", but there are no benefits to that title.
No sir, hold those LEHNQs -- those are the Capital Trusts, and they will get paid Full Face Value ... which I think is $25. Pick up some LEHPQs for the parlay though, more upside potential with those, and for the price theyre trading at (a measly $2.25), you'll be a happy camper when they start to run towards $20 (like the WAMPQs are at now).
