> Everyone talked about a 10% to 15% pull back on the markets! Based on
> charts this may be the the pull back and a great opportunity to buy
> BAC again...

> 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

> On Jul 3, 9:53 pm, ron <rcabre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Everyone talked about a 10% to 15% pull back on the markets! Based on
> > charts this may be the the pull back and a great opportunity to buy
> > BAC again...- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> 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

> $DOW closed below its 6,20,50,200 MA this may be the possible pull
> back that everyone keeps talking about in Wall Street

> I think we are getting close to that 12.05

> Yo This is some bullllshit right here.

> On Jul 6, 10:32 am, ron <rcabre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think we are getting close to that 12.05

> Why Natasha, i think is a good opportunity to buy

> On Jul 6, 8:38 am, Natasha Fatale <kerryjingleheimerschm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> > Yo This is some bullllshit right here.

> > On Jul 6, 10:32 am, ron <rcabre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I think we are getting close to that 12.05