WaMu holders narrow suit against execs, but many allegations remain - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals:

Air Purifiers Philadelphia
The amended shareholder filedin U.S. District Court in Seattle, is a responses to Judge Marsha Pechman’s recent rejection of a chunmk of theinitial lawsuit, a ruling that markefd a win to the defendants. Pechman gave plaintiffs until todayto re-file a complaint againsft WaMu executives. A number of WaMu executivess are named inthe lawsuit, including former chief executive Kerry Killinger. , the new ownert of Washington Mutual, also is named. The New York-based bank does not comment on pending The other defendants could not immediately be reached for comment.
Central to the suit is shareholders’ claim that executiveds kept a huge chunkof WaMu’sd employee retirement plan investedr in the bank’s stock, a move that resultedf in a $300 million loss in the threse years before the bank according to the suit. “Defendants failed to take any meaningfull action to protectthe (retirement despite the precipitous decline in the value of Washingtonb Mutual stock,” the suit alleges. The shortened lawsuit feature s many of the same allegations revolvingaround WaMu’s mortgagee lending and property appraisal system.
The suit also states that WaMuwas “seriouslt mismanaged at the highest and that it “engaged in risky and potentially illegaol lending practices.” The suit cites WaMu’s “unquenchablre thirst” for “garbage-like” loans, a strategy that “brought WaMu to its kneee and threatened the world economy with a meltdownn of epic proportions.” WaMu also used a fraudulenty appraisal system, according to the suit, even as it assurecd members of the retirement plan and other investorsw that its loan underwriting standardz were sound.
In addition, the suit allege s that WaMu, “greatly increased its risk of catastrophivc failure by engaging in a variethy of questionable and highly aggressive accounting techniques — all designed to artificially inflates earnings and decrease or defer the suit states. Parts of the 119-pagw suit are redacted for reasons thatare unclear. A lawyer representing shareholders did not immediatelh return a callfor comment.