Gestern Nacht ist ein neues Dokument aufgetaucht, welches nicht auf KCCLLC verlinkt ist. Dabei handelt es sich um dieAntwort von WMI auf JPM Motion für mehr Zeit um auf die Summary Judgment Action bzw. die 4 Milliarden Dollar Frage zu antworten
In diesem Antrag bittet JPM um eine Aufschiebung des Falles.
Das Gericht hat bis jetzt jedoch nur eine Anhörung seites JPM gewährt und eine Aussetzung noch nicht gewährt. Sollte die Aussetzung genemigt werden, wird der 24.06 natürlich substanzlos.
Die Anwälte von WMI haben jedoch sehr klar dargestellt, dass es seites JPM num eine Verzögerunstaktik geht um mit dem Geld weiterarbeiten zu können. Hier ein Auszug aus dem Dokument der WMI ANwälte:
It is disturbingly clear that JPMC's ultimate goal is to retain Debtor's deposits for the indefinite future while avoiding any decision on the merits as to whether JPMC is actually entitled to those funds. JPMC even suggests that it may never be necessary for the Court to make a determination as to ownership of the funds, . . . Plaintiffs have asserted a 'legally cognizable claim' for those funds ... and it is time for JPMC to provie the Court with more than vague assurances that it can justify its refusal to release those funds."
--------------------------------------------------
Kleiner Nachtrag: Sobald ich weiss handelt es sich hier um Dokumente die auf PACER aufgetaucht sind. Ein User aus dem Yahoo Board hat Zugang zu diesem und verteilt diese auf einer Mailingliste.
Ich stell für die der Englischen Sprachen mächtigen User mal eine Zusammenfassung herein [aus dem Yahoo Board]
As for WMI's filing today, for those without access to the submitted motions (they're not on kccllc yet), WMI today responded to JPM's motion for more time to respond to WMI's motion for summary judgment in the $4 billion "turnover" action by asking the court to reconsider its order granting an expedited hearing on JPM's motion. (I guess I missed that order being granted, but the continuance hasn't been granted yet. The court only ordered an expedited hearing on JPM's request for a continuance. Get it? If the continuance were granted, this would postpone the 6/24 decision date for Judge Walrath.) WMI's lawyers (Elliott Greenleaf and Quinn Emanuel) very succinctly point out to the court that the facts at issue are exactly the same for both WMI's Motion for Summary judgment and JPM's Motion to Dismiss, and that JPM has produce ZERO factual allegations on the issues but is only delaying for the sake of having and using WMI's money while it delays the proceedings. I quote:
"It is disturbingly clear that JPMC's ultimate goal is to retain Debtor's deposits for the indefinite future while avoiding any decision on the merits as to whether JPMC is actually entitled to those funds. JPMC even suggests that it may never be necessary for the Court to make a determination as to ownership of the funds, . . . Plaintiffs have asserted a 'legally cognizable claim' for those funds ... and it is time for JPMC to provie the Court with more than vague assurances that it can justify its refusal to release those funds."
In other words, time to "put up or shut up".
It's astonishing to me that JPM has, by failing to submit any more evidence to the court, apparently conceded that (1) it needs more time to FIND evidence to support it's claim, and (2) is concerned that it won't prevail unless it's given more time to find this apparently evasive evidence.
So, on the continuance issue, it seems to me that WMI prevails, on "points" a least. Hopefully Judge Walrath will brush this aside and decide on the merits of what is before her, the outcome of which WMI appears to be confident.
As to the second set of filings, by JPM, they are more of the same. (Are JPM's lawyers getting paid by the word?) They support FDIC's motion to stay the BK proceeding until the DC court has ruled in that action, and move to dismiss WMI's counterclaims in the BK adversary actions, reiterating JPM's previous position that FIRREA and banking law give the DC court exclusive jurisdiction over actions resulting from FDIC actions involving "failed" banks, and asserting that the BK court should therefore wait for the DC court to act and decide. This stuff makes my head spin, so I refer you to Bop's previous posts on this subject. If I recall correctly, she concedes that JPM might have a point as to jurisdictional issues on some of WMI's claims which are duplicated in both venues. -----------
An der Börse sind 2 mal 2 niemals 4, sondern 5 minus 1.
Man muß nur die Nerven haben, das minus 1 auszuhalten. |
Thread abonnieren
