Wamu WKN 893906 News !

http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/taggart-erica-p.aspx

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090813000000000003.pdf

Notable Representations

Represents KB Home and KB Home Nevada regarding litigation against JPMorgan for dispute over loans and related guarantees for a multi-million dollar residential development. JPMorgan brought actions against KB Home and numerous other developers in Nevada and New York on various loan agreements and a completion guarantee. Quinn Emanuel represents KB Home in both actions.

Wenn das Opferlamm FDIC nicht funktioniert, wird es wohl Mister Dimon sein (vorher noch schnell die versteckte Abfindung rüberschieben..)

Ich denke, beide sind dran

(Aus dem anderen Forum:)

Rückabwicklung kann man deshalb vergessen weil es in den Regeln der FDIC nicht vorgesehen ist. Laut diesen Regeln ist jeder andere Ausgleich möglich aber keine Rückgabe der Assets.

Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf?

für konkurs-recht !

I was sorry to read your post as it completely misinterprets my statements.

In the first place, book value at roughly $26 billion would first supply the A<L shortfall of about $1.5 billion. Then another $3.5 billion would go to preferreds. The remaining $21 billion would be divided among the 1.7 billion commons to roughly $12.35 per share.

I maintain that $26 billion is on the low end and that the real settlement figure is likely to be substantially more, so common stands to realize substantially more, particularly if a 3rd party bidder offers 2x for the low-ball $26 billion book value cash pot. Nevertheless, this is my view, only. I suggest you and others read up on what the term 'book value' means. It might help you to understand why it is very unlikely that WMI will accept 1x book value.

As for your statement about your buy orders, understand that those figures are my conjecture about what market manipulators will engineer to trigger sales from frightened people who bought during and after the Spring run up. The MMs have not engaged in aggressive price drops because so doing would avail them nothing: the old timers on this board are too well informed and would buy on dips. This does not mean we won't see other price machinations (e.g., the absurd after hours B/As -- sometimes for PQ A has been posted at $100).

I can't stop you from viewing me as an oracle, but if you are determined to take advice from this message board I suggest you follow f.ck, Gib and some other savvy old timers, too.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...16&tid=188923&mid=189028


bopfan meint, dass der buchwert 26mrd ist, und durch abzug bleiben 21 mrd für die commons,also 12 usd, wenn sich weil, quinn, greenleaf und co. wirklich sicher sind, dass sie die klagen für sich entscheiden, könnten sie das zweifache des buchwertes also 52 mrd bei einer einigung rausholen, also 24 usd für commons...

wäre natürlich optimal für uns, aber alles nur mögliche zukunftsmusik

ich habe mal eine Frage. Ich bin hier zwar auch mit einer kleinen Posi drin, aber ich verstehe nicht warum
der Kurs bei den Aussichten so niedrig ist. Wenn doch die Möglichkeit besteht mehrere €/Aktie zu bekommen,
müsste der Kurs doch in ganz anderen Regionen aufzufinden sein.  

.....ich interpretiere einmal das Dokument der FDIC, wie Ihr wißt, ist dies mein persönlicher Kommentar; lest das Originaldokument und bewertet es - handelt nach Eurer Abwägung - eigenverantwortlich.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history1-08.pdf

Das "Seizure" wird zunächst mit der "groben Kelle" durchgeführt;
eventuell dadurch auftretende Probleme, werden im Nachgang
durch ein "Settlement" behoben.

Auf Seite 220 finden wir einen weiteren Absatz:
Courts may not enjoin the receiver. Congress has provided the FDIC as receiver with additional protection by prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions or similar equitable relief to restrain the receiver from completing its resolution and liquidation activities.
For example, the FDI Act bars an injunction to prevent foreclosures or asset sales. Similarly, courts are prohibited from issuing any order to attach or execute upon any assets
in the possession of the receiver. Those statutory provisions, however, do not bar the recovery of monetary damages.


Dies ist interessant für diejenigen, die sich fragen, ob die WMB oder die WMBfsb an die WMI zurückgegeben werden können.

Meine persönliche Sicht: Definitiv Nein - durch das Seizure befinden sich die beiden Banken - durch den FDIC-Acts geschützt bei JPMC.

Aber: Diese Regelung schützt nicht vor einer Schadensersatzforderung und ihrer Durchführung.

Fazit: Die Prozesse zielen im Kern nur auf Eines: CASH !

zum zeitpunkt der beschlagnahmung NICHT insolvent war !...



.... for its $1.9 billion investment, J.P. Morgan acquires net assets with a nominal value of $240
billion and deposit liabilities of $188 billion, suggesting a nominal acquisition value of
approximately $52 billion. Of course, the planned write-downs diminish –but do not eliminate --this
nominal value. Nevertheless J.P Morgan’s $1.9 billion offer was the best bid that the FDIC
received.
More JPM Filings
These also appeared in PACER under the turnover proceedings dated 8/10 (not sure if already
posted). They do not appear on KCC yet:
JPM Amended Counter Claim (attachments not included)

JPM Answering Brief

http://members.cox.net/raggztwitches/JPMAnsweringBrief.pdf

1st filing, p. 22
"There is substantial evidence that, contrary to Debtors’ unsupported assertions, at the time of the
receivership and at all relevant times before the receivership, WMI, WMB, and WMBfsb were
solvent. Indeed, the OTS found that “WMB met the well-capitalized standards through the
receivership date.” (OTS Fact Sheet 9/25/2008 (emphasis added).)

The straw that broke the camel's back ! 36 minutes ago JPM's letter to Judge Sleet...
As I have recanted in prior posts "JPM will throw the kitchen sink" and try for one last Hail Mary,
before Dimon comes to grips that he is at the edge of destruction. I also said that the timing for
reality would come at the end of August for the resolutution of the WMI debacle to come about.
The letter to Judge Sleet (the kitchen sink) has "insured" that the timing, which will coincide with
the remainder of motions, etc., being filed..will finally come down to some adjudications by Judge
Walrath, (more than likely biting her lip) that will put the ball in motion for a global resolve, not to
mention, IMHO, some sanctions.
There is no chance that the Honorable Chief Judge Sleet will even give any serious thoughts about
the letter from JPM unless they have a photo of him with a chicken.
JPM has run out of "arguements" and they have just tossed the Hail Mary to a "judicial void" and
we will not see another try again. Yes, folk's, the end is near and now comes the hard news for JPM,
the FDIC and Dimon in particular as he is the quarterback of this scheme from day one.
The stakes now are very defined;
Settlement leaning to the terms and conditions that WMI's competent attorneys have laid out, or a
total take down of Dimon, JPM and Bair and the FDIC in a jury trial.
Now, where would you place your bets ?
the purpose of proving WMB was not insolvent, could suggest that bankruptcy powers dont apply,
and that the FDIC is responsible, as they made the decision.
JPM's words ought to be plastered on every front page, JPM the owner of WMB, says WMB was
not insolvent at the time of seizure !!!!!

Die Anwälte würden auch nicht ihren guten Ruf riskieren, wenn sie von anfang an nicht sicher wären, diesen fall zu gewinnen...

http://quinnemanuel.com/

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP is a 400+ lawyer business litigation firm - the largest in the United States devoted solely to business litigation. Our lawyers have tried 1297 cases and won 1186, or 91.4%. When representing defendants, our trial experience gets us better settlements or defense verdicts. When representing plaintiffs, our lawyers have won over $10 billion in judgments and settlements. We are the only firm in the United States that has won four nine-figure jury verdicts in the last seven years. We have also obtained four nine-figure and two ten-figure settlements in the same period.


....

 

 

...den Echtzeitkurs anzuzeigen. Bei anderen Aktien nicht.
Scheint von immer mehr frequentiert zu werden.

um diese Zeit,nicht schlecht.
Ich meinte kein minus.

Waving Goodbye to WaMu
JPMorgan Chase said this week it has completed a $140 million conversion of its former Washington Mutual bank branches in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York and is steaming full speed ahead in other parts of the country. The latest announcement, which comes one month shy of the first anniversary of WaMu being seized by federal regulators and its assets sold to JPMorgan, means that the Washington Mutual name has all but disappeared from branches coast to coast, except for a few Western states.

So far this year, Chase has converted and rebranded 1,037 former Washington Mutual branches in 11 states. By the end of 2009, the bank estimates that about 1,800 former Washington Mutual branches across the country will be operating under the Chase brand and on the Chase computer system, giving Chase 5,100 branches in 23 states.

Chase says it has has shut down 387 Washington Mutual branches and only has four more left to close. Whereas Bank of America has recently said it plans to close branches to save cash, a Chase spokesman told DealBook that the firm remains committed to expanding its branch footprint at a rate of 100 to 150 new locations a year.

In a way, Chase had no choice but to be swift in integrating WaMu. Chase actually acquired Washington Mutual from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which took over the troubled thrift in September 2008 it was deemed at risk of failing because of loan losses.

In buying the bank from the F.D.I.C., Chase was allowed to break contracts and leases on WaMu branches within a 180-day window from the time of the deal. That meant that it had to move quickly in shedding unwanted locations. It also gave JPMorgan a greater incentive to shut down Washington Mutual branches as opposed to existing Chase branches. In fact, there was no legacy Chase branches closed at all during the integration, JPMorgan says.

Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo now control nearly one-third of all United States deposits. None of the banks can grow any larger through an acquisition, as they would violate a 1994 law that prohibits banks from acquiring other banks once they control 10 percent of the nation’s deposit base. That means these banks must rely on organic growth — such as grabbing customers from eachother.

JPMorgan, which has increased the number of employees in its branches, appears to be betting that people still want to come to those branches to do business, even with the rising popularity of Internet banking. Having more physical locations is more expensive, but the bank is hoping it will provide an edge as it competes for customers’ cash.

Bank of America has said it expects to shut down 10 percent of its 6,100-branch network. That would still leave it with more branches than Chase — as least for now.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/waving-goodbye-to-wamu/  

WaMu-Nierlassungen. Eine besondere Vereinbarung erlaubt es der Chase, innerhalb von 180 Tagen nach dem 1,9 Mrd.-Verkauf  Leasing- und Mietverträge zu "brechen" um sich auf einfachem Wege von ungewollten WaMu-Dependancen zu trennen. Darunter auch diejenigen, die in direkter Nähe zu Chase-Niederlassungen sind.

JPM, Weels-Fargo und BoA kontrollieren nunmehr zusammen mehr als 30% des amerikanischen Privatkundengeschäftes und können durch Zukauf nicht weiter expandieren. Ein besonderes Gesetz verbietet weiter Zukäufe wenn bereits 30% kontrolliert werden.

...................überhaupt nicht aufregend und in weiten Teilen bereits bekannt..............


Decon

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dedce/...c00116/case_id-42614/  

Soweit ich das verstehe, ist das das Archiv der Rechtsvorgänge der FDIC, in dem man die Dokumente nach verschiedenen Kategorien aufrufen kann z.B. nach dem Fall und nach dem Datum.

They have their guns pointed her way..      14-Aug-09 07:01 pm    
both Bernake and Geither and if she doesn't finesse the WMI situation with some extra smarts and stays on the hook for a huge hit, she's a goner !
Jamie's in a tough spot now as she can pull all the WMI assets ...before the end of the years time..and leave Jamie in a bad ass position. Jamie has too purchase WMI and get some help to offset some costs to the FDIC..how much, is anybody'd guess, but it wil cover the common to many charts showing what's necessary (less than what Weil's asking for now and what he can get)to make the commons go green !

Re: Sheila's days are numbered...      14-Aug-09 05:11 pm    
I think she is trying to put herself in a position so that the Treasury/Obama admin will ask her to resign.....

She knows she is in deep with the WaMu situation and looking for an exit while saving face.. And this way she can look like she is fighting big brother govt Democratic administration (remember she is Republican appointed by Bush) and being forced to leave as a martyr fighting for the American public's interest....When in fact she was only looking to her own personal FDIC agenda and as we all here know she is and has been part of the big problem caused in this financial crisis.....

She has a lot of people fooled in the public and evidently does have some friends/connections in Congress that has helped us so far.....But her time is limited....

good luck.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...tof=27&frt=2

übersetz mal ein wenig.

Vor solchen Unkenrufe(r)n bin ich gewarnt worden. Und genau so fühlt es sich auch an.
Sein Benutzername xxxx13 hat ürigens eine 13 hinten angehängt. Soll wohl Angst machen.

Ich bin gespannt, ob er seine Aussagen auch belegen kann.

ab seite 15 wird dann schon klar dargestellt, wie und warum man 3.7 Mrd. zwischen wmb fsb , wmi und wmb hin- und her transferierte,
kurz vor dem bankrott.

http://members.cox.net/raggztwitches/JPMAmendedCounterclaim.…

Dazu folgende meinung aus einem ami board vom 12.08.:

The Debtors' are WMI. They are the ones claiming WMI, WMB and WMB fsb
were insolvent at the time of the seizure. JPM are not claiming
such. There is a difference between insolvent and unsound.

If you read that document you'll also notice that the $4b that WMI
claim was theirs may not actually have ever existed and that JPM have claimed the book keeping around the "deposits" are fraudulent.

Kurz:
die 4Mrd. haben anscheinend nie wirklich existiert und die bücher darüber seien betrügerisch.

 

 

Aus der Ursonate von Kurt Schwitters:

Zikete bee bee ennze
Rinnzekete bee bee nnz krrZiiuu ennze ziiuu nnz krr müüüü, ziiuu ennze ziiuu rinnzkrrmüüüü;
Rakete bee bee,
Rakete bee zee

Rrummpff tillff toooo? 

 

Re: When is the FDIC going to learn
In May 1995 the bankruptcy court approved the previously announced settlement
with the FDIC. Under the settlement, it was estimated that the FDIC would return to
First City $125 million in cash and $55 million in loans and real estate. The FDIC
would also return—at face value—$75 million from a reserve against a pool of distressed
loans held by Texas Commerce and Frost National Bank, San Antonio, Texas. In addition,
the FDIC would provide funds to allow restitution to those depositors in the First
City banks in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio whose deposits were not fully
insured and who were required to take approximately 80 cents to 90 cents on the dollar
on the amounts over the $100,000 insurance limit. All other creditors were to be paid in
full. Senior preferred shareholders would be paid over two years, and junior preferred
shareholders would receive between $100 million and $150 million, depending on the
liquidation value of the returned assets, as well as 35 percent of the new company’s common
stock. Common shareholders would get 15 percent of the new company’s stock,
with the remaining 50 percent going to shareholders of J-Hawk Corporation, Waco,
Texas, whose merger with First City had been approved by the bankruptcy court at the
same time it approved the settlement.

Link to where I got that from

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history2-05.pdf

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...f=3&rt=1&frt=1&off=1  

Gehts im Oktober 2009 genau anders rum als im Okt.2008 ??  

Ich find die Skalierung ziemlich ungünstig. 2$ is utopisch. Die Hälfte reicht mir.... :)