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

For Information Only of email sent to trustee to support.

Dear Mr Mc Mahon, US Trustee

.....
My presentation takes its information mostly from the publicly posted documents of Kurtzman Carson Consulting website re Washington Mutual. Indeed it appears that the unofficial representations and representatives of equity interests, formed in the last 18 months, also used that site for information as to what is happening and that site, I believe, became the default formal communication tool of the governance people of the debtors to its constituents.

I, specifically assert that the board of directors of Washington Mutual, both immediately before seizure and perpetuated until now, perfected the model that equity holders can be wiped out and that whilst they have a stewardship responsibility of corporate assets and business preservation, they have no accountability to anyone.

The courtroom of Hon Justice M Walrath does not perform an expenditure audit function and the courts are clearly not intended as such. They authorize the engagement of professionals proposed by the debtors and then await for the debtors acceptance of services and subsequent billings.

It is easy for the debtor to mistake the process where the court approve engagements to mean that the court passed judgement on the debtors selection of those firms, or of the continued retention and usefulness of each one, of the results they delivered for the scope of their engagement, or the value of their engagement to the big picture.

Unless of course if the big picture presented to the firms are to wipe out the equity holders as contemplated by JPMC, then the selected and late disclosures of billings and fees, and the now non disclosure of fees except for affidavits of service, makes sense.

Point in reference for the comment are as follows:

Alvarez Marsal _ Restructuring Advisors, public information on KC website shows that for services for Oct 1- 31 2009 (court Doc # 1933) we were charged $2.2 million in addition to mostly airfare travel & hotels of $100,000. Who asks if the services can be more effective and efficient with in-house personnel. Accumulated charges from the commencement of the engagement were not shown on the application as was previously done in earlier fees applications.

Weil Gotshal _ Counsel for Debtors, again we see (court Doc # 1981 & # 2096) for Aug fees of $451,557 & Sept of $805,270. Accumulated charges from the commencement of the engagement were not shown on the application as was previously done in earlier fees applications.

Elliot Greenleaf _ Special Litigation & Conflict Counsel. Court Doc # 2053, #2165, #2166 show cumulative charges of $440,172 up to the month of November, 2009. Whilst the details of billings were not made public,the amount was clear enough to know the expenditure of estate funds.

Quinn Urquhart Etc_Special Litigation & Conflict Counsel. Court Doc # 2160, #2056 show cumulative charges of $1,049,452 up to the month of October, 2009. Whilst the details of billings were not made public,the amount was clear enough to know the expenditure of estate funds.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld_ Creditors Counsel. Court Doc # 2141 shows a monthly charge of fees $439,460 AND expenses of $414,436. Court Doc # 2127 for October fees were not made public but only the affidavits for service of the document was shown.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld_ Creditors Counsel. Court Doc # 2141 shows a monthly charge of fees $439,460 AND expenses of $414,436. Court Doc # 2127 for October fees were not made public but only the affidavits for service of the document was shown.

Specifically, estimating the monthly overhead fees of this continuing operation seems to be about $6 million (fees of $5 in addition to another $1 million in expenses). It is predatory to submit a request for the fees of the official equity committees to be capped in total to one half of the monthly expenses of the restructuring advisors>

Following From The Above:

It cannot be assumed that the court supervision means that all professional services are relevant, continues to relevant, are provided, in a cost effective manner, and in the interest of all stakeholders - including the equity holders.

As the KC website has ceased providing details of services in each firms billings and now provides court documents that attaches only the affidavits of service for fees claimed by firms, the unrepresented equity holders are now disabled from following up on the status of their investment losses remediation process, in two ways. Firstly from following the steps being taken by the debtors and the costs incurred and, secondly, depriving the stakeholders from effectively evaluating the fees application and possibly objecting to these fees submissions for the courts approval.

The non claim of fees, or the concealment of the fees documents submitted by firms as Alvarez (from November 2009 onwards) , Weil ( from September 2009 onwards), Quinn from October 2009, Akin from November onwards; imposes an artificial barrier on timeliness of information for stakeholders. Such late disclosure or submissions may be based on attempts to filter billings, conceal matters of process that should be open to the public, allow for the published monthly financial operating statement to be flawed as they may contain estimates and accruals made for fees to be billed, but the substance of those accruals are hidden from the parties receiving the monthly operations statements and even the court.

The arrogance of the debtors to suggest a cap of $250,000 on the total billings of the official committee of the equity holders, can be dismissed by analysed and looking at the cost of the other persons above.

I trust that the debtor will be guided by its own concern for preservation of assets by directing that as is common industry practice that all professional billing rates do include the time spent in making up the bills for services, THAT no professional should be allow to charge us for the time spent to charge us.

As I do not have a contact for the Official Committee as a favour, kindly copy to them for me.

Thank You

.....
Shareholder ( Pre & Post)

¿Quien ha escrito esto?

Esta claro que no es justo que si ellos cobran 6 millones mensuales que pretendan joder a los abogados del EC poniendole un tope de horas trabajadas.

La he recogido del foro de Yahoo. Parece un escrito que van a dirigir algunos accionistas al UST.
La reclamación es mas que justa.
Aqui tenian montada una fiesta los abogados. Por eso no querian EC ni nada que los controle.

Buenas noches, mañana será un día tranquilo.

Este fin de semana ha estado movidito.

Pues le he estado dando vueltas, y creo que el hecho de que JPM arrastre 4 billones de la contabilidad del 2009 al 2010, probablente sea para pagar los 4 billones a Wamu, pero... ¿porqué no ha metido una partida mayor en previsión a futuros multas/indemizaciones/acuerdos?

Pues yo creo que: porque no tiene intención, al menos no este año.

Yo creo que con estos 4.2 billomes, + 5.6 billones de devolución de impuestos (NOL) va a ser la única pasta que veamos de momento.

Dimon se defenderá como gato panza arriba, y me imagino que al final final del proceso (¿3 - 5 años que se comentan por los foros?), cuando ya sepa más o menos lo que le pueda caer, ofrezca un poquito más y ya está (para eludir la cárcel). Si lo ve medianamente bien, igual ni ofrece nada y se arriesga al dictamen de la jueza.

Nuestras acciones supongo que subirán un poco (0.50-1$) y hasta que no acabe el juicio no veremos ninguna subida importante. Si pasa mucho tiempo, es probable que mucha gente se salga dando por bueno un precio de venta de 1$ lo cual nos volvería a dejar otra vez las comunes a precio de saldo, como ahora o un poco más...

Lo que no sé es en qué afecta el hecho de que se haya producido un último aplazamiento para presentar un plan de reestructuración de WaMu, ¿es bueno o malo que nos metan prisa?¿Mr Simpson?

Esta es mi idea... ¿es factible?

Gracias Chaarles,
Estoy muy a acuerdo en que cada uno tiene que tomar sus propias decisiones y te agradezco tu honestidad al advertir de la escasa fiabilidad de las tuyas.

Testimony from the courtroom:

MR. STROCHAK: I will, Your Honor.
Thank you, Your Honor, Adam Strochak for Weil Gotshal.
There's no dispute here that we filed an extensive proof of claim alleging claim after claim after claim in the administrative process. What's going on here, Your Honor, and what I think that the Court has to grapple with is how do you characterize the relief that we are seeking in this Court and it isn't any different than what we were seeking in the claims
process before the FDIC. And to put it very succinctly, Your Honor, it's not. What we asserted in the administrative proceeding was a quantum of claims. Many of them are contingent, many of them
are unliquidated, it's not a determined amount. But let's imagine for a second that you took all of the claims that we asserted and you added them up and it amounted to $10 billion.

What we're seeking in this Court is that very same $10 billion. The only difference is the last point that counsel for the bond holders made which was the equity claim, we're a shareholder of the bank and under the priority scheme in the statute to the extent that there is a value after the payment of creditors, then we are entitled to a distribution as a
shareholder. That's an unspecified amount. Whatever is left over, we get it. That's exactly what we're seeking in this court.
The difference is is that through the administrative
claim process what the FDIC says is that we're entitled to a share of whatever they were able to get based on their disposition of the assets. So if hypothetically the assets were worth $1.9 billion
they got $1.9 billion from JPMorgan Chase. That $1.9 billion then gets distributed in accordance with the priority schemes.
What we are saying by our Counts II and III in
particular is that there exists a right to a recovery beyond whatever the FDIC says it got in its disposition of these assets.

And some of these additional issues that are going to be fought between JPMorgan Chase and the debtors involve issues that are really peculiarly bankruptcy type issues. An example would be the so-called trust preferred securities. Because that determination may depend upon an interpretation of some
arcane provision of the Bankruptcy Code 365 I think it's o.
There are other issues for example, Your Honor, the avoidance actions where the claims there are going to turn on solvency or insolvency issues which of course Judge Walrath is going to be looking at. So when we start from the proposition that we have all
of this overlap and we accept the assertions that the FDIC has so fervently made that why we are going to do this in two separate courts. It doesn't make sense, let's do it in one court. We think the appropriate approach at least as to that bundle of claims the stay. And the reality is to pick up on a line from Your Honor,
we think that the remaining claims, the three that have been the subject of the prior argument, those really are the tail wagging the dog. And I say that because as a practical matter,
I don't have a crystal ball as to what will ultimately happen, none of us do. But a determination in the Bankruptcy Court as to these six categories of assets, frankly a determination even on the deposits and on the tax issue may resolve the entire
global dispute in this case, the cases in bankruptcy and I'll knock on wood and hope that that will in fact occur.
THE COURT: Only after an appeal.
MR. CARLINSKY: I would -- well, that's probably
THE COURT: Whatever the decision is.
MR. CARLINSKY: That is probably right.
THE COURT: I mean, it's too much money for anybody
not to argue about.

¿Exactamente qué significa esto? ¿se está justificando por el comentario de las comunes sin valor?

¿qué pasa al final? El juez da por supuesto que va a haber apelaciones, ¿no?

"frankly a determination even on the deposits and on the tax issue may resolve the entire
global dispute in this case, the cases in bankruptcy and I'll knock on wood and hope that that will in fact occur. "
"francamente una decisión justa en el tema de los depósitos y los impuestos resolverían la disputa en este caso, los casos de bancarrota y toco madera para que de hecho eso suceda."

TRIBUNAL: Después de una apelación
MR. Carlinsky: Sí lo haría; bien, probablemente.
TRIBUNAL: Sea cual sea la decisión
MR. Carlinsky: Probablemente sea así
TRIBUNAL: Quiero decir, es demasiado dinero como para que nadie reclame.

Tranquilo Ptolomeo haces toda la película de lo que puede suceder y verás que al final va por distinto camino.

Lo primero es que la Juez apruebe la constitucion del EC.

A partir de ahi hay que ver que camino toma Weil. Tambien espero antes alguna jugada de las Weil acostumbra a montar para romper el juego.

Mi impresión es que finalmente puede haber un acuerdo si los accionistas mayoritarios y bonistas entran a juego y no creo que sea por una cifra muy alta (me quedo entre 2 y 4 $ para las comunes), yo como postaccionista ya firmo hoy mismo y los del EC creo que tambien.

Los minoristas aceptarán un oferta menor, no van a querer esperar años a pesar de poder recibir más dinero.

Hay que tener en cuenta que a la otra parte le conviene un pacto y no un juicio.
Son conjeturas como las tuyas.