WMIH + Cooper Info

MfG.L:)

MfG.L:)

Info vom 26.09.2014 :


Zitat:

Sehr geehrter Herr XXX,

wir finden es gut, dass Sie Ihre Wertpapiergeschäfte über uns erledigen. Zum Handel über OTC in
den USA haben wir heute eine Information, die für Sie bestimmt wichtig ist:
Ab dem 01.10.2014 werden wir die Kaufmöglichkeit von Wertpapieren am Handelsplatz USA
(OTC) einstellen.
Spätestens ab dem 15.12.2014 stellen wir den Auslandshandel über USA (OTC) komplett ein.
Was heißt das für Sie?
Ab dem 01.10.2014 sind keine Kauforders über diesen Handelsplatz mehr möglich. Sie haben
noch Wertpapiere in Ihrem Direkt-Depot, die ausschließlich an diesem Handelsplatz notiert sind?
Dann haben Sie bis Mitte Dezember 2014 Zeit, sich davon zu trennen.
In Ihrem Fall geht es um:
WMI Holdings Corp., US92936P1003
Überlegen Sie einfach in aller Ruhe, was Sie mit Ihren betroffenen Wertpapieren machen.
Und jetzt fragen Sie sich bestimmt, warum wir uns zu diesem Schritt entschieden haben. Das
erklären wir Ihnen natürlich gerne.
Der Handelsplatz steht immer wieder unter Verdacht, für Manipulationen und illegale Geschäfte
genutzt zu werden. Grund genug für die amerikanischen Aufsichtsbehörden, jetzt verstärkte
Restriktionen und Auflagen zu erlassen.
Wir haben uns daher mit unserem Handelspartner entschieden, den Handelsplatz USA (OTC)
nicht mehr anzubieten. Die anderen Handelsplätze der USA sind davon nicht betroffen.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
ING-DiBa
Gabriele Neitzke Matthias Bayer
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

How Long Until We Quit talking About Big WMILT Payoff?

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6248.msg79508#msg79508

Zitat myadad:

As much as I would love to see a big payoff for equity for my claim shares, I have been very clear from the beginning that I didn't expect much. For the past two months, I would guess that 90% of the posts have concerned research into old documents and speculation that we would somehow receive a large payment from the FDIC-R once the 6 year anniversary of our bankruptcy passed. I know that nobody here wants to set a date when this windfall is coming our way but if nothing shows up, how long are you willing to wait until you decide that nothing or very little is coming? Maybe we can get back to discussing what KKR is planning, possible merger candidates or at least something to do with WMIH. IMO, that is where the real money will be made.

-----------------------------

Zitat Uncle_Bo:

Myadad,

I understand your point, but in IMHO we might not see capitalization through equity raise until March of 2015 due to the IRC section 382 and at least my understanding of the 3 year rule for ownership change. We might see some smaller interim deal funded with debt and existing cash before that, who knows ? May be we will also up-list on NASDAQ. This would push up the stock price and get it ready for the next year. It is nice if we issue fewer shares at a higher price with less dilution, isn't it ?!

As to the escrows, what I see is that the FDIC has refused to list any receivership certificates (as a liability on their balance sheet) for the WaMu equity holders (of the WMB). Now, we know that the bank had a single shareholder which was WMI - go figure! Yet their language on the site for the status of the receivership sounds like they have issued such. Here it is:

"Current information indicates that the Receiver is unlikely to have sufficient funds to distribute to holders of receivership certificates issued to junior note holders or equity holders of WAMU . "

This one statement is crazy if you think of it. JPM has current information, since they officially hold the corporate records. How often do they give updates to the FDIC and is it possible that at some point the "current" information may change ? I personally believe, that the expiration of the term of the PAA brings us closer to the answer of some of these questions. But frankly, do not expect multiple of par for the Ps and Ks - simply because this is going to make the FDIC look horrible. May be they dispense money if available to what is considered debt/preferred to "restore" the faith in the system. Investors have fled from the bank stocks and this is part of the reason. But again this is a huge number 11B WMB bondholders + 7.5B for preferred and TPS.

Uncle Bo

--------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Broker                      USA Otc  Kauf      -       Otc Verkauf     -     D  Kauf       -      D  Verkauf

•comdirect                             Ja           -            Ja               -                       -

•flatex                                 Nein          -           Ja                -                      -

*direktanlage.at                    Ja            -           Ja               -        Ja           -              Ja

Deutsche Bank                     Ja             -            Ja              -         Ja           -              Ja  
(lt. gestriger telef. Auskunft)

Ing.BaDiBa                         Nein           -            Ja               -         Ja          -               Ja
(lt. E-Mail)                                             (bis Mitte Dez. 2014)





MfG.L:)

Broker                      USA Otc  Kauf      -       Otc Verkauf     -     D  Kauf       -      D  Verkauf

•comdirect                             Ja           -            Ja               -                       -

•flatex                                 Nein          -           Ja                -                      -

*direktanlage.at                    Ja            -           Ja               -        Ja           -              Ja

Deutsche Bank                     Ja             -            Ja              -         Ja           -              Ja  
(lt. gestriger telef. Auskunft)

Ing.BaDiBa                         Nein           -            Ja               -         Ja          -               Ja
(lt. E-Mail)                                             (bis Mitte Dez. 2014)                                                                                                                                    S-Broker                             Nein          -             Ja  

S- Broker USA -OTC   Kauf  nein     Verkauf  ja  

Broker                      USA Otc  Kauf      -       Otc Verkauf     -     D  Kauf       -      D  Verkauf

Comdirect                             Ja           -            Ja               -                       -

Flatex                                 Nein          -           Ja                -                      -

Direktanlage.at                    Ja            -           Ja               -        Ja           -              Ja

Deutsche Bank                     Ja             -          Ja              -         Ja           -              Ja  
(lt. gestriger telef. Auskunft)

Ing.BaDiBa                         Nein           -          Ja               -         Ja          -               Ja
(lt. E-Mail)             (ab 01.10.2014)      -  (bis Mitte Dez. 2014)

S- Broker                            Nein           -           Ja




(Ing.BaDiBa unter Vorbehalt - da lt. User Staylongstay am 01.10.2014 noch "Handel" an der OTC möglich war)


MfG.L:)

FDIC, JPMorgan Pare Some WaMu Tax Liability Claims
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6278.msg80029#msg80029

Zitat govinsider:
FDIC, JPMorgan Pare Some WaMu Tax Liability Claims

Law360, New York (October 01, 2014, 5:21 PM ET) -- JPMorgan Chase NA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. told a D.C. federal court Tuesday that they will stop fighting about the FDIC's responsibility to cover some outstanding tax liabilities imposed against JPMorgan after buying Washington Mutual Inc. because some tax authorities dropped their claims.

Case Title
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION et al

Case Number
1:12-cv-00450

Court
District Of Columbia

Nature of Suit
Contract: Other

Judge
Rosemary M. Collyer
http://www.law360.com/articles/583126/...me-wamu-tax-liability-claims
-----------------------------
Historical Perspective

FDIC Blasts JPMorgan's Tax Claims In WaMu Coverage Suit
By Jonathan Randles
Law360, New York (February 25, 2014, 2:48 PM ET) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. moved Monday to nix a JPMorgan Chase & Co. unit's claim that the agency must cover costs associated with outstanding tax liabilities stemming from the bank's acquisition of Washington Mutual Inc., telling a Washington federal court that tax claims are being hashed out in a separate action.
The FDIC filed a motion to dismiss all of JPMorgan's tax liability claims from the bank's $1 billion lawsuit against the regulator. JPMorgan, which filed the complaint in December, claims a deal it reached with the FDIC to takeover WaMu indemnifies it for the failed thrift's outstanding state tax liabilities.

The government contends that the tax claims are redundant and are already the subject of an earlier lawsuit brought by JPMorgan in 2012. The FDIC says it has already had discussions with several state taxing authorities about the WaMu tax debt as a result of the first lawsuit.

“Managing the complex litigation surrounding the interpretation of the liability assumption and indemnification provisions of the [WaMu] P&A Agreement is difficult enough without the prospect of duplicative lawsuits,” the FDIC said in a motion Monday. “Dismissing tax-related claims would help simplify and control the court's docket of [WaMu]-related litigation.”

JPMorgan is pursuing litigation that would establish the scope of the agreement between the bank and the FDIC regarding the assumption of  WaMu's outstanding debts. JPMorgan claims that as part of the deal, the bank agreed to assume only a portion of WaMu's liabilities.

WaMu was shut down by the FDIC and brought into receivership on Sept. 25, 2008. That same day, the agency arranged for JPMorgan to take over the thrift, keep open its branches and take on its assets.

According to JPMorgan's December complaint, numerous state tax authorities have hounded JPMorgan over outstanding WaMu tax debt including the New York City Department of Finance, New York State Department of Taxation, the California Franchise Tax Board and Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

The FDIC said it already reached out to these taxing authorities during discovery in the bank's earlier lawsuit. Moreover, some of the taxing authorities, including the New York State Department of Taxation, have already dropped efforts to recover the WaMu tax liabilities.

WaMu is the largest financial institution to fail, with $307 billion in assets at the time of its failure. Generally, when a healthy bank takes on a failed bank in a transaction assisted by the FDIC, the agency takes on a chunk of the risk, sometimes in the form of liabilities.

Representatives for JPMorgan declined to comment. Representatives for the FDIC could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday.

JPMorgan is represented by Robert A. Sacks and Brent J. McIntosh of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. et al., case number 1:13-cv-01997, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
-----------------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
“Managing the complex litigation surrounding the interpretation of the liability assumption and indemnification provisions of the [WaMu] P&A Agreement is difficult enough without the prospect of duplicative lawsuits,” the FDIC said in a motion Monday. “Dismissing tax-related claims would help simplify and control the court's docket of [WaMu]-related litigation.”
-----------------------------
Zitat govinsider:
Quote from: jaysenese on Yesterday at 07:26:03 PM
Just to be clear, Gov posted two links here: the second for "historical perspective".   That is the one that Scott Fox is quoting.  That originally appeared in the FDIC's original filing from February 2014, not this week.

tru dat...I think its the same case (although diff case #) rolled to Rosemary M. Collyer?
-----------------------------
Zitat juicyjuice10001:
If only JPM and FDIC were not in a rush to seize WAMU, things may have been very simple. All those accountants at JPM and FDIC could not come to an agreement on the valuation of WAMU !!. It speaks volume about the mathematical skills taught in the USA schools. FDIC finally admits its incompetency.They have had now six years to solve a mathematical problem, an ordinary high school kid (Asian) can solve in six days.
-----------------------------
Zitat Sgtofarmsone:
I think many will realize they are the same chips  that were distributed at the end of the BK and the conversion which were....

New WMIH shares to equity and kind with attached NOL's, a funding window, and possible future 3rd party litigation (not including JPM OR ANY FDIC entity).  It was spelled out pretty clear to me when I decided to release and take my new shares.  But carry-on by all means, lets get to the bottom of it (no pun intended).
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

FDIC, JPMorgan Pare Some WaMu Tax Liability Claims

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6278.msg80029#msg80029

ZItat CSNY:

Not necessarily. If any money was due the FDIC-R yesterday either it was paid or it wasn't. If it was it will appear on the FDIC's website in due course. If it was not paid and the nonpayment was a default, given that the P&A was a material agreement it will have to file a 8-K.

This news piece suggested to me that the parties are not increasing the acrimony. -----------------------------

ZItat dixdeau:

 Quote from: govinsider on Yesterday at 07:32:35 PM 

tru dat...I think its the same case (although diff case #) rolled to Rosemary M. Collyer?

General

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...nvfdic-complaint.pdf

"25. In or about November 2008, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac", and together with Fannie Mae, the "GSEs") similarly demanded that JPMC commit to repurchase loans WMB sold to Freddie Mac to the extent the loans breached representations and warranties that WMB made to Freddie Mac in connection with the sale of those loans.

26. Unbeknownst to JPMC at the time, the FDIC was secretly working behind the scenes to assist the GSEs and to impose these liabilities, unnecessarily, on JPMC. (editorial- LMAO )

Tax Specific

https://www.scribd.com/doc/238673161/JP-Morgan-v-FDIC-12-Case

"NATURE OF ACTION

1. JPMC brings this complaint for indemnification and declaratory judgment against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in its capacity as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (―WMB‖) (the ―FDIC-Receiver‖) and in its corporate capacity (―FDIC-Corporate‖) (collectively, the ―FDIC‖) arising from a payment from JPMC to the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (―Connecticut‖) in settlement of a tax assessment by the State of Connecticut against WMB. Under the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement between JPMC, the FDIC-Receiver, and FDIC-Corporate, dated as of September 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto (the ―P&A Agreement‖), payment of the tax assessment underlying this action was and is the responsibility of the FDIC-Receiver."

--------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

http://www.ariva.de/forum/...93906-News-364286?page=3563#jumppos89095

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54395282



MfG.L:)

Hank P,Ben B and Tim G face grilling from AIG shareholders

http://online.wsj.com/articles/...12549345?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

Zitat :
Out of office and six years after the events unfolded, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and other architects of the U.S. government"s response to the financial crisis are likely to get their toughest grilling yet this week.

The questions won"t be from government investigators or lawmakers. Instead, they will come from prominent lawyer David Boies as he pursues a lawsuit brought by former American International Group Inc. AIG +1.41%  Chief Executive Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg is challenging the terms of the 2008 bailout for the company he built into a global financial-services powerhouse before being pushed out in 2005.

Besides Mr. Bernanke, other high-profile witnesses will include former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner. Court filings indicate each will field hours of questions.

The lawsuit argues that the government cheated shareholders of $40 billion. It was filed by Starr International Co., an investment and charitable firm run by Mr. Greenberg that was AIG"s largest shareholder in 2008. The judge overseeing it in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has certified it as a class action, and about 300,000 shareholders would share any award.

The testimony has the potential to be "exciting...this is the first time they"ve had people at this level in the witness chair," said John Alan James, a professor at Pace University"s Lubin School of Business and chairman emeritus of its Center for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation. Mr. James said he expected Mr. Boies to "drill" the witnesses and force them to answer difficult questions. "There"s going to be a major effort [to] get admissions of things that are revealing."

Starr"s suit alleges that the government went beyond the Federal Reserve"s legal authority in taking a 79.9% equity stake in New York-based AIG, and in doing so violated shareholders" constitutional right to just compensation. In the deal, the government demanded the equity stake in exchange for providing an $85 billion emergency loan, which charged a minimum of 12% annual interest and was collateralized.

The suit also alleges that the government unlawfully was penalizing AIG, a point Mr. Boies hammered at in his opening statement last Monday. "There is simply no authorization in the statute to give the Federal Reserve the roving permission to try to find people that they want to penalize and then use its lending authority to extract those kinds of penalties," he said.

The government maintains it acted within the law, with terms aimed at protecting taxpayers from the risk of loss. It says it set stiff terms out of policy concerns, seeking to avoid creating a moral hazard in which other firms might take risks on the assumption they, too, could get easy credit from the Fed, government lawyer Kenneth Dintzer said in his opening statement.

The exact role to be played in the case by the three officials, who declined to comment, may be revealed through Mr. Boies"s questions. But hints about what he will seek to draw out can be found in his opening statement and an August court filing that contains material from depositions and elsewhere during the many months of preparation for the trial.

The Starr court filing, for instance, asserts that the government didn"t undertake any investigation or analysis to determine whether AIG or its shareholders should be penalized and, if so, how. It quotes Mr. Geithner as saying in his deposition for the case that the government "had no basis of having any direct knowledge of the nature of the risks they were taking."

The filing indicates Mr. Bernanke also will be used as a source on this point. The depositions remain largely sealed.


Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg"s firm was AIG"s top shareholder in 2008. Associated Press
AIG is primarily an insurance company that got into serious problems with a financial-products unit that sold an unregulated type of insurance to help protect banks and other sophisticated clients from risks in complex mortgage securities. AIG"s insurance units historically have been regulated by state insurance departments, while the Fed historically has regulated banks.

In his opening argument, Mr. Boies cited repeated instances of Messrs. Paulson and Geithner describing the AIG package as punitive. He quoted Mr. Geithner as having stated: "We forced losses on shareholders proportionate to the mistakes of the firm," and "made it clear" that AIG "would be dismembered, not allowed to live" as the sprawling conglomerate it had been.

In the court filing, Starr asserts that the government penalized AIG shareholders for political reasons, and quotes Mr. Paulson as saying the government "basically killed the shareholders" of AIG.

Of the trio, Mr. Geithner, who succeeded Mr. Paulson as Treasury secretary and is now president of private-equity firm Warburg Pincus LLC, is expected to be on the stand the longest. In another August court filing, Mr. Boies anticipated at least six hours of questions for him, and the government in a separate August filing estimated needing at least seven hours.

Mr. Paulson, who now heads the Paulson Institute in Chicago, faces at least 10 hours or more in questions from Mr. Boies and the government. Mr. Bernanke, now a fellow at Brookings Institution, can count on at least 8.5 hours of questions.

The government initially resisted Mr. Bernanke"s deposition in the case, maintaining in court papers that Starr hadn"t proved why relevant information couldn"t be obtained from the many places where Mr. Bernanke has spoken publicly. The government won a federal appellate court ruling that he wouldn"t have to testify at least as long as he was Fed chairman. But as his Jan. 31 retirement loomed, Starr"s legal team persisted, and the government dropped its opposition.
Zitatende

---------------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
?!October Surprise coming!?

Search; aig seiu

https://www.google.com/...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Why would "SEIU (Service Employees INTERNATIONAL Union)" be interested in AIG?
AIG is not a Hotel!

AIG was a pass-through for funds into GS!

Why didn't SEIU protest GS? GS executives received big bonuses.

?!October Surprise coming!?
Blame the other guys for the "Taking".

Hint: The Community Reinvestment Act. A tough nut to crack, ACORN.

Yes, this topic is related to WMI/WMILT/WMIH.

Taking by Surprise.
-----------------------------
Zitat vitellom:
More about AIG Bailout:
http://hsrd.yahoo.com/...h0bWw-/RS=%5EADAgpnP4..VJKgCUJFG93FwjbiYDIk-

Maybe these people would be interested in our current affairs?

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Zajac in Washington atazajac@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Joe Schneider
-----------------------------
Zitat lucc179:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...testifies-discussed-u-163108336.html
Henry Paulson, the former treasury secretary, said he talked with China about helping bail out financial firms in 2008, in the first discussion of the rescue scheme in a court with two other plan architects to follow.

Paulson's testimony of less than half a day left lawyers scrambling for witnesses because Timothy Geithner, the head of the New York Fed in 2008, wasn't available yet. The federal court in Washington adjourned until the afternoon.

Geithner and Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, are scheduled to testify about the fairness of the bailout of American International Group Inc. (AIG) Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's Starr International Co. sued claiming the government's taking of equity in return for an $85 billion loan to AIG amounted to illegally gaining control of the company without proper compensation.

In AIG's case, Paulson said he didn't think the Chinese would be interested in a deal without a government guarantee.

"The government couldn't provide that assurance," Paulson said. "The Chinese were very, very nervous" about investing in U.S. firms at the time, he said.

In last year's Netflix documentary "Hank," Paulson discussed how he persuaded banks, Congress and presidential candidates to sign off on almost $1 trillion in bailouts. Geithner has written a book -- "Stress Test" -- about dealing with the financial, economic and housing crisis that plunged the U.S. into the worst recession since the 1930s. None of the three had been grilled by a hostile lawyer in court over their decisions.

High Interest
Starr, AIG's largest shareholder at the time of the bailout, claims the government punished AIG by demanding equity and imposing an an interest rate on the loan of, in effect, 14 percent, far higher than interest other bailout recipients, such as banks, had to pay. Starr International is seeking at least $25 billion in damages for shareholders.

Paulson said in response to questioning by David Boies, a lawyer representing Greenberg, that AIG was treated "harsher" than others and he has "a reason why that was appropriate."

Boies concluded his questioning of Paulson after only about 75 minutes. The trial's first witness, Scott Alvarez, the general counsel of the Federal Reserve, was questioned for several hours by Boies and spent a total of more than 13 hours on the stand.

Boies didn't draw much out of Paulson regarding how the government arrived at the terms for bailing out AIG. Paulson said he didn't recall many of the details of the rescue package.

The case is being heard by U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler.

Wheeler has rebuked government attorneys for attempting to rely on hearsay testimony, introducing exhibits in violation of trial rules about redactions, and dragging out proceedings by reading lengthy passages from documents.

The case is Starr International Co. v. U.S., 11-cv-00779, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Washington).
-----------------------           --------------------------------------       -------------------------------------
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...ecretary-paulson-says-171948461.html

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson told a packed courtroom on Monday that AIG shareholders were singled out for punishment as part of the U.S. government's attempt to contain the contagion of the 2008 financial crisis.

The testimony from Paulson appeared to bolster some claims contained in a lawsuit brought by former AIG Chief Executive Hank Greenberg, who contends the terms of a government loan to AIG cheated its shareholders.

"AIG, either fairly or unfairly, ... became a symbol for all that is bad on Wall Street," Paulson said as he testified about the U.S. government's bailout of the insurance giant, which began with a $85 billion loan from the New York Federal Reserve in September 2008.

Paulson, testifying in federal court in Washington, also said he supported the loan and its terms as appropriate for the circumstances.

Paulson was a chief architect of the U.S. government's response to the unprecedented global credit crisis. He has since written a book about the experience, but Monday's courtroom setting put Paulson on the hot seat in a way he has not experienced since Congress wrapped up its hearings on the subject years ago.

In the case of AIG, the Fed initially charged a high interest rate for the first loan and required a nearly 80 percent stake in the company in exchange, which Greenberg's lawyers have said was illegal.

Paulson said such terms were necessary to protect against "moral hazard," or concerns that other companies would take reckless risks under the belief that the government would bail them out with few consequences.

But in response to questions from a government lawyer, Paulson said Citigroup's shareholders were not subject to similar terms, in part because policymakers were concerned about short sellers who were exerting pressure on Citi's stock and would profit if the rescue targeted Citi's shareholders.

Paulson said he was worried the traders would take the same strategy to the next bank, a concern he said he did not have about any of AIG's peers.

Paulson took the stand Monday morning wearing a dark suit and red tie and appeared relaxed, answering questions so directly that Greenberg's lawyer, star litigator David Boies, wrapped up what he expected to be six hours of testimony within a little over one hour.

The testimony by Paulson comes in the second week of what is expected to be a six-week trial. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are expected to testify later this week.

Paulson, who served as President George W. Bush's Treasury secretary from 2006 to 2009, was previously the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc and now runs an institute that focuses on climate change and other issues.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:))))

auf amerik. :

How long does it take for a merger to go through?

Zitat T1215s:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/merger-completion-time.asp

A:
Corporate mergers and acquisitions can vary considerably in the time they take to be completed. There are a number of individual steps that need to be successfully completed by two public companies before they are legally combined into a single entity in what is called a merger of equals.

The entire process officially starts with an offer made by one company to another, but both companies will likely be involved in closed door discussions about the proposed merger before any official announcement of a merger proposal are made. Once the merger is officially proposed, the financial details are specified and then distributed to the shareholders of both companies. At this point, the shareholders must vote to approve the merger. Assuming the required votes are obtained from both sides, the merger is typically reviewed by government authorities to determine whether it conforms to antitrust laws. The length of time this process takes can vary considerably from one merger to another depending on the size and complexity of the companies involved and the industries in which they happen to operate.

Because the time between the announcement of a merger and its completion can vary, the companies involved usually announce an expected time frame for completion. Once the merger proposal passes all the necessary hurdles, a precise date of combination is announced which, when reached, legally merges the two companies.

The Basics Of Mergers And Acquisitions

http://www.investopedia.com/university/mergers/
1.Mergers and Acquisitions: Introduction
2. Mergers and Acquisitions: Definition
3. Mergers and Acquisitions: Valuation Matters
4. Mergers and Acquisitions: Doing The Deal


To learn more, check out The Basics of Mergers and Acquisitions. -->>
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/merger-completion-time.asp

One can dream right cuzzzzz what else we got to say for now about the future Corp.

WHERES OUR M/A MW N CREW-Ts
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2014/10/...out-2008-bailouts/

---------------------------
https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6305.msg80345#msg80345
Zitat dixdeau:
This has already been going on for years and years. That the Judge has taken arguments from both sides requesting summary judgements indicates that the conclusion is closer rather than further away. She will grant and/or deny in part one or both of the requests. If the decisions are divided those denials will rule out some and frame other arguments to be made by either or both sides. If she grants one side and denies the other then end of case.

Hopefully this attitude will prevail-it does not shock the conscience if misconduct breeds its own rewards
----------------------------
Zitat govinsider:
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...stee-jpmSJmotion.pdf

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...tee-fdicSJmotion.pdf

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...fdicSJopposition.pdf
----------------------------
Zitat noname:
Thanks for the info. So the shareholders claims of WMB are assumed by JPM now?
Page 62/76 JPM SJ
48. Later on during September 23, 2008, Mr. Cooney responded to Mr. Gearin"s email as follows:
David – Thanks for the note; unfortunately, however, I don"t think your suggestion solves the problem. Let"s say there is a contract between the thrift and the Parent and that is included in the Books and Records (not something like "accrued for on the books of the Failed Bank," which probably would fix the problem) of the thrift at the time of closing. Any liability under that contract is then arguably a liability reflected in the Books and Records. Therefore one would most likely conclude that liabilities under that contract are assumed under 2.1.
So the way that 12.1 reads is we are indemnified for a claim by Wamu (shareholder of Failed Bank) with respect to that contract only to the extent the liability was not assumed—indeed they are free to sue us for a breach by the Failed Bank that occurred before the closing.
In a normal P&A between commercial parties this is not something a buyer would ever assume and it really doesn"t make sense (nor frankly is it fair) here.
-----------------------------
Zitat ron_66271:
rom the Reuters article;
As you may recall, as WaMu was collapsing in 2008, the federal government pushed JPMorgan to acquire the Seattle-based bank.

This is a totally false statement!, thank You Reuters for your 'news' for hire. Hope the check cleared.
JPM was the filing institution, hint; Derivative$, with a "T" not a "B".

WMB had +$50B available from the San-Fan FED window to borrow. That number shrunk due to money/credit available at the FED window due to a FED problem. Who is the FED again? JPM/GS... and not WaMu. Remember; "Not Clubby enough"
http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/seattle/...ment%204-12-10.pdf
WMI/WMB then turned to internal cash, hence Project Fillmore. $13B coming to WMB on Sept 30th, and with $34B-$37B still at WMBfsb after the $13B.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/...5NjUxYjRjOWQy/edit?hl=en.&pli=1
WMB had a Memorandum of Understanding with OTS regarding WMB's method for 'Weathering the "Finical Crisis" Storm'.

AIG was a Government "Taking" to shore-up GS, just like WMB was a Government "Taking" to shore-up JPM.

Now is the time for resolve of the Governments" "Taking". A Fifth Amendment Taking, and Just Compensation.


See Paragraph 7,and footnote 2 on PDF 3/15;
Filing # 5885 ............ Dated 11/12/2010
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229101112000000000029
"In its capacity as a creditor, WMI claimed, among other things, that (i) the FDIC dissipated WMB"s assets by selling substantially all the assets of WMB to JPMC rather than liquidating WMB"s assets, and thus the FDIC breached its statutory duty to maximize the net present value return of such assets, and therefore owes damages to WMI; (ii) the FDIC"s wasting of WMB"s assets constitutes a taking for property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution; (iii) the FDIC"s refusal to compensate WMI for the property taken in the receivership constitutes a conversion of WMI"s property, actionable under  federal law; and (iv) the FDIC"s refusal to compensate WMI of property taken in the Receivership constitutes a conversion of WMI"s property"


WMI is a Creditor to WMB, and the FDIC is not Released.
Filing # 9901 ............ Dated 3/16/2012
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120316000000000016
HLCE,
Next scheduled WMILT payout date is NOV, 1 .
The P&AA closed, and FDIC is free to distribute RMBS funds that JPM only serviced the mortgages for.
-----------------------------
Zitat Scott Fox:
(User doo_dilettante: " ...Looks like the JPM snake is snapping again....plundering and pillaging what's left of the Estate!

Let the fighting begin! Language sounds quite harsh - hope FDIC has held back lots of assets after the P&A expired in order to keep JPM in check!)

dazu :
Thanks Doo. "A. Chase Acknowledged Assuming WaMu"s Ongoing Contractual Obligations
Irrespective Of A Book Value Cap.
Chase has acknowledged assuming without any cap or limitation WaMu"s ongoing
contractual obligations, which include the repurchase liabilities at issue here. Charlie Scharf,
CEO of Chase"s Retail Financial Services Division in September 2008 and lead executive on the
WaMu transaction, understood at the time of the transaction that if there was a liability with a
book value on WaMu"s balance sheet, Chase would be responsible for it, "no matter what the
ultimate liability turned out to be."38 Scharf Dep. 70:25-71:9 (emphasis added). Scharf also
"believed at the time" that Chase was acquiring "the ongoing business obligations that would
come from acquiring the entity that we were acquiring," including "contractual obligations that
the business promised." Id. at 73:12-20. Contractual obligations that WaMu had promised in
connection with its business would certainly include ongoing repurchase obligations arising from
WaMu"s residential mortgage securitization activities. See Carr Dep. 39:13-22 (Chase "had
liabilities arising from obligations to repurchase loans because of rep and warranties . . .
arising out of WaMu.").
37. Muldrow v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 766 F. Supp. 2d 230, 236 (D.D.C. 2011) (citation omitted).
38. Charlie Scharf was regarded internally as the driving force behind the proposed WaMu
transaction from".........Lots of numbers omitted on pages 30 and 31. Totals of mortgages value JPM assumed from WAMU.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...tee-fdicSJmotion.pdf
----------------------------
Zitat amd4001967:
NOTIONAL AMOUNT OF DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS

TOP 25 COMMERCIAL BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES IN DERIVATIVES
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, $ MILLIONS

Page 22 of the PDF:

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA   $87,688,008,000,000 in Total Derivatives
                                             $1,768,657,000,000 in Total Assets

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/...-occ-2008-152a.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Re: Article: AIG isn"t only megabucks case

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6305.msg80500#msg80500

Zitat ron_66271:

Theses Docs are FDIC's version of the P&A and rebuttal to JPM's version.

Quote from: govinsider on October 06, 2014, 11:55:13 PM

1. http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...stee-jpmSJmotion.pdf

2. http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...tee-fdicSJmotion.pdf

3. http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/...fdicSJopposition.pdf

This one has the newest date; July 31, 2014

I don't believe Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer has ruled on the SJ.

Please correct me where I'm wrong....

WMB serviced the RMBS mortgages for profit

WMB had to buy-back the non-preforming mortgages

DB claim is $6B to $10B due to buy-back of non-preforming mortgages

The non-preforming mortgages was about 3% to 8% of the portfolio

DB's claim is regarding the Covered Bonds,DB is a European Bank

The total Covered Bonds portfolio was?... a big number.

JPM serviced the RMBS mortgages for profit

JPM should be required to buy-back the non-preforming mortgages

I love the footnotes.

From 1, Footnote 2;

... In resolving the institution, the FDIC is required to use the resolution type that is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund and that maximizes the return on these assets, ... and may take any action that it determines to be in "the best interests of the [failed] depository institution, its depositors, or the [FDIC] ...

WMI is a creditor to WMB through WAAC and WMMSC.

Are you as tired of my posting of this same Doc as much as I'm tried of re-posting it?

Please see; 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. --------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

Banks Agree to Overhaul Rules Governing $700tn Derivatives Market

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6314.msg80470#msg80470

Zitat bgriffinokc:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/...overning-700tn-derivatives-market-1468969

Markets

Banks Agree to Overhaul Rules Governing $700tn Derivatives Market

JERIN-MATHEW

By Jerin Mathew

October 8, 2014 08:03 BST

1 4

Goldman Sachs

18 major banks including Goldman Sachs agreed to revamp derivatives market.Reuters

The world's major banks have agreed to change rules governing the global derivatives market to avoid future problems related to failing institutions like the Lehman Brothers.

Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that 18 major banks, including Credit Suisse to Goldman Sachs, have agreed to give up the right to "close out" deals on derivatives contracts if a financial institution runs into trouble.

The decision comes after several months of complex talks, involving regulators and asset managers, and led by dealers under the umbrella of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA).

The ISDA earlier said that a contractual solution for a temporary stay on derivatives close outs was progressing well, after US regulators had demanded banks come up with a plan to stop their counterparties terminating derivatives contracts in the event of a crisis.

The agreed changes to the protocols that govern the $700tn (£435tn, €554tn) derivatives market will take effect from 1 January 2015.

US regulators have been looking to revamp rules of the financial market following the 2008 crisis, which revealed the drawbacks of the existing system.

According to a report from the US Government Accountability Office, 80% of Lehman's derivatives counterparties closed out their deals with the bank within five weeks of its bankruptcy filing.

While that helped companies solve their counterparty risk with the bankrupt bank, Lehman's estate had to spend years in court trying to claw back collateral from its partners.

The recent changes come in line with regulators' thinking that the core of a failing institution should be preserved, the FT noted.

Related

Mis-selling Derivatives Scandal: HSBC Compensates Victims £139,000 on Average

EU Commission Suspects HSBC, JPMorgan and Credit Agricole Ran Rate-Fixing Cartel

Mis-selling Derivatives: RBS Lags Behind as Banks Only Pay 20% of Compensation Fund

While the changes to the ISDA protocols would cover the vast majority of derivatives contracts, there are several elements yet to settle, according to banks.

Large institutional investors such as BlackRock are still not covered by the changes, and regulators are working to compel them to accept the new protocols. --------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6315.msg80509#msg80509

Zitat Uncle_Bo:

The way I see it, pretty even partnership:

1. What do we have ? $75MM cash + $10MM (KKR) = $85MM Access to $125MM credit line

2. What does KKR have invested (potentially, besides the 10MM above to buy the preferred) ? $85MM (these are the warrants if exercised) Provide $150MM in credit via PIK notes

MW emphasized paying off the debt, I expect that the next 10Q shows improved profitability. No 13% interest after mid-July 2014.

Both CFO and MW emphasized making progress on meeting the filing and audit requirements. My read - up-listing on a different exchange coming to theaters near you soon.

Size of the deal ? Honestly - have no idea, but based on the above finances $500MM seems small to start eating rapidly through the NOLs.

On the flip side, larger deal with too much debt kind of negates the NOLs purposes, however, possible course of action is initial debt and as the stock price rises over time, deliberate and careful equity raises to pay off the debt and increase the utilization of the NOLs. I think, KKR are in this for the long haul and they intend to make a killing on their $95MM investment over the next 3-5 years conceivably.

Do not believe in any of the reverse splits talk going on currently, buyout not likely either IMHO. MW said "build equity value for ALL shareholders". I know the price has dropped recently, but I should say it was not unexpected for me.

Looking forward to it, really - it's about time! Turkey in the oven for Thanksgiving, anyone ?

Uncle Bo

GLTA

----------------------------

Zitat bgriffinokc:

Their vehicle was WMI Holding Corp INC., A Delaware corporation....you know ,the one that has their Trade Mark on our Company's Web site.

Here's the Delaware Document:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/...TejVyVGc0TFZVeTRUMkNtS015OWpB/edit

Open the above WMI HOLDINGS INC. DE Stock Information.PDF...on page 13 you will find the name Western Marketing and PNC BAnk....On page 16 you will see that Robert E. Sullivan in President.

Then get pen and paper and watch the ceodallas.com Video.

http://ceodallas.com/advisoryboard.html

Open and watch third video on top row....Robert E. Sullivan,

Pay particular attention to the Mention of James Schwab which ties the two of them together in Crimstone Partners. Richard E. Blum,aka Dick Blum, aka Sen. Dianne Fienstein's husband. has done several deals with Bonderman. and is a partner in Crimstone Partners.

"About CrimStone Partners, CrimStone Partners is a special purpose private equity partnership designed to find, acquire and build companies."

[sound familiar?]

"The fund"s investors consist of more than 35 highly distinguished business leaders, senior investment bankers and private equity professionals from firms such as Morgan Stanley, LazArd, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, Bain Capital, AEA Investors, Allied Capital, Seven Rosen Funds, Blum Capital and CIBC."

If you want the big picture take time to read this entire article and the pieces of the puzzle come together for the real Prize.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/...n-crisis/?page=all

In part.....Feinstein and the legislation

Mrs. Feinstein introduced her bill Jan. 6, seeking $25 billion from the government"s bailout fund know as the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help bankroll an FDIC proposal to systematically prevent home mortgage foreclosures by expediting loan workouts and expanding federal loan guarantees.

The proposal was a pet project of FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair, who wanted expand a program the agency had used successfully with borrowers of the failed IndyMac bank to help reduce foreclosures.

Records show Mrs. Feinstein"s public support for the Bair proposal surfaced Oct. 30 in letter to Mrs. Bair as CBRE was still competing for the FDIC contract. Mrs. Bair responded in late November pointing out that she had not been able to get the Treasury Department to adopt her program and authorize bailout funds for it, according to the correspondence released under FOIA.

Mrs. Feinstein"s legislation would have required the government to finance Mrs. Bair"s foreclosure plan.

"The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444 billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million foreclosures avoided," she said in her statement on the bill. Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/...sis/#ixzz3Fc7I9CPW

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

----------------------------

Zitat sometimes_wrong:

I wonder IF Robert E. Sullivan is somehow related to John W. Sullivan a.k.a. W3Research on I-hub and fairly recently became a Mod on their WMIH stock mb and almost immediately began dogging the stock and spreading "reverse split" * "scam" rumors??? He apparently also runs a stock picking service which currently is also dissing WMIH, naturally. So my supposition is that IF John Sullivan is related to Robert Sullivan (how coincidental if not?)... I think we are dealing with something more than your typical FLIPPER "bash & steal" shares from nervous retail scheme... Perhaps the insiders really want to own as many shares of WMIH as possible and are willing to do it by any desperate means again???

John W. Sullivan a.k.a. W3Research FaceBook account (linking name with alias)

https://www.facebook.com/W3Research

(same photo as I-hub poster named W3Research)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.aspx?user=33935

-----------------------------

Zitat azcowboy:

The Trust Markers may all be locked down within' a retail shareholders accounts ~ however ~ the patterns leading up to transition are important for everyone to consider' ... to understand the future, one' must study the past' ...

...Our debtors representation continued through to the very end pushing their view' that equity was worthless, as the mediated result took effect beginning in February 2012 ...

Those same misunderstood' views of ... "equity's worthless result'" ... have continued to be spread among numerous message boards since those transitional days' ...

Now' as we watch the obvious manipulation of the newco shares ... it seems quite apparent to me that the patterns thru out have been consistant' ...

Equity' was unable to be discarded within the bankruptcy, as the mediated result took hold ~ and now the manipulation of the newco shares is an obvious attempt to gain as many of these 200m ish shares as possible ... again from retail shareholders' ... some one is buying them'...

these are interesting times my friends' ... AZ ain't goin' nowhere

Now that the PA&A has expired ? ... JMP's exclusivity rights to WaMu are finished' ... this should begin to get interesting ...  

(I see the recent ending of the PA&A and the manipulated price drop, in an effort to shake the tree' ~ as somehow connected') ... (but' that's just what I think ~ just another "dumb ass hillbilly biker" .. )

just sayin'

----------------------------

Zitat Kszabo:

Next Tuseday, October 14 before the bell, JPM will issue their earnings data, it might prove to be interesting, in light of the recent PA&A closure.

Company                       Actual             Estimate        Year Ago 

JPMorgan Chase JPM        --                   1.38             1.42 -------------------------------------------------- 

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/...00933136&owner=include&count=40



WM MORTGAGE REINSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
UNAUDITED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET
FOR THE MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, 2014

Net Income $595,000



MfG.L:)

...hier gehen die Postings wenigstens nicht unter.
Im Trollthread findet man die nach wenigen Tagen schon nicht mehr wieder.

LG,
union  

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6315.msg80585#msg80585

Zitat azcowboy:
Yep, .... when it comes to JPM / FDIC-R / and the PA&A expiration .... well' lets just say, I am of the same sentiment, as I was on Oct 2nd'

just sayin'

AZ
-----------------------------
Zitat tjb:
Hey AZ, good to see ya back.  How do you see the markers playing out, with all that has come to light lately?  Seems like there is less optimism now due to the LT giving up its rights to the A>L, or that is how I understand it anyway.  You always have amazing insight and have appreciated all that you have done here for all of us.  Thanks in advance.
-----------------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
"there is less optimism now due to the LT giving up its rights to the A>L"

.... hhmmm ~ where did you get the notion or what gave you the idea' that the LT gave up its rights to the A>L ?

AZ
------------------------------
Zitat Kszabo:
Apparently this one is an example of the pushed view that equity was worthless, was partially successful.
-----------------------------
Zitat tjb:
"However, I'm very concerned about the impact of the abandonment on the LT's ability to receive that residual.  That could entail litigation.  It's the LT's worry, though.  If it has no problem establishing a claim, everything's rosy and $ would show up very soon in LT accounts.  If not, recovery will be tougher."......Quote from CSNY yesterday

AZ, perhaps I am reading more into this than there is.  Again, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the proverbial pocket protector, so I'm trying to get my head around this type of sentiment regarding the markers.
-----------------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
No worries' ... read what CSNY said again' ... having a concern is what we all have' ... But' But' But' .... here' try this out, it may help;

Let me first' use just ONE example ... filing #9901 is NOT ambiguous or open for interpretation, regarding the release of claims .... #9901 is concise, clear, and leaves NO room for question' ... here is the doc' for review ..

Filing # 9901 ............ Dated 3/16/2012
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120316000000000016

Procedurally, ... "R" has direct responsibilities to the estate via the 1934 act ... period' ...

In my opinion ? .... "R", .. WILL DO' ~ what it is supposed to do ~ without any provocation or any need for additional claims needing to be filed' ~ (just think about the litigation response to an actual claim filed against the FDIC, having to be filed, for what they are expected and mandated to do, via the congressional order bestowed upon them' ) .. (talk about a media field day' ... yowzza')

Nope' ... leaving the open end result of the possibility of claim filings being left open, was merely a "just in case" the FDIC needed a reminder of there responsibilities, or the threat of a prod' for them (R), to do the right thing ....

In my opinion ? ... Our Litigation Group can go for coffee & bagels' ... Our Liquidation Group, soon will have some serious work to do, regarding distributions to the estate' ...

Now, .... did that help ?

AZ
-----------------------------
Zitat myadad:
Litigation group still has work to do with getting rid of bogus employee claims and then work to get the insurance companies to pay up.  This is money that will payoff PIERS  and may eventually get down to equity.  They are still going to be busy for awhile.
-----------------------------
Zitat azcowboy:
~ Disagree ~ ... rosen' ..  is working the employee claims ... (yawn') ...  and I surely would NOT recommend anyone hanging their hat on any recovery from the ...  "insurance companies"  ... really ?

regarding the class 16 and class 21 recoveries ? ... In my opinion, ... BOTH' were very poor choices, regarding any post seizure investment by a retailer and at this point' ... message board driven DD' ... (at its worst') ...

Thanks for the laugh tho' ... your comment regarding, their still being busy for awhile' ... I found humorous ... I'm still waiting to see  someone break a sweat' ...

just sayin'

AZ
-----------------------------
Zitat tjb:
Thanks AZ,  It does help to clarify some things for me.  If we still have legitimate claims to A>L, what was the reason for giving the abandonment in the first place.  Kinda like saying, "I am giving you this sweet new soft tail, free and clear, but I can take it back anytime I want to claim it as mine".  Am I understanding, or rather not understanding this correctly?  Thanks
----------------------------
Zitat Kszabo:
According to https://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120316000000000016
which is filing 9901 they were merely abandoning equity interests in WMB stock. Read it for yourself.
-----------------------------
Zitat tjb:
Thanks Ksz, I read it a few times and understood that part, however I for some reason thought it went beyond that.  Forgive my ignorance.
----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante zu User myadad:
I do believe that the emploee claims is just a side show to keep Rosen busy and ring up some money. It is peanuts compared to what's left on the table.
The big question will be how much is left over of the WMB carcass and all the bogus indemnification claims....Only time will tell....

Net Assets / (Deficit) At Inception      26,430,109,191

Premiums Received / (Paid) at Resolution    1,888,000,000

Asset - Related Equity Adjustments (Note 9)    (40,214,712,639)

Liability/Claims-Related Equity Adjustments (Note 9) (35,234,010)

Income / (Loss) of the Liquidation Since Inception    852,832,471
******************
weiterhin meint er :
Well, since WMI is no longer shareholder of WMB I do believe we are now being treated as general creditors/claimants. Where would that put us on FDIC's money distribution list?
-----------------------------
Zitat CSNY zu User azcowboy:
Reading the language of the notice I may have overreacted (just a lawyer being anal).  The term "creditor" is not a defined term, so it probably just means 'claimant' such that the claim WMI filed against the FDIC-R over five years ago is unaffected.  That said, if the FDIC-R gives the LT any hassle you can be sure litigation (of the type I've described, which will prominently feature the FDIC-R's representations) will ensue.
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6315.msg80639#msg80639

Zitat Uncle_Bo:
Quote from: sometimes_wrong on Yesterday at 12:49:56 AM
I wonder IF Robert E. Sullivan is somehow related to John W. Sullivan a.k.a. W3Research on I-hub and fairly recently became a Mod on their WMIH stock mb and almost immediately began dogging the stock and spreading "reverse split" * "scam" rumors???

Sometimes,

Very, very interesting observation...yes it almost seems like W3 snapped at a certain point in time and started this crapshoot - boycott, reverse splits and going private...on the i-Hub.

Now was that a special order ? Possible...maybe one last ditched attempt to make the zombies go away (as Crazy Jim Cramer called us once upon a time). I'd like to look at it as a positive from a timing perspective, meaning a resolution might be near and they are getting nervous. I would also rule out KKR's participation in this (IMHO). If I were them I would like to be a "mediator" and stop the running of "bad blood" between MW and the HFs. Someone voted twice  against his re-election, guess who ? Common guys look forward not backwards ! Time to put the past behind...

Uncle Bo
----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
Quote from: doo_dilettante on Yesterday at 05:19:00 PM
Well, since WMI is no longer shareholder of WMB I do believe we are now being treated as general creditors/claimants. Where would that put us on FDIC's money distribution list?

Has WMI filed a claim since the GSA? If so was that claim allowed? If not has the bar date for filing passed?



While I'm asking questions- Is WMIH, Inc, with Robert Sullivan related to Washington Mutual and not another acronym similar company? Western Manufacturing Industries Holding Corporation or some such?
-----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
Quote from: WithCatz on Yesterday at 01:18:23 PM
in what context is it referring to being a creditor?

1) For inter-company loans and notes?

2) For something else?

If #2 -- then can you be specific?

...Catz

For capital contributions which would now be somehow considered a shareholder loan since the stock was abandoned. At the time of seizure WMB net assets were worth 26B. Chop off 14B to senior and junior debtholders and the rest must flow to WMI = 12B as a minimum.


Net Assets / (Deficit) At Inception      26,430,109,191
----------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
There are those pesky administrative costs. Depending on the outcome of claimed liabilities those could total billions of dollars.
----------------------------
Zitat CSNY:
The FDIC-R is a corporation, which just means that its liabilities are limited to its assets.  Generally, a corporation's interest holders are equity and debt with equity getting the residual in case of liquidation.  (The FDIC-R is unquestionably a liquidating corporation in that it only would run a business in runoff mode and only until creditors' (claimants who held debt against a failed bank) claims were paid.)  In normal parlance the terms 'debt' (i.e., held by a 'creditor') and 'equity' are well-understood.

In the instant case, anyone who filed a claim against the FDIC-R is a creditor of the FDIC-R, regardless of how his claim against the failed bank was described (e.g., even if he was a 'shareholder' of the failed bank), as such an old designation only matters to assign him a priority within the receivership's waterfall.  

Section 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11) sets forth the National Depositor Preference (see also
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history1-10.pdf
which only refers to 'claims'.  If there is a residue, the LT will take (in WMI's stead) under 11 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A)(v):

(11) Depositor preference
(A) In general
Subject to section 1815 (e)(2)(C) of this title, amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of any insured depository institution by any receiver appointed for such institution shall be distributed to pay claims (other than secured claims to the extent of any such security) in the following order of priority:

(i) Administrative expenses of the receiver.

(ii) Any deposit liability of the institution.

(iii) Any other general or senior liability of the institution (which is not a liability described in clause (iv) or (v)).

(iv) Any obligation subordinated to depositors or general creditors (which is not an obligation described in clause (v)).

(v) Any obligation to shareholders or members arising as a result of their status as shareholders or members (including any depository institution holding company or any shareholder or creditor of such company).

Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1821
This should put an end to any anxiety as to the wording of the notice of abandonment.  The LT is a creditor, and under 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A)(v), the sole residuary.
*****************
an user doo_dilettante gerichtet, Zitat :
My guess is Aurelius' FOIA request was an attempt to garner information with which to calculate them to refine its model.  Personally, I don't think the admin costs will be even $1B.
-----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
So far the adminstrative costs in this case have only been $137,028,999.00 according to the FDIC income statement. Billions I do not expect....
----------------------------
Zitat  dixdeau:
Quote from: CSNY on Today at 11:46:43 AM
My guess is Aurelius' FOIA request was an attempt to garner information with which to calculate them to refine its model.  Personally, I don't think the admin costs will be even $1B.

The liabilities to be covered on JPMC's (or other entities') behalf, if any, are administrative costs.
Without the closing of- the P&A document for review and the outcome of the summary judgement request before Judge Collyer or the Deutsche Bank case if summary judgement in FDIC's favor is denied, I cannot be as sanguine.
-----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
Correct Dixdeau, but look for example at the mortgage write-off of 30B that JPM recorded in 2009. How much of it was actually used over all these years? All the balance sheets I've looked at over the years - it shrunk continously and the reserve gained from it must be tremendous. However JPM is a master in hiding assets...and I am not talking about the gained interest on WAMU assets yet....
----------------------------
Zitat CSNY zu dixdeau:
Even if JPM is on the hook for $10B or even $20B and the FDIC-R has to pay that $ it will not prevent the LT from recovering well in excess of like amounts, which would give 100% par or 200% par -- at a minimum.  I, for one, believe JPM won't get SJ against the FDIC-R as the P&A is unambiguous.  However, even if it did and the FDIC-R loses against DB the recovery amounts stated above will be forthcoming.

Actually, I'm delighted that these cases are moving expeditiously as the FDIC-R's liability (if any) will be known shortly.

Zitat CSNY zu User doo_dilettante:
Be careful when talking about interest under the P&A.  As I recall it is in the 1% - 1.5% range.  That means that if a $200k WaMu mortgage was refinanced in 2009, JPM would only have to fork over $2k - $3k per annum (I think it was compounded, but probably only annually) for the past 5 years.
--------------------------------------------
Zitat dixdeau:
All very well. However the statement was- of $26 Billion residing with FDIC-R with $14 Billion going to WMB bondholders the remainder would fall to LT.

Thank you for clarifying that the numbers are mutable and are only a portion of potential value.

As am I.
----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
These are all potential values because we don't know the situation at the bargaining table. However a forensic accountant could figure out these values by looking at JPM's annual reports and FDIC's data (the income statement and the balance sheet) that was posted on this site at the beginning of September. The big question will be: What is contained in the asset related equity adjustments of 40B? If we know this - we have the winning numbers!

Net Assets / (Deficit) At Inception      26,430,109,191

Premiums Received / (Paid) at Resolution    1,888,000,000

Asset - Related Equity Adjustments (Note 9)    (40,214,712,639)

Liability/Claims-Related Equity Adjustments (Note 9) (35,234,010)

Income / (Loss) of the Liquidation Since Inception    852,832,471
-----------------------------
Zitat noname:
Why do we have to worry about all the numbers now?.Way back, PJS and Ashby & Geddas delivered a sealed envelop to Weil with all the assets and total amount which was demanded by EC?.If any thing is going on between FDIC and JPM now is none of WMIH/WMILT business now IMHO. PJS did the valuations for EC, and they know better than us IMHO.
What i am waiting to hear soon(pretty) from WMIH is on the Dividends...

(You might get some info if you do an FOIA.)
----------------------------
Zitat doo_dilettante:
What's going on between FDIC and JPM - I certainly would want to know as a taxpayer and former shareholder! I don't want to be screwed again - once bitten twice shy! And the information publicly available unfortunately only gives me vague snapshot!

(The income statement and the balance sheet stem from a FOIA request dating 09/22/2014 shared on this website. I would find it highly doubtful that they would share more details than that. But please give it a shot!)
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6325.msg80729#msg80729

Zitat Skidor:

Please see below.

Has the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the FDIC and JPM been closed? Should we expect a press release anytime soon?

A true and correct copy of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement among the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank, the FDIC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, dated September 25, 2008, is published on the FDIC.gov web site. Section 13.12 of that Agreement states the Agreement will be in effect until the sixth anniversary of the Bank Closing (Bank Closing was on September 25, 2008). So, the term of the Agreement expired on September 25, 2014. However, Section 13.12 also states that expiration of the terms of the Agreement shall not affect any claim or liability of any party with respect to any amount owing at the time of such expiration, regardless of when such amount is payable.

The FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank has not terminated the receivership estate because of numerous pending litigation matters. Those matters will directly affect (1) indemnification payments to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement; and (2) the final receivership distributions on claims that have been accepted as filed timely and proven to the satisfaction of the Receiver.

The expiration of the term of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement does not affect any pending litigation. And at this time, it may take years before the pending litigation is resolved. Consequently, the amount of funds available for distribution under the receivership claims process is contingent on the outcome of the pending litigation.

No press release is expected anytime soon. If one is issued, however, it will be published on the website for this receivership at https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html

When can we expect the balance sheet summary to be updated?

The website for the receivership of each failed bank (including that of Washington Mutual Bank) is updated with new information on a quarterly basis. In most cases, new information will typically only be for changes in the summary balance sheet, or perhaps changes in dividends paid on claims to date. Each year, the balance sheet information will reflect data as of the most recent quarter-ending dates of March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. However, it takes a few weeks to update the balance sheet to the next quarter-ending date due to the volume of receiverships and data involved. Therefore, the most recent balance sheet available as of today (October 10, 2014) is that of June 30, 2014. The next balance sheet summary as of September 30, 2014, should be available soon (most likely by the end of October 2014).

In the future, please refer to the receivership website for any new developments at the following link: https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html And, if you still have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us using our e-mail address at mailto:NonDepClaimsDal@fdic.gov

Respectfully,

----------------------------

Zitat Kszabo:

It took them 17 days to get the 6/30/2014 Balance Sheet out, so dont expect anything before 10/17/2014. --------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfGL:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6325.msg80748#msg80748

Zitat Skidor:

The FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank has not terminated the receivership estate because of numerous pending litigation matters. Those matters will directly affect (1) indemnification payments to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement; and (2) the final receivership distributions on claims that have been accepted as filed timely and proven to the satisfaction of the Receiver.

The expiration of the term of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement does not affect any pending litigation. And at this time, it may take years before the pending litigation is resolved. Consequently, the amount of funds available for distribution under the receivership claims process is contingent on the outcome of the pending litigation.

The next balance sheet summary as of September 30, 2014, should be available soon (most likely by the end of October 2014).

So it does look like the Purchase and Assumption Agreement was closed on September 25th. We should get a better picture of any new indemnification claims, if any by the end of the month. We will also know if JPM paid any additional funds into WAMU Receivership. We will know by the end of the month if escrow shares have a potential payoff by the end of the month when the release the balance sheet summary. --------------------------------------------------

Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6327.msg80956#msg80956

sub $2 next week. Back to December 2013

Zitat bm:
I am pretty sure our BOD prefer their millions of shares are worth more than today. They lost about $1M on paper when PPS dropped from $2.7 to $2. Continuing the trend, PPS will drop to $1.7 then level off. So are MW and his colleagues among those dumping their shares these days? If so, we should see some kind of SEC filing soon. They are required to disclose that by law.

If they are not selling, that means they are hopeful for something to happen and that event will drive PPS higher. I see the current situation is more like institute investors kick as many retail shareholders out of the game as possible. Their message to retail is take your profit or cut your loss, and go away. This is not the game for retail to be in.  Why do those HFs want retail out? Let’s review the KKR announcement:

“In January, KKR made what it called a "strategic investment" in WMI Holdings consisting of a $11 million purchase of the face value of its convertible preferred stock, which converts at a price of $1.10 per share. The PE giant also committed to purchase up to $150 million aggregate principal amount of WMI Holdings subordinated 7.5% PIK notes, which may be issued in one or more tranches over a three year period, with a seven year term from the date of that issuance.

As part of the investment, KKR received five-year warrants to purchase approximately 61.4 million shares of the Company's common stock, 30.7 million of which has an exercise price of $1.32 per share and 30.7 million of which has an exercise price of $1.43 per share.

KKR received the right for three years to participate up to 50% in equity offerings up to an aggregate of $1 billion by WMI Holdings, including a cap on ownership by KKR of 42.5% of the company's common equity.

"We believe the investment in our Company by KKR will enhance value for all shareholders of WMI Holdings. KKR has a history of investing across a wide range of asset classes and we look forward to working with the KKR team as we execute on our acquisition strategy," Michael Willingham, chairman of WMI Holdings said at the time.”

So KKR want shares of WMIH, but neither BOD nor KKR want their shares get diluted too much. In other words, they don’t want to issue too many new shares though WHIM is allowed to issue 300 million more shares by charter. So they need to “buy back” shares from retails who control over 50%. What’s going on now is part of a complex plan. KKR and our BOD are smart people. They know how to play the game. After all, retail shareholder’s interest is always secondary to those big funds. If we don’t get shaken off their tree in the next two months, they will give us a ticket to take a ride with them. Well get ready for $1.7 if you want that ticket.
-----------------------------
Zitat govinsider:
KKR could care less.  They know what they bought (going forward).  And they know what they have to pay for their future interest in this entity.  They know the when, where, and how its going forward.  Everyone involved (EXCEPT RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS) know the when, where, and how. The real question to ask at this point is whether or not retail will be invited to the party....

Let there be ZERO doubt, mw has done a monumental disservice to shareholders to this point!

mw rockz~
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=6334.msg80816#msg80816

WMI's Loan File ~ Some (MBS) Basic Mechanics'

Zitat azcowboy:

... Again, as I stated back on June 10th, and, of course, numerous times since ~ JPMorgan received the "servicing rights" to WMI's Loan File only, NOT THE OWNERSHIP ... I won't argue that specific point, because I am convinced after reading numerous documents, ... however, ...  here are some of the basic mechanics involved ... believe me ... after JPM's acquisition of the servicing rights alone of this mortgage producing behemoth' ~ (WaMu) ~ the income generated from just the servicing aspect of this gigantic file' over the last six years, would be immense' ...
____________________

"A mortgage backed security (“MBS”) is an asset-backed security that represents a claim on the cash flows from mortgage loans owned by a special purpose entity trust which issued such security, i.e. the holder of a MBS owns a payment obligation pursuant to a debt instrument (similar to a bond), but does not own mortgage loans themselves.

A Mortgage Producer finances the acquisition of MBS primarily through financing agreements with investment banking and securities firms. These transactions are generally in the form of repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements governed primarily by, among other things, the terms of various Master Repurchase Agreements and Global Master Securities Lending Agreements. Although many transactions are often stated in terms of a purchase and sale, they were, for all intents and purposes, secured loans, where the pledged MBS acted as collateral and the difference between the purchase and the repurchase price was the cost of financing. In a typical repurchase transaction, A Mortgage Producer, designated as a repo “Seller” (borrower) acquired and transferred a MBS to a repo “Buyer” (lender or creditor) and simultaneously agreed to repurchase the MBS assets at a later date. The repo Buyer (lender or creditor) would advance funds to The Producer, which were used along with The Producers own capital to “purchase” the MBS from a third party seller. A reverse repurchase agreement is simply the same repurchase agreement from the Buyer's viewpoint, rather than the Seller's."

"Basically, in each repurchase agreement, the repo Buyer would establish a “price” for a MBS and apply a “haircut” to that price. The haircut is the percentage discount applied to the market value or price of a security (such as an MBS) to determine how much will be loaned against that security. That is, when one pledges securities as collateral, the counterparty making the loan applies that haircut percentage against the value of the security to determine how much it will lend against that security. The haircut is generally a fixed percentage based on the credit rating given to that security by rating agencies such as Moody‟s Investment Services, Fitch or Standard & Poor‟s. As a general rule, the higher the credit rating, the smaller the haircut. For example, a loan collateralized by a MBS with a AAA rating may have a haircut percentage of 5%, whereas a loan collateralized by a MBS having a lower rating, such as AA, may have a haircut percentage of 15%."
___________________

So, again ... WMI (the parent), as an income generating entity, utilized its sub's to, warehouse money, produce mortgages, package mortgages, produce MBS (Pass-Through Certs) , sell their product (MBS') , and service their own Loan File'

just sayin'

+++++++++++++++++

When WaMu was seized ?

JPMorgan immediately took over the customer deposit base

JPMorgan immediately took over the multi state branch network

JPMorgan took of the mortgage and loan servicing responsibilities

JPMorgan took over the Visa' File

... not to debate, the Right or Wrong ~ however, procedurally, this arrangement between the FDIC & JPMorgan would have been consistant and necessary to maintain the public continuity for the public service' ...  no public disruption' ... (The Governments responsibility and The 1934 Act's mandate)

However ~ now that the PA&A has terminated ? (9/25/2014) ... it's time to begin to settle up' ... JPMorgan has had six years to get their shit together, ... and "R" owes money to the estate' ... period ...

just sayin'
--------------------------------------------------
Zitatende

MfG.L:)