WMIH + Cooper Info
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6116.msg77106#msg77106
ZItat zeusstatue:
http://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/573778/...rer-for-loan-fraud
Interesting because it is WMBfsb - WMB subsidiary in Utah that was supposedly merged into JPM....
FDIC Wins $4.9M From WaMu's Title Insurer For Loan Fraud
By Kelly Knaub
Law360, New York (September 04, 2014, 6:07 PM ET) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund Inc. must pay the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. $4.9 million for failing to reimburse funds that ATIF agents misappropriated from now defunct Washington Mutual Bank FSB in a number of residential real estate transactions.
The FDIC sought reimbursement, acting as a receive for WaMu, for losses on 14 defaulted residential mortgages, but U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Seitz ruled that the agency was only entitled to six of the 14 transactions because eight had not...
---------------------------
Zitat drkazmd65:
Quote from: seamus3500 on September 05, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
So where does that money go??
At least initially - I would guess - into FDIC coffers to offset some of their costs in running the receivership,.....
But that's an interesting ruling one must admit for 'our' WAMU LT status for the future - should additional monies continue to roll in.
Very interesting,...
-------------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
Well, may be it will be gifted to now inactive Pike Street Holdings or the FDIC Escrow Fund. Makes one think about the status of WMBfsb and what was agreed between FDIC and JPM in the merger agreement!
Or may be JPM never received WMBfsb after all - as it was never mentioned in any of the JPM annual reports. May be the sale/merger of WMBfsb was never finalized.
And may be they couldn't legally seize WMBfsb because (1) it was a direct subsidiary of Pike Street Holdings Inc. (http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110427000000000035.pdf)
and (2) at the time of seizure it was the best capitalized bank in the country. Try to explain that to the public...
-----------------------------
Zitat govinsider:
http://www.cfjblaw.com/files/uploads/realprop/9-5-14/fdic-r-v-atif.pdf
__________________________________________________
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6116.msg77813#msg77813
Zitat dixdeau:
Quote from: govinsider on Today at 03:25:37 PM
http://www.cfjblaw.com/files/uploads/realprop/9-5-14/fdic-r-v-atif.pdf
"; (3) eight of the fourteen transactions are not covered under the CPLS because the FDIC failed to make a timely claim;"
It's not FDIC's money so what's the rush?
$4.9 million should take care of the administrative costs per the last balance summary.
----------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
http://meritorpsfs.com/the_warnings_the_fdic_ignore.htm
MfG.L:)
Explanation for Thursday 09/25/2008 Seizure of Wamu by FDIC
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6170.msg78088#msg78088
ZItat doo_dilettante:
Why was Wamu seized on a Thursday?
Simple explanation: JPM's House was on fire and about to explode!!!
According to the FDIC they were sitting on a portfolio of interest rate swaps with a value of roughly 56 TRILLION!!!
Notional value of interest rate swaps 56,985,936,000 (in millions as of 06/30/2008, source: FDIC)
On Wednesday September 24th, 2008 the market went wild and....
"The rate charged to exchange fixed for floating interest rate payments for two years above Treasury yields, dubbed the swap spread and viewed as a gauge of credit concerns, climbed to 166.38 basis points from 139.25 yesterday. It hit a high of 157.25 last week before the $700 billion proposal was unveiled on Sept. 19. Today's spread was the widest since 1988, or as far back as Bloomberg compiles data."
JPM's portfolio must have looked like Mount Aetna during its latest eruption and all politicians/regulators probably must have run around like headless chicken. The only way so save the financial world was to "gift" WAMU to them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...&sid=abZXOgYUy7GY&refer=home
Swap Spreads Widen to Record Amid Bailout Concern (Update1)
By Liz Capo McCormick - September 24, 2008 15:28 EDT
Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The spread between the rate on a two-year interest-rate swap and Treasury yields surged to a record on concern that U.S. lawmakers may delay a Treasury Department proposal to bail out the banking system.
The rate charged to exchange fixed for floating interest rate payments for two years above Treasury yields, dubbed the swap spread and viewed as a gauge of credit concerns, climbed to 166.38 basis points from 139.25 yesterday. It hit a high of 157.25 last week before the $700 billion proposal was unveiled on Sept. 19. Today's spread was the widest since 1988, or as far back as Bloomberg compiles data.
``The psychological impact of there being no agreement on the government's plan is making the market get impatient'' and widening swap spreads, said Suvrat Prakash, an interest-rate strategist in New York at BNP Paribas Securities Corp., a unit of France's largest bank.
Banks remain reluctant to lend, with short-term borrowing costs rising to the highest since January, as financial institutions suspect the government rescue plan won't be implemented fast enough to ease funding constraints. Lawmakers balked during two days of congressional testimony at rubber-stamping the government proposal to remove illiquid assets from the banking system.
The swap spread is the premium charged over Treasury yields to exchange floating for fixed-rate payments. Swap rates are higher than Treasury yields in part because the floating payments are based on interest rates that contain credit risk, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor.
The three-month Libor jumped 26.5 basis points to 3.476 percent, the highest level since January, the British Bankers' Association said today. ``Lack of liquidity in the term funding markets is creating a lot of uncertainty and volatility around the true level of Libor, raising risk premiums in the swap spread curve,'' wrote George Goncalves, chief Treasury and agency-debt strategist at Morgan Stanley in New York, in a note to clients today. ``We estimate this effect explains 35 basis points of the two-year swap spread widening in the past 2 weeks.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Liz Capo McCormick in New York at Emccormick7@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Liedtka at dliedtka@bloomberg.net
Even George W. was prepped by Hank to address the nation on that day!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA
-----------------------------
Zitat Dmdmd1:
By using the following formula to figure out payment on a 90 day (3-month) swap contract:
Payment = Notional Amount x (Fixed Rate - Floating Rate) x 90 days/360
Payment = $56.985936 Trillion x (.00265) x 90 days/360
Payment = $37.753182600 Billion
Thus if we assume JPM had the full notional amount of $56.9 trillion in a 3 month swap contract, JPM would have lost $37.75 billion in that one day where the 3-month LIBOR jumped up 26.5 basis points.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6158.msg77870#msg77870
Zitat govinsider:
Great History of JPM systematically depleting ("purchasing" *wink* billion$$) of WaMu owned/pledged (unicorn) mortgages and approx $1b of WaMu owned shares of FHLB of Seattle.
Note 1: This is just one of the FHLB utilized by WMI
Note 2: Beginning of 2009 JPM began to stack the BOD (moles) of FHLB with JPM/WaMu staff.
Note 3: Research "Super Liens" to see where these stand
Just click on a report and begin the "Washington Mutual" search for the nauseous results.
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...508242419/d10qa.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...2509066785/d10k.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...110000067/d10-k.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...ttle1231201010k.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...ttle1231201110k.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...tle1231201210ka.htm
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...ttle1231201310k.htm
mw rockz~
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6178.msg78261#msg78261
Zitat ron_66271:
This topic needs to be discussed. I did not want to rerail Gov's thread, so I broke-out the topic.
Note that JPM is making payment to WMMSC.
510(b) are over-funded Claims.
Quote from: sillyinvestor on Today at 03:34:52 PM
Ok, for the slow ones (me), this reads WMB was actually the originating holder of the securities, not WMIH.
Can someone explain a little further?
Quote from: govinsider on Today at 01:19:20 PM
This ones for you AZ....
PC Fed Wire Instructions:
ABA Number: 021000021
Account Number: 304-652601
JPMorgan Chase Bank – New York, NY
Credit: Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.
Tranquility Master Fund
Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Alter or Amend the Court’s Opinion and Order Regarding Subordination of the Claim of Tranquility Master Fund, Ltd. [Docket No. 9301; filed 1/3/12]
Please see doc;
Court Docket: #9301
Document Name: Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Alter or Amend the Court's Opinion and Order Regarding Subordination of the Claim of Tranquility Master Fund, Ltd.
Date Filed: 1/3/2012
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120103000000000017
“Here, although the Trusts were “issuing entities,” they were not the “issuers” of the securities as a matter of law. The “issuers” were the depositors, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (“WAAC”) and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (“WMMSC”), both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”). Accordingly, the “issuers” of the securities were indeed affiliates of the Debtors. The correction of this error of law will lead to the proper subordination of Tranquility’s claim.”
RELIEF REQUESTED
9.
The Committee seeks to alter or amend that portion of the Court’s Opinion and Order in which the Court ruled that the Debtors have not stated a basis for subordination of the Claim. The Committee requests entry of an order finding that WAAC and WMMSC were the issuers of the Certificates, and that because WAAC and WMMSC were affiliates of the Debtors under section 101(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, section 510(b) applies to subordinate the Claim.
If the MBS are so toxic, then why does everyone want them?
What I find so interesting is that the Unsecured Creditors and WMILT want the MBS [WAAC and WMMSC] subordinated to 510(b).
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229140915000000000002
Court Docket: #0051
Document Name: Certification of Counsel Regarding Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending Time for Plaintiff WMI Liquidating Trust to Oppose Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 38]
Date Filed: 9/15/2014
WMI/WMILT v. FDIC "C"
"5. On September 5, 2014, the FDIC filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 38) (the “FDIC’s Motion to Dismiss”).
6. The FDIC and WMILT agree to extend through and including October 22, 2014 the period in which WMILT must respond to the FDIC’s Motion to Dismiss and the relief requested therein.
7. The FDIC and WMILT further agree to extend through and including November 21, 2014 the period in which the FDIC may file a reply, if any, in support of the FDIC’s Motion to Dismiss.
8. This stipulation is made without waiver or concession by WMILT or the FDIC of any defense, jurisdictional or otherwise. This stipulation does not serve as consent to the entry of final orders or judgments by the Bankruptcy Court."
---------------------------
Court Docket: #0053
Document Name: Certification of Counsel Regarding Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending Time for Plaintiff WMI Liquidating Trust to Oppose Defendant Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 41]
Date Filed: 9/16/2014
https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229140916000000000001
----------------------------
Court Docket: #0054
Document Name: Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff WMILT’s Stipulation for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 51]
Date Filed: 9/16/2014
https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229140916000000000002
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Zitat ron_66271:
From PDF 10/34
21. In short, the Trusts were not the issuers of the Certificates. Rather, WAAC and WMMSC, as depositors, were the issuers of the Certificates. The Court has already determined that WAAC was an affiliate of the Debtors, see Op. at 18, n.4, and WMMSC was as well. Therefore, the Certificates were issued by “affiliates” of the Debtors, and Tranquility’s Claim must be subordinated under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
NOTICE
22. Notice of this Motion is being given to: (i) the Office of the United States Trustee; (ii) counsel to the Debtors; (iii) counsel to Tranquility; (iv) counsel to the Equity Committee; and (v) parties that have requested service pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002.
WHEREFORE, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court (i) alter or amend that portion of the Opinion and Order in which the Court ruled that the Debtors have not stated a basis for subordination of the Claim; (ii) enter an order finding that WAAC and WMMSC, which are both affiliates of the Debtors pursuant to section 101(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, were the issuers of the securities underlying Tranquility’s Claim, and that accordingly section 510(b) applies to subordinate the Claim; and (iii) grant the Committee such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable.
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6178.msg78264#msg78264
Zitat azcowboy:
Quote from: govinsider on Today at 01:19:20 PM
This ones for you AZ....
PC Fed Wire Instructions:
ABA Number: 021000021
Account Number: 304-652601
JPMorgan Chase Bank – New York, NY
Credit: Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.
Gov;
Sorry my friend; you are going to have to do much better than this, ... if you .. "think" .. that you can change my mind regarding Chase ONLY becoming the servicing agent, for the WMI Loan File' ... I have already reviewed this site' .... I'm set, rock solid, on this issue ...
Here, ... this information is directly off of the
https://wamusecurities.com/
This site, which breaks down the requirements for a servicing agent, any servicing agent to participate .... 4th tab from the left' ..... sorry Bro' ... some of us' went through this information, in great detail over two months ago' ... back in July'
AZ
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Zitat govinsider:
Judge Boyle, this one's for you!
Failed NC Bank Execs Granted Summary Judgment on All FDIC Claims
Finally, one who called the FDIC out for what it is. Told them in no uncertain words, that if you were the ones encouraging the loans and overseeing the regulators, how the hell can you sue them for their behavior.
"In sum, the FDIC claims that defendants were not only more prescient than the nation's most trusted bank regulators and economists, but that they disregarded their own foresight of the coming crisis in favor of making risky loans. Such an assertion is wholly implausible. The surrounding facts, and public statements of economists and leaders such as Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke belie FDIC's position here. It appears that the only factor between defendants being sued for millions of dollars and receiving millions of dollars in assistance from the government is that Cooperative was not considered to be "too big to fail."
http://www.dandodiary.com/wp-content/uploads/...aryJudgmentOrder1.pdf
"Judge Boyle concluded saying that for big banks to be forgiven for their role in the financial crisis because of their size while the directors and officers of small banks are pursued for monetary compensation "is unfortunate if not outright unjust."
http://www.dandodiary.com/
----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
IMO she has.
"Count I of the amended complaint charges JPMC with underhanded commercial activities that predate FDIC's involvement (much less FDIC-Receiver) but are alleged to have directly injured these bondholders intentionally," the judge states. "Neither WaMu nor its assets is affected by the Bondholders' Count I. These conclusions open no Pandora's Box: one presumes that underhanded commercial activities designed to drive an acquisition target into FDIC receivership are rare; the nature of the bondholders' specialized contractual relationship with WaMu distinguishes them from other creditors; and it does not shock the conscience if misconduct breeds its own rewards."
""As a result of these alleged nefarious activities, JPMC was able to acquire WaMu at a fire-sale price and the bonds were rendered worthless," states Collyer in her ruling."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/04/50957.htm
-----------------------------
Zitat kenwalker:
"However, the Court will briefly discuss the FDIC's claim that the "Great Recession" was not only foreseeable, but was actually foreseen by the defendants.[DE 98 at 24]. The Court discusses this claim only due to the absurdity of the FDIC's position."
Think about that for a minute.
First off, the FDIC is claiming that these officers / directors of a relative small bank not only saw the "Great Recession" train wreck coming but they then bought tickets to be a part of that train wreck.
Second, think about FDIC's position as banking's watchdog regulator. If a couple of officers / directors at a small NC bank should have seen it coming, as watchdog / regulator where was the FDIC?
Third, FDIC position as an insurer. That train ( the one the officers / directors should have seen the wreck coming ) was insured by FDIC. Blazing Saddles where the new black sheriff holds himself hostage comes to mind. Something that stupid only works in the movies.
Thanks Gov for insight as to who we are dealing with, their grasp on reality, and their inability to "think" fair where their self serving intrest is concerned.
----------------------------
Zitat govinsider:
If you didn't deep dive into the D&O Article ( Failed NC Bank Execs Granted Summary Judgment on All FDIC Claims By Kevin LaCroix on September 16, 2014 ), its a good write-up along with a good summary linked by the law firm Alston & Bird LLP"s
http://www.alston.com/files/Publication/...s-and-officers-9-15-14.pdf
----------------------------
Zitat patience360_han:
Very interesting read. Thanks gov. Finally, a straight shooter who can see, and pointed out as well the root injustice: "It appears that the only factor between defendants being sued for millions of dollars and receiving millions of dollars in assistance from the government is that Cooperative was not considered to be "too big to fail." ... Taking the position that a big bank's directors and officers should be forgiven for failure due to its size and an unpredictable economic catastrophe while aggressively pursuing monetary compensation from a small bank's directors and officers is unfortunate if not outright unjust. " I'm afraid this judgement (of against government picking winners and losers) is coming too late for us. Ironically, it may not even be helpful for us in LT vs. D&O either. I'm pessimistic.
----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
sillyinvestor expressed a desire that Judge Collyer adopt a similar attitude as Judge Boyle. Judge Collyer, according to her statements, had already arrived at a parallel point of view. So has Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York.
More to the point, Judge Collyer is the presiding who will decide the upcoming fiscal fates of FDIC/JPMC re liabilities for asset backed securities bought by Deutsche Bank. The quoted statements were made in context of the Deutsche Bank case.
Think in terms of amount of funds recovered from WMB liquidations which might or might not be available for unencumbered dispersal by FDIC-R.
**************************************************
I'm sure you have pondered this and am curious about your tentative conclusions.
Why would FDIC need extended extensions for a decision on whether to challenge Western Washington sending the case back to Judge Walrath ?
This cannot be surprise to FDIC or WMILT. Why prolong a decision from Delaware?
------------------------------
ZItat patience360_han:
Not really follow what are you asking. Sorry.
In my original post, I should make it more clear that "I'm pessimistic" because "I'm afraid this judgement (of against government picking winners and losers) is coming too late for us (re. us vs FDIC)." As for LT vs D&O, I'm still hopeful that we will prevail. But I can also see this judge's opinions can add ammunition to our adversaries' argument.
-----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
Sorry, the suit by employees who want full compensation per claimed contractual obligation of WMB was sent to another jurisdiction by Judge Walrath in order to fulfill the exhaustion of all other venues requirement. That suit was ordered back to Delaware from the Western Washington venue.
The FDIC had a finite time to challenge that order of referral. The time to respond has elapsed and with the consent of WMILT been allowed to be extended multiple times.
The above parallels the D&O insurers case in bouncing from court to court I thought you might have been interested.
------------------------------
Zitat Joe513:
Good summary with one caveat. Walrath did not send the case to another venue. She was silent on venue in her order. The trust lawyers decided to file in Western WA because they thought it would be a favorable venue to their case. Didn't work so we lost almost a year of progress.
-----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
Correct, she did not choose the venue. In order to fill in 'the exhaust all other avenues of redress' requirement any legitimate venue would have sufficed.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6190.msg78437#msg78437
Zitat T1215s:
Prices
Date Open High Low Close Volume Adj Close*
Sep 16, 2014 2.65 2.68 2.63 2.65 417,100 2.65
Sep 15, 2014 2.66 2.70 2.63 2.68 472,400 2.68
Sep 12, 2014 2.64 2.72 2.64 2.68 49,100 2.68
Sep 11, 2014 2.68 2.73 2.65 2.65 314,600 2.65
Sep 10, 2014 2.65 2.73 2.65 2.69 105,800 2.69
Sep 9, 2014 2.65 2.73 2.65 2.71 98,100 2.71
Sep 8, 2014 2.70 2.73 2.70 2.72 42,700 2.72
Sep 5, 2014 2.65 2.73 2.65 2.70 128,300 2.70
Sep 4, 2014 2.68 2.75 2.68 2.74 58,900 2.74
Sep 3, 2014 2.70 2.75 2.70 2.74 174,100 2.74
Sep 2, 2014 2.65 2.77 2.65 2.75 88,000 2.75
Aug 29, 2014 2.68 2.75 2.65 2.75 127,400 2.75
Aug 28, 2014 2.75 2.80 2.70 2.72 116,400 2.72
Aug 27, 2014 2.78 2.78 2.70 2.75 81,400 2.75
Aug 26, 2014 2.77 2.87 2.70 2.70 185,900 2.70
Aug 25, 2014 2.84 2.85 2.77 2.81 92,800 2.81
Aug 22, 2014 2.77 2.84 2.76 2.84 93,700 2.84
Aug 21, 2014 2.72 2.81 2.72 2.77 34,300 2.77
Aug 20, 2014 2.70 2.80 2.70 2.77 89,500 2.77
Aug 19, 2014 2.73 2.78 2.70 2.71 85,800 2.71
Aug 18, 2014 2.70 2.73 2.70 2.73 93,100 2.73
Aug 15, 2014 2.72 2.72 2.68 2.71 237,100 2.71
Aug 14, 2014 2.70 2.72 2.65 2.72 183,600 2.72
Aug 13, 2014 2.60 2.72 2.60 2.71 101,600 2.71
Aug 12, 2014 2.71 2.72 2.68 2.72 163,700 2.72
Aug 11, 2014 2.69 2.72 2.69 2.72 104,000 2.72
Aug 8, 2014 2.67 2.71 2.67 2.71 50,800 2.71
Aug 7, 2014 2.70 2.72 2.60 2.69 98,300 2.69
Aug 6, 2014 2.69 2.70 2.68 2.69 146,700 2.69
Aug 5, 2014 2.65 2.70 2.65 2.69 80,000 2.69
Aug 4, 2014 2.68 2.70 2.62 2.70 166,100 2.70
Aug 1, 2014 2.72 2.75 2.70 2.70 123,100 2.70
Jul 31, 2014 2.75 2.76 2.70 2.72 141,300 2.72
Jul 30, 2014 2.75 2.76 2.75 2.75 69,300 2.75
Jul 29, 2014 2.75 2.76 2.75 2.75 275,800 2.75
Jul 28, 2014 2.75 2.76 2.75 2.75 93,800 2.75
Jul 25, 2014 2.70 2.85 2.70 2.75 87,900 2.75
Jul 24, 2014 2.75 2.81 2.75 2.77 109,800 2.77
Jul 23, 2014 2.75 2.78 2.75 2.76 221,600 2.76
Jul 22, 2014 2.75 2.85 2.75 2.78 53,300 2.78
Jul 21, 2014 2.80 2.85 2.75 2.77 132,200 2.77
Jul 18, 2014 2.81 2.85 2.74 2.80 166,000 2.80
Jul 17, 2014 2.90 2.90 2.80 2.82 24,800 2.82
Jul 16, 2014 2.80 2.90 2.80 2.90 214,100 2.90
Jul 15, 2014 2.77 2.90 2.77 2.82 69,400 2.82
Jul 14, 2014 2.80 2.80 2.75 2.80 157,800 2.80
Jul 11, 2014 2.70 2.80 2.70 2.80 117,500 2.80
Jul 10, 2014 2.75 2.80 2.74 2.77 61,000 2.77
Jul 9, 2014 2.77 2.80 2.75 2.78 34,600 2.78
Jul 8, 2014 2.87 2.87 2.79 2.79 87,500 2.79
Jul 7, 2014 2.84 2.89 2.79 2.81 94,000 2.81
Jul 3, 2014 2.82 2.94 2.81 2.92 61,500 2.92
Jul 2, 2014 2.75 2.95 2.75 2.91 85,000 2.91
Jul 1, 2014 2.72 2.95 2.72 2.88 134,000 2.88
Jun 30, 2014 2.75 2.87 2.75 2.83 68,900 2.83
Jun 27, 2014 2.70 2.82 2.70 2.82 100,000 2.82
Jun 26, 2014 2.75 2.80 2.75 2.75 156,700 2.75
Jun 25, 2014 2.76 2.80 2.75 2.80 101,100 2.80
Jun 24, 2014 2.77 2.80 2.75 2.80 77,200 2.80
Jun 23, 2014 2.80 2.85 2.75 2.77 235,500 2.77
Jun 20, 2014 2.82 2.85 2.75 2.80 229,400 2.80
Jun 19, 2014 2.87 2.91 2.82 2.83 115,300 2.83
Jun 18, 2014 2.92 2.93 2.82 2.90 106,000 2.90
Jun 17, 2014 2.98 3.05 2.76 2.89 114,700 2.89
Jun 16, 2014 3.00 3.06 2.95 2.98 161,200 2.98
Jun 13, 2014 3.01 3.09 2.99 2.99 131,500 2.99
Jun 12, 2014 2.75 3.06 2.75 3.06 335,000 3.06
Jun 11, 2014 2.69 2.89 2.69 2.84 261,600 2.84
Jun 10, 2014 2.69 2.82 2.69 2.75 97,500 2.75
Jun 9, 2014 2.69 2.80 2.60 2.80 144,300 2.80
Jun 6, 2014 2.60 2.87 2.60 2.82 148,100 2.82
Jun 5, 2014 2.80 2.80 2.61 2.76 280,200 2.76
Jun 4, 2014 2.80 2.89 2.78 2.79 173,100 2.79
Jun 3, 2014 2.85 2.90 2.85 2.89 86,800 2.89
Jun 2, 2014 2.80 2.92 2.80 2.90 63,200 2.90
-------------------------------
WHERES OUR M/A,MW.N CREW
Have a great day people-Ts
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6200.msg78585#msg78585
Zitat noname:
Washington Mutual. With over $300 billion of assets, Washington Mutual was the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The company had issued approximately $4 billion of REIT Preferred securities according to its final plan of reorganization. These REIT Preferreds ultimately received a litigation windfall following the attempted Conditional Exchange into holding company preferred stock.
Litigation directly related to the Conditional Exchange continued for years after failure due to the complicated mechanics of the Conditional Exchange. Importantly, Washington Mutual announced the exchange of the REIT Preferred to holding company preferred shares on September 26, 2008, one day after JPMorgan announced the acquisition of the bank, creating ambiguity as to which entity was responsible for the security. JPMorgan, as successor to Washington Mutual Bank, ultimately made a $50 million payment offer in an attempt to put an end to litigation by holders of the original REIT Preferreds who claimed the Conditional Exchange was not properly executed. The Washington Mutual precedent highlights that the complexity of the Conditional Exchange and resultant ambiguity leads to additional (and otherwise unnecessary) litigation during a regulatory or bankruptcy process.
----------
Concluding Comments.
The Bank REIT Preferred universe is now approximately $3 billion and nearly $5 billion of defaulted securities remain subject to litigation or some form of settlement windfall.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2013/February/...8671403665_1.pdf
-----------------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
The REIT's were over funded by $10B - $13B, or $14B to $17B in total.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23332326/...IT-Trust-Preferred-Prospectus
Happy CRA. Thank you Chad and Doreen.
The $4B went first to JPM and then back to LT through the 363 Sale. Now; Sub Rosa.
HLCE
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Top Institutional Holders
Concentration of Current % Held Top 10 Institutions: Top 20 Institutions: Top 50 Institutions: All:
Low
Avg. Turnover Rating
Name Shares Held Position Value Percentage of
Total Holdings
since 9/20/14 % Owned
of Shares
Outstanding Turnover
Rating
Appaloosa ...
17.0M$51,089,982 +42% 8.4% Moderate§
Greywolf Capital ...
14.9M$42,101,232 +37% 7.4% Low§
Tipp Hill ...
2.4M$6,799,358 +6% 1.2% High§
Capital Research ...
1.5M$1,851,080 +4% 0.8% Low§
Third Avenue ...
1.4M$3,827,149 +4% 0.7% Low§
Davis (Eugene I)
399.0K$1,125,279 +1% 0.2% Low§
Cougar Capital LLC
375.0K$1,061,250 +1% 0.2% Moderate§
Willingham (Michael)
347.7K$1,043,088 +1% 0.2% Low§
Glossman (Diane B)
313.2K $939,579 +1% 0.2% Low§
Renoff (Michael)
313.2K $939,579 +1% 0.2% Low
§
Top Mutual Fund Holders
Percentage of Outstanding Shares per Holdings Style
Core Growth 0.0%
Core Value 0.0%
Deep Value 0.0%
GARP 0.0%
Income Value 0.0%
Index 0.0%
International 0.0%
Specialty 0.0%
Yield 0.0%
Moderate
Avg. Turnover Rating
Name Shares Held Position Value Percentage of
Total Holdings
since 9/20/14 % Owned
of Shares
Outstanding Investment
Style
Fidelity Advisor ...
17.3K $51,954 0% 0.0% Specialty§
Fidelity Advisor ...
4.5K $12,115 0% 0.0%§Income Value
MfG.L:)
Helen Grayson, CAP
Executive Assistant to
Chad Smith and Curt Brouwer
WMI Liquidating Trust and WMI Holdings Corp.
1201 Third Avenue Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: 206-432-8729
helen.grayson@wamuinc.net
---------------------------------------------
Director of Tax
Curt Brouwer
WMI Liquidating Trust
March 2012 – Present (2 years 7 months)
Oversight of the remaining tax items from the bankruptcy process of Washington Mutual, Inc. primarily focused on the monetization of remaining tax refunds arising from federal tax litigation and from state amended returns as well as the oversight of the defense against assertions from various state tax authorities.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/curt-brouwer/10/26a/927
--------------------------------------------------
MfG.L:)
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6215.msg78961#msg78961
ZItat govinsider:
see .pdf
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014, 8:40 AM Good morning Mr
From: Williams, Gina
Subject: Grant - Full
This will respond to your electronic request dated September 18, 2014, submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. You requested
the most recent reports and records representing full accounting of the Washington Mutual receivership by the FDIC as available to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the authority which appointed the Corporation as conservator or receiver. Reports and records requested should detail the assets held, sold, transferred, and currents account values held in all accounts of receivership.
Enclosed are copies of the records located by the FDIC which are responsive to your request.
This completes the processing of your request.
Sincerely,
/Signed/
Gina Williams, Government Information Specialist
FOIA/Privacy Act Group
Enclosures: 8 pages
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...=dlattach;topic=6215.0;attach=1358
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/...=dlattach;topic=6215.0;attach=1359
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
(Zitat) Quote from: govinsider on Yesterday at 11:05:56 PM
Its going to be a hard lesson for most here; FHLB Super Liens, and FDIC's decision that they keep the collateral provided by the bank rather than pay the FHLB’s back at par upon resolution.
Anxiously awaiting the payoff!
mw rockz~
----------------------------
ZItat dixdeau:
Didn't the FHLB liens become JPMC's responsibility?
http://www.fhlbsf.com/about/investor/docs/2008-ar.pdf
page 4 San Francisco. advances were assumed by JPMC.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329701/...ttle1231201310k.htm
Seattle
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, 77% of our outstanding mortgage loans had been purchased from our former member, Washington Mutual Bank, F.S.B. (which was acquired by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a nonmember).
The info you provided stated that IF FDIC released the collateral rather than repay THEN the face of Bankruptcy could change. As JPMC took the FHLB advances and the responsibility for the loans FDIC did not have to make that decision.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight
(Zitat ron_66271vom 15.11.2012):
Quote from: ron_66271 on November 15, 2012, 04:37:46 PM
The assets are hidden in plain sight as JPM/FDIC GUC $20.55B claim. The assets are kept off WMI’s books and hidden from equity as a ‘disputed assets’. When JPM/FDIC releases their claim, we will receive the assets/value as ‘Recovery Claims’ to LT for distribution.
The claim was overlapping and inflated with the FDIC's claim and in-total of $54B [27*2]. The final resolved claim was for $20-21B and released. Where are the JPM/FDIC released claims of WMI assets going to now?
***
Remember AAOC, White & Case, and others parties spent BIG money [100s of millions] buying up WMI debt to acquire blocking positions to be in control of the books of the Estates assets.
All that effort to control just for some Run-off Notes in a wind-down corporation! Ok, the NOLs are nice.
Now how about that Term Sheet the AAOC worked out with JPM/FDIC on behalf of the Debtor. Plus we have the ‘363 Sale and Settlement’ of WMI assets to JPMC Entities? Why would the Terms be to a 363 Sale and Settlement? Yes, to keep others out-of-the-money for the AAOC’s own benefit.
How would AAOC get the value of the Sold and Settled assets back after BK is final to reward themselves?
Would AAOC receive the lost value back through Recovery Claims like released Disputed JPM/FDIC claims to WMI assets [+$20B]?
Plus, AAOC would own the sealed envelope “The Courts Registry Accounts”. ADD [My numbers = +$10.4B (IMO)]
***
LT can now pursue the Recovery claims and resolve the GUC 20.55B claim.
WMI Liquidating Trust's Motion to Substitute Itself as Plaintiff for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Washington Mutual, Inc.
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229121109000000000011.pdf
ADD Up-date; JPM released their GUC claims
Place-holder for the $20.8B in Retained Earning going to the LT for distribution;
See PDF 22, 25/35
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=8531166
Plus, we have the Courts Registry Accounts, and the FDIC’s Escrow Account hidden in plain sight also.
All IMHO.
Zitat von ron_66271 vom 25.09.2014 dazu:
Same Numbers, but now just add more interest for numerous years.
The RE/DCR and CRA are nice numbers for LT, but the other stuff at FDIC are the big numbers.
HLCE
----------------------------
Zitat Kszabo:
The somewhere between $239B to $272B in mortgages should have yielded somewhere between $71.7B to $81.6B in interest for the six years. What about the repaid principal?
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
##################################################
I. US Penny Stocks
Unsere amerikanische Lagerstelle hat uns über bevorstehende Änderungen der
Richtlinie und der Dienstleistungen für niedrig bewertete US-Wertpapiere informiert.
Aus diesem Grund ist es Ihnen ab dem 1. Oktober 2014 nicht mehr möglich,
Aufträge für den Empfang und Kauf bestimmter niedrig bewerteter US-Wertpapiere
aufzugeben.
Um solche US-Wertpapiere handelt es sich, wenn mindestens eine der folgenden
Bedingungen erfüllt ist:
• der Kurs je Aktie liegt bei USD 1.50 oder weniger und das Papier ist weder an der
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) noch an der NASDAQ notiert;
• der Kurs liegt zwischen USD 1.50 und USD 5.00, das Papier ist an keiner (bei der
SEC registrierten) US-Börse notiert und es wird mindestens einer der folgenden
Bedingungen erfüllt:
i. Nettosachanlagen unter USD 2 Millionen;
ii. Nettosachanlagen unter USD 5 Millionen und weniger als drei Jahre operativ tätig;
iii. durchschnittlicher Umsatz von weniger als USD 6 Millionen in den letzten drei
Jahren;
• Notierung im außerbörslichen (OTC) Pink Sub-Segment «Limited Information»
oder «No Information», ungeachtet des Kurses;
• mit OTC-Marktbezeichnung «Other OTC», ungeachtet des Kurses.
##################################################
Haben die Depotinhaber von anderen Brokern ebenfalls so eine Info erhalten?
Oder habe ich was falsch verstanden?
Ich hoffe das die neu AG (WMIH) den Börsenplatz bald wechselt.
lg
money
Aber im Haupt Troll Thread wurde diesbezüglich vor einiger Zeit schon einmal nachgefragt.
Ich glaube Key Key oder Stay hatten sich mit dem Thema auseinander gesetzt, mit dem Ergebnis das sie , er oder wer auch immer einen Lagerstellenwechsel (wie gerade Moneymoagi geschrieben) durchziehen wollten um dem Problem aus dem Weg zu gehen.
Diese "US Penny Order" ist aber mMn. nicht herausgegeben worden wegen expliziet WMIH sondern sollte so denke ich allgm. Natur sein.
also, ran Lagerstellenwechsel und gut...
MfG.L:)
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2252.msg79104#msg79104
Zitat amd4001967:
It is not hidden, it is there for everyone to read , look:
Page 479 of the PDF (Plan Contribution Assets):
To WMI Entities:
69.643% of the Homeownership Carryback Refund Amount and 20% of all other Net
Tax Refunds
American Savings Litigation
JPMC Allowed Unsecured Claim
JPMC"s right, title and interest in and to H.S. Loan Corporation
Revolving Notes
Remaining Claims
Registry Funds
WMI Accounts and the Disputed Accounts
WMI Intellectual Property
WMI Policies
WMI Rabbi Trust
$25,000,000.00 for Visa Shares
$50,000,000.00 with respect to Vendor Claims
Now from the GSA (page 233 of the PDF):
" "Purchase Price" shall mean the consideration paid, sold, assigned and transferred by the Acquisition JPMC Entities pursuant to the 363 Sale and Settlement, including, without limitation, (a) the contribution and waiver of distributions with respect to the JPMC Allowed Unsecured Claim, (b) the waiver of any and all right, title and interest the Acquisition JPMC Entities may have in or to the Plan Contribution Assets being retained by the Debtors pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the Plan, (c) the assumption of the Assumed Liabilities and (d) the payment of certain Allowed Claims pursuant to the Plan.
". Again ...."(a) the contribution and waiver of distributions with respect to the JPMC Allowed Unsecured Claim"
How much do you say was the value of the JPMC Allowed Unsecured Claim ?
https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229111212000000000003
-----------------------------
Zitat distrojunky:
amd,
An "Unsecured Claim" by definition means that there is no security (or assets) established (or secured) for the claim. This bogus claim and it's contribution to WMI is just of value to WMI in that they would not be involved in litigation concerning the claim. If it was a "Secured Claim", that was released, then the security or assets claimed would be released to WMI but that is not the case. IMO. Distro.
----------------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
Well , it is in the Plan Contribution Assets and since "Assets" means:"In financial accounting, an asset is an economic resource. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset)" I thought that there must be some value but ,whatever,here we are. --------------------------------------------------
Zitatende
MfG.L:)
http://www.ariva.de/forum/Der-ESCROW-Thread-494496?page=28#jumppos701
MfG.L:)