Lawtalkers: Juicy case for bankruptcy buffs

[citizen k]

Here's a comment on the filings from another lawtalker :

With many thanks to WithCatz for paying the PACER tab, and to bigpictureboss for his efforts at highlighting WMI's filing today (PST), let me say the following:

In the last nine months of following the WaMu saga in detail on a daily basis and trying, like the rest of you, to understand and follow the legal intricacies involved in this unique case, I have never been more convinced of the absolute genius of our attorneys and never more confident that they have a winning strategy. The work of Quinn et. al. and Greenleaf et. al. in today's brief was truly stunning. It demonstrates Bop's admonition to us long ago to wait and watch "the awesome power of the bankruptcy court" unfold. We are in good hands, not only with these lawyers, but also with this judge.

I realize that this brief seems merely to address arcane procedural issues, but I urge all of you to read the entire brief. (You can skip the exhibits.) It is as good as anything I've ever seen in 35 years in the law biz. Absolutely top notch. Awesome!

I'm not going to address the details of this brief, because I could go on forever, but let me summarize: First, it's arguments are bulletproof and thoroughly supported by irrefutable case precedent and statutory law. Second, the brief continually reiterates simple, clear themes that enable the court to act decisively. Third, it subtly reinforces the court's prior decisions without being obsequious or fawning. Fourth, it persistently and effectively marginalizes JPM's and FDIC's prior arguments by demonstrating their absurdity and uncovering their double-dealing (in DC court) and delay tactics. Finally, it subtly motivates the judge's emotions (anger) against JPM and FDIC by exposing their duplicity and contempt for the judge's prior rulings, thus undermining her respect for their honesty and intellectual integrity and setting the stage for future strong rulings against them.

I have said this on the board before, but as a judge myself, let me reiterate: Once a party's lawyers first start lying to you (including misrepresentations of the law) or start showing disrespect for your prior, carefully considered rulings, that party is toast. That judge will never take that attorney's word for anything again. Ever. JPM and FDIC have misrepresented and obfuscated over and over again. WMI has once again put them both in their place. If I were in Judge Walrath's shoes, I'd ream both of them in open court on Monday, to show them who is really boss. She probably won't, because she's more careful and proper than I am, but I expect she will send a clear message of some sort.

Some light weekend reading.
main file(pdf) here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ij1enkmzmgt

[citizen k]

Just bumping so maybe Minsky(JR) can read it. I'm interested to hear some opinions on this case. It seems pretty interesting to a layperson like me.

[citizen k]

These are all the docs for this particular opposition filing:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=c6b7930fca74efc436df4e8dca141969f77d49e3eb911c07c95965eaa7bc68bc

[The Minsky Moment]

This is mostly pretty techinical stuff about the circumstances under which one can bring an interlocutory appeal (i.e. an appeal of a court's determination of a particular question prior to a final entry of judgment on the case as a whole).  There is an underlying issue about the scope of a jurisdictional bar under FIRREA and whether it applies to WaMu's case against JPMorgan - it appears that this is unsettled although there is some case law in the 3rd Circuit (which covers delaware) that favors WaMu's position.  The fact that the judge invited briefing on this issue indicates that she is at least considering the possibility of allowing the appeal (alternatively she just may be covering herself by allowing the FDIC an opportunity to be heard before slapping them down again).

The brief looks perfectly decent to me though I don't quite buy into the gushing review from your commentator. 

[citizen k]

Thanks Minsky for your input. There's an omnibus hearing today. I'll post any rulings tonight.

[citizen k]

Walrath denies Motion for Reconsideration.

Audio file of today's hearing:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mmtgmjmzvtm

This audio file is the last one in this list:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b932994e293c11f5c79b87b207592a1c3b995895f12920e5b8eada0a1ae8665a

[Barrister]

I'm sorry K, but exactly what makes this case so interesting?   

[citizen k]

I'm sorry K, but exactly what makes this case so interesting?   

The players involved. The implications if WMI prevails over JPMC.

[citizen k]

Aren't Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges and Weil, Gotschal prestigous firms? They wouldn't just be out on a fishing expedition unless they knew what they're going to catch, right?

[Barrister]

Aren't Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges and Weil, Gotschal prestigous firms? They wouldn't just be out on a fishing expedition unless they knew what they're going to catch, right?

If they knew what they were looking for it wouldn't, by definition, be a fishing expedition.

[crazy canuck]

Aren't Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges and Weil, Gotschal prestigous firms? They wouldn't just be out on a fishing expedition unless they knew what they're going to catch, right?

I hope you were being sarcastic.

[citizen k]

That's my point, it's not a fishing expedition. They've got something on JP Morgan and JPM is playing delay, delay, delay but Judge Walrath is having none of it. Discovery moves forward.

[Barrister]

"Fishing expeditions", or at least attempts to go fishing, are exceedingly common in any kind of litigation however.

[crazy canuck]

That's my point, it's not a fishing expedition. They've got something on JP Morgan and JPM is playing delay, delay, delay but Judge Walrath is having none of it. Discovery moves forward.

Then you should have said there was some substance to their requests rather then simply saying it wasnt a fishing expedition  because some lawyers belonging to well known firms were doing the examinations.

[citizen k]

Here's what another lawyer says about today's hearing:

...The litigation surrounding the 2004 order is the most critical event in this case since WMI filed its 3/21 lawsuit as required by 1821(d), and today the court ruled the 2004 order will not be reconsidered. Moreover, given the Kaiser precedent, JPM can't appeal that order either, so it is stuck with having to comply. As I wrote this weekend, compliance entails surrendering information that could give rise to substantial liability, including, possibly, claims from 3rd parties.

In addition to this risk there is the damage to Jamie Dimon's reputation in the international banking community. As the most important and visible financial professional in the world (including the fact that Dimon is chair of the NY Fed this year) he cannot submit to deposition questions related to allegedly tortious (and, possibly, criminal) activity. Such depositions would damage his standing so he will not submit to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the very elite world in which JD moves. In that realm no taint of scandal must attach to the person (scandal connected with the person's firm is another matter). In Dimon's case he knows he would have to pay a judgment eventually, so why sully himself by submitting to depositions when he'll have to pay eventually anyway?

I believe JPM's general counsel is discussing today's result with Dimon, and though I think he won't actually settle until a subpoena is issued against him, WMI got closer to that result today.