Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

Pienso sin haber leido el documento que la Juez está creando un autentico puzzle en el que hay varias lecturas:

1. La solución más sencilla sería... "señores Debtors,y EC
esto se puede alargar mucho tiempo ¿porque no se entienden de una puñetera vez y me quitan este peso de encima?

2. El mero hecho de rechazar el POR y dejar algunas ventanas abiertas puede permitir que el EC enderece un poco su rumbo... Rosen ¿te pones las pilas? o ¿le dejo al EC que te las ponga a ti?

3. Me han jodido, estaba lista para aprobar el POR pero las NOL´s de 5,5 Billones y el Confirmation Hearing me han hecho que tenga que recular en mi decisión. Voy a destapar la Caja de Pandora a ver que ocurre

Sea cual sea el caso, estamos en otro momento definitivo en el que lo que hagamos o dejemos de hacer marcará la diferencia en este caso.

Voy a seguir confiando en Susman Godfrey porque hasta ahora lo estan haciendo de cine dadas las circunstancias en las que nos encontrabamos.

Por último hay muchas cuestiones en las que la Juez al rechazar el Plan no está ni tan siquiera valorando como es por ejemplo el Federal Judgment Rate (FJR)

---------------------------------------------
En USA dicen:
key components and areas of opportunity IMHO: Releases, designation of WAHUQ, EC not being disbanded, NOLS moving forward.

You are correct, with POR7 there are still opportunities. There are some pretty big heavy's not getting releases, we'll see how that plays out. It's going to be one hell of a day on Monday and not all without opportunity. But, still a tough one.

Not shocked.

Conflict of Interest

Judge says No evidence to prove there was conflict of interest
Court rejects
the Plan Objectors’ argument that the potential conflict taints
the Global Settlement or makes it unapprovable.

Standard of review
Probability of Success

Burden of proof that The Court finds
that sufficient evidence of this kind has been presented by the
Plan Supporters in this case to determine whether the Global
Settlement is reasonable.

Tax Refunds

The Court concludes that the Debtors have a fair likelihood
of prevailing on the tax claims in the first instance. Even if
the Debtors were correct and the tax refunds were property of the
WMI estate, however, it would create a corresponding claim by
Even if JPMC is precluded from claiming the tax refunds 20
because it took TARP money or because it only bought WMB’s assets
and is not WMB’s successor, the FDIC as Receiver argued that it
had a claim to the portion of the tax refunds which is due to WMB
under the Tax Sharing Agreement.

JPMC (or the FDIC Receiver ) for the vast majority of those tax 20
refunds. Because creditors are being paid almost in full under
the Plan, the likelihood that the Debtors would succeed in
obtaining a net result better for the estate than the Global
Settlement with respect to the tax refund issue is not strong.

TPS

the Court finds it is
unlikely that the Debtors could achieve a result on the TPS claim
that is superior to the Global Settlement.

Lo lógico es que Susman deje apelar a los debtors para después exponer las opciones de los accinistas.

En definitiva estamos mejor que antes de denegar el POR

Precios para el próximo dia, espero al menos que se doblen

La opinión de la juez es muy chunga hacia nuestros intereses, o Susman saca algo contundente o con un POR 7 que arregle lo que le falle a este estamos jodidos. Trato sin ver claramente si esta denengación permite POR de competencia... seguiremos indangando

Saludos

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0722819020110107?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=43

En reuters dicen que la juez dice que el POR es razonable y emplaza a que se reescriban las partes que no son legales. Cada vez que leo más, me estoy pensando en retirar lo de que me equivoque con la juez, cada uno que saque sus conclusiones, el enlace con la sentencia de la juez está claro.

Saludos

1. Under
the Global Settlement, the Debtors will receive the entire
Deposit Accounts totaling almost $4 billion. The Court concludes
that the Debtors could not do any better than this if they had
continued to litigate rather than settle this claim.

2. The Court concludes that the Debtors have a fair likelihood
of prevailing on the tax claims in the first instance. Even if
the Debtors were correct and the tax refunds were property of the
WMI estate, however, it would create a corresponding claim by Even if JPMC is precluded from claiming the tax refunds
20
because it took TARP money or because it only bought WMB’s assets
and is not WMB’s successor, the FDIC as Receiver argued that it
had a claim to the portion of the tax refunds which is due to WMB
under the Tax Sharing Agreement.
30
JPMC (or the FDIC Receiver ) for the vast majority of those tax
20
refunds. Because creditors are being paid almost in full under
the Plan, the likelihood that the Debtors would succeed in
obtaining a net result better for the estate than the Global
Settlement with respect to the tax refund issue is not strong.

3. Given these difficult
legal issues and the other consideration being given to the
estates under the Global Settlement, the Court finds it is
unlikely that the Debtors could achieve a result on the TPS claim
that is superior to the Global Settlement.

Esto es el puñetero informe del examinador, menuda pajarraca...

Hombre Maxi, si no estás en contra nuestra después de todo...