Inversor71
22/07/11 19:53
Ha respondido al tema Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
Ir a respuesta
El Juez writes:
Although tea-leaf reading is a well-established past time in this case, I think I disagree with most of what Mayadad1 speculates on today. (Be kind: He's just thinking out loud. ;D ;D) As I've opined for a long time, JPM has no claim at all to tax refunds or NOL's, never did, never will. Their "claims" have no more legitimacy than the idiotic MARTA or WMB claims, or JPM's cynical claim to the $4B in deposits. As Observer demonstrates, the FDIC's seizure killed WMB and the tax-sharing contract it was a part of before it was destroyed by JPM's conspiracy and appropriation of its assets. JPM is entitled to nothing, and the FDIC, even as WMB's receiver, is at most entitled only to "assets" that existed on 9/28/08, or at most at the end of the tax year 2008, but certainly not to any assets that devolved upon WMI as a result of legislation that wasn't enacted until 2009. Any other conclusion is illogical and irrational.
So, was too busy at work and the dentist's office to catch all of it, but from what I heard this last week I believe the EC made a lot of incremental progress in creating a factual basic in actual testimony for the arguments they are going to make in closing argument. I know it all seems pretty boring in real time, but the EC effectively impeached the credibility of each of the debtor and SNH witnesses, and, perhaps more importantly, peeled back the layers of b.s. for the judge to actually see how the GSA came into existence and how inconsistent it is with the debtor's duty to maximize estate assets. (Reminds me of the old story about meat eaters not wanting to see how sausage is made.) Keep in mind that, although the "trial" seems to have been pretty minimal in the large scheme of things, there are thousands upon thousands of pages of documents (emails, contracts, term sheets, etc.) and depositions of witnesses (some called at trial, some not) that form the admitted "evidence" in this case (mostly by stipulation) for the judge to consider.
Now it's up to the parties' arguments and the judge's conscience. The necessary evidence to make our points is now in the record and is ready for Judge W's decision. Judge W, like any judge, is constantly faced with the tension between practicality ("let's just get this job done and move on to the next case") and idealism ("what is actually the right and just thing to do, and to hell with the practical consequences?"). This establishes a continuum between one extreme and the other, and pretty much every judge falls somewhere on the scale. If Judge W says "screw it, I'm tired of this case" she'll buy the party-line B.S. from Rosen and approve the POR. If she thinks EC has scored major points but still wants to get it over with, she'll "cut the baby in half" (a la King Solomon), and maybe disallow the 4 SNH claims completely and impose FJR on other note holders, etc., enough to put preferreds in the money but still screw commons, but still approve a watered down POR. If she's alert, aware, honest and idealistic (which, honestly, I think she is trying to be when she's not conned and manipulated, but maybe I'm a Pollyanna), she'll be righteously pissed off at all the lies she's been fed, see the process as entirely flawed, and deny the POR in it's entirety, appoint a trustee (and/or solicit new, competing POR's), and authorize the EC to pursue all appropriate litigation.