Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

January 3, 2012 Hon. Gregory M. Sleet, Chief Judge United States District Court, District of Delaware J.

Caleb Boggs Federal Building 844 N. King Street, Room 4324, Unit 19 Wilmington, DE 19801-3569

Re: In re Washington Mutual, Inc. et al. (WMI), Case No. 08-12229 (MFW) The Official Committee of Equity Holders of Washington Mutual, Inc. (EC), Appellants v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al., Appellees (1:11-cv-00158-GMS) (EC Appeal) Black Horse Capital, L.P., et al., Appellants v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Appellees (1:11-cv-00124-GMS) (TPS Appeal)

Dear Judge Sleet, I am a WMI shareholder and am writing to respectfully request: (1) expedited adjudication of the two above-referenced appeals that have been filed with your court; (2) consolidation of the above-referenced appeals; and (3) a stay of confirmation of the above-referenced Chapter 11 case. This letter is not an ex parte communication as I am not a party to either appeal and I am not writing to discuss the merits of either appeal. Notwithstanding that both appeals have been timely filed, they are in grave danger of equitable mootness through confirmation of a plan of reorganization (currently scheduled for February 29, 2012) that would (1) eliminate the estates recourse against third parties, and (2) impose $4,000,000,000 in obligations on the WMI bankruptcy estate, thereby diminishing or eliminating my financial recovery. If either appeal were successful the plan (as written) could not be confirmed. Upon information and belief, briefing for the TPS Appeal was completed on May 16, 2011. Oral argument has not been scheduled for the TPS Appeal. I am not affiliated with either appellant and am not writing to you under any directive or suggestion of either appellant. I am writing to you because I have a very strong interest in having both appeals adjudicated prior to confirmation. Although I am unaffiliated with the EC, I feel I have standing to assert that my due process rights would be impaired by the equitable mooting of its appeal, an appeal which, if successful, would allow the EC to pursue billions of dollars in claims.

Moreover, since the EC appeal was filed the Stern v. Marshall decision has raised the constitutional stakes for the EC Appeal as now there is a question whether Judge Walrath can compromise claims over which she lacks subject matter jurisdiction. If she does not have jurisdiction to compromise such claims and the plan is confirmed there will be no way of redressing the error as the ECs appeal will have been mooted. In a similar vein, if the TPS Appeal is equitably mooted I will have been deprived of the chance of having nearly $4,000,000,000 in claims removed from a bankruptcy estate that has very limited resources for its creditors and shareholders. Independent of my self-interest I also believe that there is a very strong public interest in having these appeals adjudicated prior to confirmation and on an expedited basis. The public interest is not served where, as in the case of the instant appeals, there is a backlog of two to three years for bankruptcy appeals. Nothing in the constitution allows Article III courts to permit bankruptcy appeals to them be equitably mooted because of their administrative backlogs. On the contrary, if I'm correct that the constitution requires the appeals to be decided before WMI confirms a plan of reorganization, and if the only way to prevent the appeal from being equitably mooted were for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to sit as a District Court judge in Delaware and hear the appeal, notwithstanding his status, he would be required to do so. It is an 'extreme' example, but the constitution is an extreme document. Finally, time is of the essence because the Disclosure Statement hearing is currently scheduled for January 11, 2012, and it is expected that Judge Walrath will approve the Disclosure Statement at the hearing or shortly thereafter. The confirmation process should be halted before this hearing to save the estate the millions of dollars of needless expense related to creating and disseminating thousands of copies of plan materials (the plan itself exceeds 500 pages) and ballots. I know of no legal authority that would prevent Judge Walrath from confirming a plan that would equitably moot both appeals. She can, however, be prevented from confirming a plan by a higher court, wherefore I respectfully request that you stay confirmation in WMIs Chapter 11 case until you have adjudicated both the appeals.

Respectfully,