InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 33
Posts 5241
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 04/21/2010

Re: None

Friday, 12/02/2016 9:18:10 AM

Friday, December 02, 2016 9:18:10 AM

Post# of 59422

Fortunately, the Court need not delve too deeply into the jurisdictional abyss since the FDIC changed its position. On December 18, 2015, the FDIC filed a “Statement of Position” wherein the FDIC stated unequivocally that the FDIC “withdraws its jurisdictional reservations” and “consents to entry of final orders or judgment by the Bankruptcy Court in this adversary proceeding.” (Docket No. 53.) The FDIC also withdrew its affirmative defenses based upon its jurisdictional arguments. (Id.) The FDIC’s express, knowing, and voluntary consent to final adjudication by this Court is sufficient for this Court to exercise jurisdiction and issue a final judgmen

Through the FDIC Claim, the FDIC originally claimed four categories of amounts allegedly owed by UW Bancorp to the FDIC: (1) Section B asserted “tax-related claims”; (2) Section C asserted “fraudulent transfers/unlawful dividends”; (3) Section D asserted entitlement to “insurance proceeds”; and (4) Section E asserted “other claims.” FDIC Claim at 3-7.29 Thereafter, the FDIC withdrew its claims asserted in Section C, D, and E of the FDIC Claim. (Docket No. 53.) So, the only remaining claim asserted in the FDIC Claim is Section B “tax related claims.”

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.