> This may be part of their battle plan... Pulled from Yahoo (hate to do
> this all the time but once in a while they have a good point)...

> Here is one of the good comments:Chas wrote:

> With the recent approval for discovery/production - the next step is a
> jury trial…and that’s where the FDIC/JPMc don’t want to be:

> Weil/Quinn has paved the ground work of their case and FDIC/JPM’s only
> defense is “It was a terrible financial situation in our country; we
> had to do it, to stop a systemic meltdown.” The beauty of the case (if
> it gets in front of a jury) is that WMI’s motions carry the “black and
> white” badge of truth, whereas, JPM’s carries the badge of “greed”.
> Juries don’t like greed… Period.

> True or False: Did JPMc break its 18 month confidentially agreement?
> It’s true – it’s right there in black in white. Sure there will be
> some legal conjecture and arguments about what this clause means and
> what that clause means, but ultimately, everyone knows that when you
> agree to not buy the company from “anyone” in 18 months – then you buy
> it anyway - Well, how does JPM defend that? Juries don’t like liars…
> Period.

> True or False: During the “whole bank” transfer and sale, did more
> than WMB/WMfsb deposits and related assets get transferred? The answer
> is yes. JPMc is in possession of Trust Securities and is attempting to
> lay claim to tax refunds that are property of WMI. Also, JPMc claims
> the 3.7 Billion deposit held in WMB was actually a cash infusion (a
> cash infusion into what? A deposit base?). Not to mention that JPMc
> thinks it owns the Legacy Rabbi Trusts, Pension and 401(k) plans, the
> BOLI and Split Dollar policies and some 3 million plus Visa shares.
> These instruments were clearly by and for the benefit of WMI and its
> employees. How does JPM defend that? Might they say “The FDIC said we
> could”..How does the FDIC defend that? Juries don’t like thieves…
> Period.

> True or False: Is JPMc using the WaMu Trademarks and Servicemarks?
> It’s true, the FDIC did transfer WMB/WMfsb but the Trademarks and
> Servicemarks belong/are property of WMI. How does JPM defend that?
> Might they say “The FDIC said we could”..How does the FDIC defend
> that? Might they say “We didn’t know that WMI had them, we thought it
> was part of WMB/WMfsb…” Juries don’t like bootlegging… Period.

> True or False: (This is the most glaring atrocity of it all). Is
> getting a company valued at 300B for 1.9B then later bragging about it
> in public, in shareholder meetings, in SEC documents a bad idea? Of
> course it is, but JPM has shown an outright tendency toward vagary (in
> the sense of eccentric ideas). Juries don’t like vanity…Period.

> Because of the potential of a Jury Trial, we shareholders and our
> ‘peers’ aren’t exactly in love with the government’s actions or big
> banks right now, but most important of all; because section 547 and
> 548 of the bankruptcy code says that this case is winnable by Weil/
> Quinn.

> On Jul 3, 1:06 am, "I love WAMU !" <nicole100w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -