Sigue aprobando POR 7 y siguen trabajando en el documento Q&A.
Estaba al corriente del fallo y era de esperar.
Preferentes han salvado un peldaño pero jeje suben comunes en vez de preferentes.
No se a quien quieren engañar pero a mi desde luego que no lo van a conseguir.
Lamento a los que lleven DIME hoy debe ser un duro dia.
y... mientras tanto las DIMEQ derruumbadas, preferentes cayendo dia a dia... , en el EC siguen callados como PUTAS
To those who have dispatched letters to Judge Sleet: “Thank You”.
I’ve never encouraged anyone to do anything like this; I fervently believe that there is no downside to our efforts; and believe there could be significant upside if the TPS consortium does what I think it will do by pressing the higher court(s) to hear its appeal before it is equitably mooted.
If you think about it, the notion that someone’s appeal could be lost (through no fault of his own) by someone else ‘killing’ the appeal, as Judge Walrath proposes to do, you see how hostile our American jurisprudential system is to ‘equitable mooting’. Judge Walrath, the court whose decisions (i.e., legal judgment) are being challenged, should not have the power to both make rulings and to still the voices questioning those rulings. Allowing her to wield the power of life or death over the EC’s and TPSC’s appeals is antithetical to our American legal system and sense of fair play. What she proposes to do by allowing the equitable mootness is silence the voices of people who have said she ‘could’ be wrong. The American legal system has judicial and administrative appeals precisely because there must be a channel to redress human error, bias, malfeasance, etc., or our system would be vulnerable to the corruption that emerges when there is no mechanism to redress autocratic decisions, however egregious. Equitable mootness is a threat to that system, and by writing to Judge Sleet we’re taking action to limit its danger to the system in general, and to us, WMI shareholders, in particular.
Some people who may view the letter favorably are waiting to read the EC’s Q&A before sending their letters -- if they send them. I respect that view. I never thought of the Sleet letter as being in any way connected with what the EC is doing with respect to the plan. My thoughts were the EC believed it was making the best of the tough hand it was dealt; I view the Sleet letter as a weapon for the last battles to radically improve the EC’s hand. If TPS is successful in getting Judge Sleet to stay confirmation and he reverses one or both of the appealed rulings, the EC’s hand will have been dramatically strengthened. In my view, TPS has been more aggressive with promoting its appeal (which, I believe, was filed after the EC’s), and if this is true I do not understand the EC’s lack of aggression. The cynic in me whispers that there may be some benefit in the plan to the EC’s leadership which would make TPS’ success in seeking a stay less than welcome, but there is no evidence of this so for now I’m viewing the EC’s (and it’s counsel’s) actions as made in good faith.
Nevertheless, if TPS is successful in obtaining a stay pending resolution of its appeal, I will be the first to join a lynch mob if the EC does not move to consolidate its appeal with the TPS appeal. Make no mistake: a stay pending appeal will not kill either the settlement with the SNs or the GSA. If Judge Walrath’s rulings are upheld the settlement(s) will go through as planned as JPM/FDIC will never relinquish the GSA and the SNs will still have the sword of IT hanging over their heads.
I say the letter is a good idea, and from what I’ve heard some of my most strident detractors also support the campaign. This is one effort where we have a real advantage over our well-funded adversaries: our numbers. For the price of a stamp we might just kill F and R and shave $4B off the estate’s liabilities.
Pero ¿por que leches publicais cosas del tal Bobfan? Si no da ni una, a parte de qeu no ha acertado con ninguna de sus predicciones, etc,etc. Ese si que es un autentico pumper que aparece y desaparece como el Guadiana.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229120104000000000014.pdf
Rosen objeta al Stay of Appeal. La cosa va a estar complicada si Juez Sleet no toma una decisión que cambie el curso de la Historia.
http://www.geishababy.com/wamu/#POR7VotingAnalyzer
Un buen analizador de intención de voto e instrucciones
Los abogados de TPS han demostrado ser mas competentes que Susman, no van a dejar confirmar este POR, o se modifica o la Juez volverá a rechazarlo.
