Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[HROLLER]

Good job...Send this to him;

JPMorgan admits that the FDIC took over a solvent bank in one of the latest court documents;

I'm enclosing a few more documents filed through the BK court in regards to a declaration of Thomas M. Blake (
http://www.crai.com/ProfessionalStaff/listingdetails.aspx?id=1276 ).

The declaration can be found in 103-4.pdf at http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287
Quoting:
12. Based on my review to date, there is no indication that the OTS performed a solvency analysis consistent with the test for insolvency specified in the Bankruptcy Code. There is no indication that the OTS assessed the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI). Nor is there an indication that OTS compared the fair sale-able value of the assets of WMB (or WMI) to the total amount of either company’s respective liabilities. There is no indication that the OTS performed a comprehensive cash flow analysis of WMB (or WMI). Instead, the OTS found that “WMB met the well-capitalized standards through the date of receivership.”8 Thus, without a thorough analysis of the assets, liabilities and capital of WMI and WMB, it is not possible to come to a reliable conclusion concerning the financial solvency of either entity, whether on a consolidated or stand-alone basis.


Here is another document that says as of August 14, 2008:
"We propose to decapitalize WMBfsb by returning $20 billion of capital to its parent. The $20 billion will include the master note of approximately $7 billion, proceeds from $3.5 billion of Discount Notes and cash generated through additional wholesale deposits and advances from FHLB Seattle. We propose the payment of at least $10 billion by September 30, 2008 and the remaining $10 billion through December 2009."

"The net balance sheet of WMBfsb will be approximately $34 billion to $36 billion after Project Fillmore. The leverage ratio will decrease to 25% from 62%. A well-capitalized institution requires an 8% or higher leverage ratio."

Read reference page 45 of DOCUMENT 103-1.pdf from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b830df9f3d0e6fce7c82ed4b8f0c380aff12395630f22f3ce018c8114394287


Enclosed is a link to the affidavit of Doreen Logan who is the Controller/ Assistant Treasurer of Wamu who states that there was no liquidity problems;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%20Ex.%20D%20to%20Affidavit%20of%20Doreen%20Logan%20%28%201%20/07-3/08%20Account%20Statements%29%20A-46%20...&btnG=Search


Remember, WMBfsb was also taken from the holding company and sold to JMorgan/Chase with all of the other assets for only $1.88bil.....


Please, take some time and read these documents. They are a bit long but well worth the read.
Here is a link to all documents filed through the BK Court;

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu




Jamie Dimon planted "moles" in Wamu??? JPMorgan committed corporate fraud???

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090501000000000002.pdf


Wamu's claims against JPMorgan/Chase;

http://wmish.com/doc/gov/0603/JPM_V_WMI_-_ANSWER.PDF


Debtors' Reply Brief In Support Of Their Motion To Dismiss Amended Counterclaims Of JPMorgan Chase, N.A.;

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229090916000000000003.pdf



I'm also enclosing another link that quotes Judge Hughes from a case against the FDIC that was wrapped up on August 24, 2005;
http://blog.kir.com/archives/2005/08/judge_hughes_ha.asp

"The record shows that the swap was the only reason for this suit. It also shows that the FDIC knew that it had no factual or legal basis for its claims, and that its cases here and in Washington were shams."

As usual, Judge Hughes is acerbic in his opinion regarding the FDIC's conduct, noting in particular that FDIC officials "lied about it all under oath" and they "discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists."

"It's hard to find a word that captures the essence of the FDIC's bringing this action. Irresponsible is close. Arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative, extortionate, and abusive all fit."

Judge Hughes concluded that Hurwitz and Maxxam "will recover their costs because the record reveals corrupt individuals within a corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it, bringing this litigation."



Attached in this email is a PDF document; WMI RESPONSE TO (I) THE PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, AND (II) THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ACTING ITS CORPORATE CAPACITY Here is a summary of that document….. The text below is quoted from WMI's response to FDIC's motion to dismiss the WMI vs FDIC lawsuit in D.C. court (filed 7/16/09):

WMI "alleges that the FDIC sold the assets of WMB to JPMC for less than their liquidation value [fair market value]. While the FDIC asserts that this claim is merely “speculative,” the publicly available facts indicate that WMB’s assets were worth substantially more than the $1.88 billion JPMC paid. Indeed, in less than one year from the acquisition, JPMC already has recognized a profit from this transaction far in excess of the purchase price. The FDIC breached its irrefutable obligation to maximize the value of WMB’s assets.

Now the FDIC seeks to avoid accountability by shifting the loss onto [WMI]. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”) and the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment both require that [WMI] be compensated for the FDIC’s failure to pay to [WMI] their portion of WMB’s liquidation value.

As a separate but related issue, the FDIC also took possession of property that WMB did not own or that WMB was required to return to [WMI]. Because that property was not property of the receivership estate, the FDIC has converted it. [WMI] also must be compensated for this conversion."

"The FDIC seeks to have this Court interpret the law in a manner that grants the FDIC unlimited discretion, completely immunizing its actions from any review, and unlimited power to resolve a bank in receivership – without regard to the actual powers and duties Congress provided in the FDI Act...The FDIC’s position is fundamentally lawless and should be rejected. The FDI Act required the FDIC to maximize the value of WMB’s assets for the benefit of [WMI] and the receivership’s other claimants. The FDIC failed to do so..."

"The FDIC attempts to justify its breach...by asserting that the sale to JPMC resulted in no cost to the deposit insurance fund. Because WMB’s assets were worth significantly more than its deposit liabilities, selling WMB for more than those liabilities was neither difficult nor laudable. Indeed, it suggests a motive for the FDIC’s breach. In the ordinary case, a bank placed into receivership is sufficiently insolvent that its assets are not sufficient to cover its insured deposits, much less the amounts owed to other creditors. Here, however, WMB’s assets substantially exceeded its deposit liabilities, and the FDIC lacked its usual economic incentive to maximize the value of the receivership’s assets. Therefore, the FDIC ignored its obligations to the WMB receivership’s claimants. This Court should not allow the FDIC’s conduct to go unexamined."

"The FDIC argues that [WMI]’s allegation that the FDIC sold WMB’s assets for less than their liquidation value is merely “speculative”"...but WMI’s "allegations are far from speculative. Immediately after the transaction, JPMC projected that the transaction would add $2.4 billion to JPMC’s net after tax operating income in 2009 alone. JPMC expected the transaction to be immediately profitable...JPMC has recently announced that it is now poised to recognize significant gains (i.e., as much as $29 billion), as it recognizes the actual market value of many of the WMB assets it purchased. Furthermore, JPMC recorded negative goodwill in accounting for the transaction – indicating that, immediately upon consummating the transaction that the fair market value of assets acquired exceeded the purchase price. Such negative goodwill is unheard of in a major acquisition. Indeed, the facts surrounding JPMC’s purchase price are sufficiently suspicious that one U.S. Senator has called for an investigation.

Finally, shortly after WMB was placed into receivership, the FDIC attempted to broker a sale of Wachovia, announcing a letter of intent to sell Wachovia to Citigroup for approximately $2 billion. Wells Fargo announced only a few days later that it was willing to purchase Wachovia for more than $15 billion. The fact that Wells Fargo was willing to purchase Wachovia on terms substantially superior to the original deal arranged by the FDIC calls into question the FDIC’s commitment to negotiating the best price for a troubled bank. Indeed, this episode demonstrates the FDIC’s indifference to its obligation to negotiate a fair market price once the deposit insurance fund no longer stands to suffer a loss."

"The FDIC has a duty to maximize the value of the Receivership’s assets when it liquidates the Receivership estate. The FDI Act specifically commands the FDIC to maximize the value of such assets. (“When a depository institution fails, the FDIC has statutory responsibility to the creditors of the receivership to recover for them, as quickly as it can, the maximum amount possible on their claims.”)(“When an insured institution fails, the FDIC is ordinarily appointed as receiver. In that capacity, it assumes responsibility for efficiently recovering the maximum amount possible from the disposition of the receivership’s assets...”.)"

"The FDIC argues that it is not so obligated because the FDI Act requires the FDIC to seek the “least cost resolution” of a failing bank...[however,] maximizing the value of the receivership estate enhances the likelihood that [the FDIC] will recoup the loss to the deposit insurance fund and is therefore consistent with the “least cost resolution” of a failed bank." "Even if the FDI Act did not provide [WMI] with a direct right of action against the FDIC, [WMI] still may recover damages from the FDIC under the theory of illegal exaction. An illegal exaction is money that was “improperly paid, exacted, or taken from the claimant in contravention of the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation.”...The FDI Act obligated the FDIC to liquidate WMB’s assets for their maximum value, and then distribute the proceeds to WMB’s creditors (such as [WMI])...Rather than paying the liquidation value owed to Plaintiffs under the FDI Act, the FDIC transferred that value to JPMC. By doing so, the FDIC illegally exacted money due to Plaintiffs."

"The FDIC sold WMB’s assets to JPMC for less than their liquidation value. One might presume that the FDIC believed that the sale of WMB to JPMC for less than its liquidation value served public policy in some way. However, whether the FDIC had a valid public policy rationale for the JPMC sale is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the FDIC can force [WMI] to bear the loss, notwithstanding their property interests in WMB. To accomplish the JPMC sale, the FDIC sacrificed [WMI]’s liquidation rights, shifting money that they would have received to JPMC, to accomplish whatever public policy goal the FDIC thought the JPMC sale served. The FDIC must compensate [WMI] for the property that it took – the difference between the liquidation value of their property interest in WMB and the fraction of that value that actually will be paid due to the P&A Agreement’s sub-liquidation purchase price."

"As the FDI Act itself recognizes, the creditors and shareholders of a failed bank continue to have a property interest in the liquidation of the assets of the bank...The receivership process, similar to the bankruptcy process, is a system to allocate the remaining assets of the failed bank among the claimants of the failed bank...(“As receiver for the failed bank, the FDIC acts much like a trustee in
bankruptcy, marshalling the assets and legal interests of the bank and distributing its assets to creditors, including the bank's depositors.”). When the FDIC sold WMB for substantially less than its liquidation value, it expropriated [WMI]’s property and transferred it to JPMC. That expropriation is a taking of [WMI]’s property for which compensation is due under the Just Compensation Clause."

"For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny FDIC-Receiver’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and FDIC-Corporate’s Motion to Dismiss."

http://wamustory.com/
http://wamuqd.com/
http://www.wamu-shareholders-resources.com/wamued.html
http://wamuequity.org/history.html
http://www.wamucoup.com/