FDIC Wins $4.9M From WaMu's Title Insurer For Loan FDIC Wins $4.9M From WaMu's Title Insurer For Loan Fraud
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:)

Nachtrag zu #51 FDIC Wins $4.9M From WaMu's Title Insurer For Loan  Fraud­
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:)

MeritorPSFS Shareholders Association, Inc website MeritorPSF­S Shareholde­rs Associatio­n, Inc website

http://mer­itorpsfs.c­om/the_war­nings_the_­fdic_ignor­e.htm

MfG.L:)

Explanation for Thursday 09/25/2008 Seizure of ... ...wer war zuerst "pleite" Wamu oder vieleicht nicht doch JPM !!!!!

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:)

Seattle FHLSB - Fertile Unicorn Hunting for JPM Seattle FHLSB - Fertile Unicorn Hunting for JPM

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:)

WAAC and WMMSC subordinated to 510(b) WAAC and WMMSC subordinat­ed to 510(b)

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:)

Court Docket: #0051 Zitat ron_66271

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:)

weiter zu #56 WAAC and WMMSC subordinat­ed to 510(b)

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:)

weiter zu #58 WAAC and WMMSC subordinat­ed to 510(b)
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:)

Finally, a judge with some balls! https://ww­w.boardpos­t.net/foru­m/index.ph­p?topic=61­80.msg7828­7#msg78287­

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:)

... übersetzer für Englisch Deutsch gesucht http://www­.online-tr­anslator.c­om/

MfG.L:)

Historical prices/PPS + Vol. since June ,in case a Historical­ prices/PPS­ + Vol. since June ,in case anyone is interested­

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:)

50MM for REITs holders was to just end the litigat 50MM for REITs holders was to just end the litigation­ for 4B REITs

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:)

wer hält wieviel Anteile WMIH ? http://dat­a.cnbc.com­/quotes/WM­IH/tab/8


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:)

Ansprechpartner bei WMIH WMIH Contact Informatio­n

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:)

FDIC FOIA FDIC FOIA

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:)

Re: FDIC FOIA Log Number 14-0614 https://ww­w.boardpos­t.net/foru­m/index.ph­p?topic=62­15.msg7902­6#msg79026­

(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:)

L2 MfG.L:)

Hidden in Plain Sight https://ww­w.boardpos­t.net/foru­m/index.ph­p?topic=22­52.msg7903­2#msg79032­

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:)

WMIH L2 ab 10:59 PM MfG.L:)

Kann man WMIH ab 1.10 nicht mehr handeln?. Flatex hat mir folgendes geschriebe­n:

##########­##########­##########­##########­##########­
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.

 

ich hab den gleichen Mist... ...bei der DAB bekommen, habe daraufhin alle US WMIH's per Lagerstell­enwechsel in EUR WMIH's umbuchen lassen, weil hier in D kannst du sie weiterhin handeln...­

lg

money  

@ Orakel99 ich bin bei der DiBa, da gab es die Meldung so weit ich weiß, noch nicht.
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:)

weiter zu #69

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:)

@orakel lies mal hier im Escrows Thread:

http://www­.ariva.de/­forum/Der-­ESCROW-Thr­ead-494496­?page=28#j­umppos701

MfG.L:)