Si Ten, es un tema procesal.
Te doy mi opinión, para la jueza este caso es un life time case, ella podrá ser parcial, como tantos otros jueces, pero todo lo que haga en este caso se estudiará con lupa así que cosas ilegales creo que va a hacer pocas.
Si quedara constancia que el dia29 se aprueba y solo falta un tramite administrativo pero no creo que sea automatico,en cualquier caso la juez no ha hablado en esos terminos de decir que lo aprobara formalmente el dia 29???por cierto estas dentro del valor???salu2
No, no es el día 29. Me refería a que hoy es el vigésimo noveno día.
El dia 29 de que?
que sepa llevamos 60 dias para el DS -
No lo entiendo,puedes explicar el tema procesal por favor??
No puede aprobar el examiner porque el EC tiene presentada una mocion de apelacion en Instancias Superiores,el EC primero tendra que anular esa apelacion y presentar una nueva mocion de apelacion ante THJMW,en ese caso THJMW
sí aprobara el examiner(THJMW dixit),IMHO
When Judge Walrath adjourned the hearing until the 17th the usual chorus of 'She Didn't Do What Equity Wants' complainers appeared. These quick on the keyboard attackers don't know or care how judges make decisions; they simply want to be able to yell 'yahoo' for what they think is a ruling in their favor.
The reality is that Judge Walrath was blindsided by the Wachtel (Third Circuit (HER circuit) case (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063... and was unwilling to risk committing reversible error by ruling in the EC's favor without thoroughly reviewing that case. It is NOT a Chapter 11 case, so she was understandably required to accept at face value the debtor's assertion that it was controlling and wisely adjourned.
Once she's digested the ruling and all relevant precedent she'll be in a position to rule on whether WMI must share discovery and work product with the EC or whether she should reverse herself and authorize an examiner (you'll notice Weil readily used her own reasoning as to why an examiner was not necessary). Moreover, she'll need to distinguish or qualify her prior ruling on the examiner question as well.
Though she strenuously asserted that WMI and the EC are on the same side WMI ably anticipated this argument and forestalled her with Wachtel. (Indeed, if anyone is to blame it is the Susman team for not briefing and discrediting Wachtel.)
Anyway, delaying doesn't mean winning and in two weeks the judge will have either found a way around Wachtel or decided to reverse herself on the examiner question. She behaved very competently and showed her belief that the debtor is acting against its own client, i.e., equity. Her mind won't change on that point in two weeks
-------------------------------------------------
There was real indignation in the court's voice as she parried with Weil about just who Weil and the Debtor represent. If Weil had not been ready with the Wachtel case she certainly would have ordered the discovery and the work product therefrom (Weil's conclusions about JPM and the FDIC, including the fruits of any investigations) handed over to the EC. If she can't get around Wachtel she can reverse her position on the examiner (most likely as it will allow a thorough investigation). At this point I don't see how she can't appoint an examiner as she clearly believes the debtor is obfuscating valuable information. My guess is she regrets having denied the appointment in the first place (obviously she believed her order for discovery to be handed over to the EC would be complied with and was thwarted).
What is also key is there was no approval of the DS and given the court's remarks today she's clearly indicating her future denial of the DS, just as we predicted
----------------------------------------------
The only thing I regret in this case was my failure to anticipate WMI/Weil's treachery against equity. I simply could not have imagined a law firm assisting a client in breaching its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Today I got my suspicion confirmed that the court was as shocked as I was by what WMI and Weil did. This gives me some comfort though, unlike the court who has has no personal interest in the case, I shudder to think what WMI and Weil would have gotten away with but for the UST, Willingham and others.
-----------------------------------------------
Judges usually expect their orders to be obeyed, but, as I said at the outset Weil is no ordinary firm. Among other things, it is a firm that does not believe in conflicts of interest because it got to be a powerhouse by not declining business.
Weil knows which judges to bully and how to bully them. Judge Walrath is a contemplative, restrained, cautious jurist so Weil knows it should try to intimidate her with unexpected (non-Chapter 11 case) and potentially controlling precedent. That tactical move worked today but it only delayed the inevitable. The court is going to either get WMI to give up information or appoint an examiner to dig for information on its own account
BOPFAN
