Wamu WKN 893906 News !

unter 0.06 geht es schon nicht runter. und der nächste tag im wamuc-calender verleiht der aktie wieder auftrieb.

wer jetzt richtig nasse hat, für den gibt es zwei möglichkeiten:

i)  eine ganz glückliche hand bei einem anderen "wert"-papier um den verlust wieder auszubügeln. natürlich gefährlich, wenn man meint diese scharte ganz schnell wieder auswetzen will.

oder

ii) gute nerven so lange zu warten bis das papierechen wieder zockt. kann aber ne weile dauern. ob es noch mal einen zock gibt weiß ich nicht. das hängt von der zocker-herde, anstehenden terminen, bzw. dem ausgang evtl. verfahren ab. die wahrscheinlichkeit sehe ich bei 50:50, dass einer der bei 0.10 und höher eingestiegen ist pari wieder rauskommt. aber bitte keine illusionen, mit "badelatschen auf hawaii" wird es nix.

+++ die mail ist nur an die gerichtet, die richtig in den nassen sitzen und nicht mit spielgeld drin hängen und es ist kein bash-versuch +++

 

nicht so einfach; siehe Qimonda, Pfaff, HRE, Arcandor...  

Wamu insolvent?  

Du bist ein spassvogel... mit oder ohne (W)(A)sser (M)it Marac(U)jasaft ;-)

 

 

kommt langsam vom minus raus obwohl wir ein sehr schlechte borsentag haben

das zeigt eine stabile bodenbildung und es ist gut so..  

sehe ich das schon als positiv, das die 9 US cent gehalten haben!!  

noch ein statement ab...  

hätte auch eher erwartet, dass der kurs kurz vor handelsschluss fällt. 6.9 euro cent hätte ich nicht erwartet, da ja morgen in den usa nicht gehandelt wird.  

habt ihr alle nur in wamuq investiert und nicht mit vorzugsaktien (wahuq, wampq oder wamkq) abgesichert?  

...kann es sein das Du entweder den falschen Zeichensatz oder eine falsche Tastatur hast...

Hier in Deutschland sollte man eine "QUERTZ" und keine "QUERTY" Tastatur haben.
Das gleiche gilt natürlich auch für den geladenen Zeichensatz.......

Gruß

 

 

From: Nicole - nicole100w...@gmail.com

By Christine Caulfield

Law360, New York (July 02, 2009) -- Despite a bankruptcy judge's order
greenlighting the request, Washington Mutual Inc.'s bid to get its
hands on JPMorgan Chase & Co. records for evidence of sabotage
continues, with WaMu now fighting the bank's request to have the order
overturned.

WaMu fired off an objection to JPMorgan's motion for reconsideration
of the discovery order in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware on Wednesday, saying the bank's request amounted to a
“desperate effort to foreclose discovery concerning its own allegedly
tortious conduct.”

Judge Mary F. Walrath signed off on WaMu's motion to examine
JPMorgan's books on June 24; JPMorgan filed its reconsideration motion
two days later, according to court documents.

WaMu told the court it wanted access to JPMorgan's books to find
evidence supporting allegations that it crafted a plot to undermine
the one-time savings and loan giant prior to its 2008 collapse in
order to buy up its banking assets cheaply.

WaMu said in its filing this week that it had advised JPMorgan on June
29 of its intent to limit the scope of its examination to documents
supporting business tort claims, but this compromise offer was
“rebuffed,” it said.

“JPMorgan insists on pressing ahead with their wasteful and meritless
motion for reconsideration of this court's order,” WaMu said.
“JPMorgan asks this court to throw out the baby with the bathwater,
when the debtors have already taken steps to drain the bath.”

WaMu's discovery request on May 1 sought production of documents and
depositions connected to potential business tort claims, potential
fraudulent transfer claims, potential turnover claims and potential
preferential transfer claims against JPMorgan.

JPMorgan objected to the request, stating that WaMu must seek the
information it wanted in already pending litigation. JPMorgan
contended in its objection filed May 13 that WaMu could not use Rule
2004 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to pursue discovery on issues that
were involved in two separate lawsuits.

WaMu filed an adversary proceeding in the Delaware bankruptcy court on
April 27, seeking $4 billion in cash that was held in the deposit
accounts of subsidiary Washington Mutual Bank at the time WMB was
seized and sold by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to JPMorgan for
$1.9 billion.

WaMu also sued the FDIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, alleging that the purchase price was too low and that the
agency sold assets it had no right to seize.

JPMorgan, which intervened in that suit, also filed its own adversary
proceeding against WaMu, seeking declaratory judgments asserting that
it acquired the debtor in good faith and that it was the owner of the
$7.9 billion in disputed assets.

It was the last two suits that JPMorgan referred to as the operative
pending proceedings.

In granting WaMu's request over the bank's objections, Judge Walrath
said JPMorgan had misapplied the pending proceeding rule, since WaMu's
motion did not seek evidence related to the bank's adversary
proceeding.

“Simply because JPMorgan chose to include background information
regarding the relationship of the parties involved in the JPMorgan
adversary action in its complaint does not mean that any Rule 2004
examination request dealing with those background facts is related to
the JPM adversary action,” the judge said.

“The court concludes that the debtors' motion does not seek the
discovery of evidence related to the JPMorgan adversary action,” the
judge added.

Judge Walrath said JPMorgan's suit sought the court's declaration that
it owned certain assets from the sale of WaMu, which occurred after
WaMu's closure, while WaMu sought to investigate conduct that occurred
before the closure.

Further, the judge ruled, JPMorgan was not a party to WaMu's action
against the FDIC, and the mere possibility that it could be permitted
to intervene was insufficient to deny WaMu's motion.

WaMu asked to conduct a Rule 2004 investigation into JPMorgan after a
group of WaMu investors sued JPMorgan in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. WaMu wants to investigate whether the
allegations in the shareholder complaint are true, it said.

The investors allege that JPMorgan deliberately drove down the value
of WMB by abusing confidential information and that JPMorgan engaged
in sham negotiations with WaMu throughout 2008 about buying the
banking arm in order to obtain confidential information.

JPMorgan then shared that information with WaMu bank customers to
persuade them to withdraw their deposits, leaked information to the
media to depress the bank's stock value and ultimately used it in its
negotiations with the FDIC, allowing JPMorgan to acquire WaMu's bank
assets for a "fire sale" price, the investors claim.

WaMu filed for Chapter 11 protection on Sept. 26, citing approximately
$33 billion in total assets and $8.2 billion in debts.

WaMu is represented by Elliott Greenleaf and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Oliver & Hedges LLP.

JPMorgan is represented by Landis Rath & Cobb LLP and Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.

The case is In re: Washington Mutual Inc., case number 08-12229, in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

--Additional reporting by Jacqueline Bell and Brendan Pierson

http://www.law360.com/articles/109471

oder
http://finance.google.com/group/...wse_thread/thread/92be0839c8d32c6d  

...stell Dir vor es ist Krieg und keiner geht hin......... (blöder Spruch)

Sofern es in irgendeiner Form hilft Biefe und Unterschriften vorlegen zu können, die belegen das ggf. ein (weltweites) Interesse besteht um in den Genuß zu Teilnahme und Interessenvertretung zu kommen, dann hätt uns das sehr geholfen.

Und wenn die "Stimme" auch mindergewichtig ist, kann sie das Zünglein an der Waage sein........

Obwohl: Mindergewichtig ist eigentlich Schwachsinn, da die Shareholder die Eigentümer sind..........über deren Kopf entschieden werden soll.........

Jehova

 

Ist zwar eigentlich aus einemanderen Board, aber die Not ist hier die gleiche.

Aufruf! Aufruf ! Aufruf!

"Letter an den Trustee"

Ich muss es leider wiederholen:
Es sind immer noch zu wenige Briefe eingegangen!

Kleine Ausführung zur Einschätzung:
Auf Grund der Aktienregistrierungsdaten bei wamuequity.org kann hochgerechnet werden, dass es ca 60 000 WaMu-Aktionäre gibt.
Die Hälfte bis Viertel wird in Deutschland gehandelt.Sagen wir mal
von ca. 20 000. Sicherheitsfaktor 0,5 bedeutet dass es im im deutschsprachigen Raum ca 10 000 Aktionäre gibt. Vielleicht die Hälfte davon kümmert sich um ihr Investment prinzipiell nicht.
von den Verbleibenden 5 000 liest zumindest die Hälfte gelegentlich bei wallstreet-online.
von diesen 2500 gehört die Hälfte zu den Leuten die prinzipiell nur darauf aus sind bequem auf Kosten anderer gut zu leben.
Von den verbleibenden 1250 sind die Hälfte im Urlaub, ewige Zauderer, im Krankenhaus, Nternet defekt....
Das bedeutet alleine aus dieser Community sollten mindestens
625 Briefe Kommen!!

Wer immer noch nicht geschrieben hat:
Leute reisst euch zusammen,
das sind 5 Minuten!

So geht's:

Auf http://www.wamuequity.org/ den Brief an den Trustee unter "Action Req." oder direkt auf
http://www.wamuequity.org/download/Letter_to_United_States_T… als Vordruck downloaden. Dann online ausfüllen, ausdrucken und handschriftlich unterzeichnen.
Dann entweder an 001 877 6510930 faxen, oder einscannen und an die Aktionärsschützergruppe e-mailen.

Ganz wichtig !!!

Wer in anderen Boards liest schreibt, oder sonstige Möglichkeiten hat andere WaMu-Aktionäre anzusprecehen - bitte schöpft alle diese Möglichkeiten aus.
Lieber einen 5 mal zu oft ansprechen, bevor auch nur einer übersehen wird.
Leute hängt euch rein es geht auch um euer Geld!!!Deadline ist 06.07.09.
Besser nicht bis zum letzten Moment warten, sondern sofort erledigen
 

 

Denen, die schon geschrieben haben steht natürlich noch eine Information zu:

Rückmeldung:

"Letter an den Trustee"

Bis gestern abend wurde mir mitgeteilt, sind in der "zweiten Welle"
noch einmal ca. 50 Briefe aus Deutschland angekommen.

Ein Danke an diejenigen die sich bisher die Mühe gemacht haben für ihr Investment aktiv etwas zu unternehmen.

Es können alle daraus einen Vorteil erlangen auch die, die bisher zu bequem waren.

 

 

schon mal was von kursbeeinflussung gehört?  

Hoffentlich hat man mit WAMUQ nicht die oben abgebildete Aussicht.    *g*


mc

Klar hab ich das! Jedoch ist die große Frage, die wir uns alles stellen, wie sich der Kurs vor dem nächsten Gerichtstermin verhalten wird. Ich bleibe auf jeden Fall bei Wamu drin. Habe schon ein paar Risiko Zocks hinter mir und mein Gefühl hat mich selten getäuscht.

Schönes we an alle  

WaMu, JPMorgan Still Fighting Discovery Battle

By Christine Caulfield


Law360, New York (July 02, 2009) -- Despite a bankruptcy judge's order
greenlighting the request, Washington Mutual Inc.'s bid to get its
hands on JPMorgan Chase & Co. records for evidence of sabotage
continues, with WaMu now fighting the bank's request to have the order
overturned.


WaMu fired off an objection to JPMorgan's motion for reconsideration
of the discovery order in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware on Wednesday, saying the bank's request amounted to a
“desperate effort to foreclose discovery concerning its own allegedly
tortious conduct.”


Judge Mary F. Walrath signed off on WaMu's motion to examine
JPMorgan's books on June 24; JPMorgan filed its reconsideration motion
two days later, according to court documents.


WaMu told the court it wanted access to JPMorgan's books to find
evidence supporting allegations that it crafted a plot to undermine
the one-time savings and loan giant prior to its 2008 collapse in
order to buy up its banking assets cheaply.


WaMu said in its filing this week that it had advised JPMorgan on June
29 of its intent to limit the scope of its examination to documents
supporting business tort claims, but this compromise offer was
“rebuffed,” it said.


“JPMorgan insists on pressing ahead with their wasteful and meritless
motion for reconsideration of this court's order,” WaMu said.
“JPMorgan asks this court to throw out the baby with the bathwater,
when the debtors have already taken steps to drain the bath.”


WaMu's discovery request on May 1 sought production of documents and
depositions connected to potential business tort claims, potential
fraudulent transfer claims, potential turnover claims and potential
preferential transfer claims against JPMorgan.


JPMorgan objected to the request, stating that WaMu must seek the
information it wanted in already pending litigation. JPMorgan
contended in its objection filed May 13 that WaMu could not use Rule
2004 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to pursue discovery on issues that
were involved in two separate lawsuits.


WaMu filed an adversary proceeding in the Delaware bankruptcy court on
April 27, seeking $4 billion in cash that was held in the deposit
accounts of subsidiary Washington Mutual Bank at the time WMB was
seized and sold by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to JPMorgan for
$1.9 billion.


WaMu also sued the FDIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, alleging that the purchase price was too low and that the
agency sold assets it had no right to seize.


JPMorgan, which intervened in that suit, also filed its own adversary
proceeding against WaMu, seeking declaratory judgments asserting that
it acquired the debtor in good faith and that it was the owner of the
$7.9 billion in disputed assets.


It was the last two suits that JPMorgan referred to as the operative
pending proceedings.


In granting WaMu's request over the bank's objections, Judge Walrath
said JPMorgan had misapplied the pending proceeding rule, since WaMu's
motion did not seek evidence related to the bank's adversary
proceeding.


“Simply because JPMorgan chose to include background information
regarding the relationship of the parties involved in the JPMorgan
adversary action in its complaint does not mean that any Rule 2004
examination request dealing with those background facts is related to
the JPM adversary action,” the judge said.


“The court concludes that the debtors' motion does not seek the
discovery of evidence related to the JPMorgan adversary action,” the
judge added.


Judge Walrath said JPMorgan's suit sought the court's declaration that
it owned certain assets from the sale of WaMu, which occurred after
WaMu's closure, while WaMu sought to investigate conduct that occurred
before the closure.


Further, the judge ruled, JPMorgan was not a party to WaMu's action
against the FDIC, and the mere possibility that it could be permitted
to intervene was insufficient to deny WaMu's motion.


WaMu asked to conduct a Rule 2004 investigation into JPMorgan after a
group of WaMu investors sued JPMorgan in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. WaMu wants to investigate whether the
allegations in the shareholder complaint are true, it said.


The investors allege that JPMorgan deliberately drove down the value
of WMB by abusing confidential information and that JPMorgan engaged
in sham negotiations with WaMu throughout 2008 about buying the
banking arm in order to obtain confidential information.


JPMorgan then shared that information with WaMu bank customers to
persuade them to withdraw their deposits, leaked information to the
media to depress the bank's stock value and ultimately used it in its
negotiations with the FDIC, allowing JPMorgan to acquire WaMu's bank
assets for a "fire sale" price, the investors claim.


WaMu filed for Chapter 11 protection on Sept. 26, citing approximately
$33 billion in total assets and $8.2 billion in debts.


WaMu is represented by Elliott Greenleaf and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Oliver & Hedges LLP.


JPMorgan is represented by Landis Rath & Cobb LLP and Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.


The case is In re: Washington Mutual Inc., case number 08-12229, in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.


--Additional reporting by Jacqueline Bell and Brendan Pierson



http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.611408/browse…  

2,3,4,5,6Euro könnt ihr vergessen wie soll das gehen...  

langsam aber sicher einiges an tageslicht.
Ich bin mir fast sicher das es  wamu gut enden wird.
FAST !!!!  

pe.bo.: was erwartet ihr

Nur, wenn nicht vorher ,um das Unternehmen aus dem Insolvenzverfahren herauszubringen, die bestehenden WAMUQs gecancelled wurden. Das ist der übliche Weg!

Und genau dies droht, damit der Reorgplan zum 21.09.09 angenommen wird!

Ausser:

Es ist ein Equity-Committee bei Gericht vertreten, dass sich explizit dafür einsetzt, dass dies nicht passiert!

 

 

Also wer den zur Einsetzung eines Equity-Committees erforderlichen "Letter an den Trustee" noch nicht geschrieben hat....

So geht's:

Auf http://www.wamuequity.org/ den Brief an den Trustee unter "Action Req." oder direkt auf

 

damit ich den eingescannten brief e-mailen kann?