Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[ItsMyOption]

no escrow, but those that signed releases to opt-in received something like .03 value in new WMIH shares - which was nothing

must of us still here and planning to file objections have NOT opt-in and no release to JPM was signed our claim for 85% should have been transferred after the award was granted to JPMC.

Very clear is if Honorable Judge Mary Walrath grants the JPMC motion it would close all DIME LTW holders from ever getting paid
BUT if Denied than we have good change to win a payout. IMO

[creyno58]

Sorry for my lack of knowledge here, but did Dimes holders receive escrows like WMI did

[ItsMyOption]

note for objection letters. It must get addressed to:

Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
Case 08-12229
824 N. Market St. 3rd. Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Dear Honorable Judge Mary Walrath:


Plus also cc the two address below

cc:
/s/ Matthew B. McGuire
Adam G. Landis (I.D. 3407)
Matthew B. McGuire (I.D. 4366)
LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP
919 Market Street Suite 1800
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
– and –
Robert A. Sacks
Brent J. McIntosh
Brian D. Glueckstein
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

[JOconner]

I will also send an objection letter.

As a small holder of LTW's (48,000) I hope something good comes out of this.

[ItsMyOption]

your time may be better spent on writing an objection to JPM motion.

If we can get Judge Mary Walrath to file her opinion "Motion denied"

It would help let that law suit move forward and save us litigation cost.

I feel we win if we get a motion denied! You have a good week to write and file if you need help look for my e mail in post

[ItsMyOption]

just a couple comments, sleep on it for the night as you have plenty of time for changes. It must get filed by May 24 so you could edit make changes and send it next week after it is improved.

you should also include Re: Docket No: 12237 under the Jointly Administered.

But Thanks as IMO the more objections the better.

[splendidsplinter]

Okay, so now we have confirmation of a current suit with, presumably, legal representation.
a) Their win may benefit us. Problem is, quiet settlements and limited time frame to act.

b) We have a law firm we can contact.

My position size is large enough that I'm motivated to consider legal representation, but starting something from scratch is daunting and probably not realistic. Linda, when you've had a chance to read this, I'd like to hear what you think is the best course of action. I'm concerned with the approach members on this board have taken thus far of everyone firing off individual e-mails, letters, or calls.

I'd also be interested in the details of the $9,999,000 figure.

[wackena]

Draft Objection Letter.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

______________________________________________
:
In re : Chapter 11
:
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al.,1 : Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)
:
Debtors. : Jointly Administered
:
: Hearing Date: June 2, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. (ET)
: Obj. Deadline: May 24, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)
______________________________________________:



OBJECTION OF XXXXXXX X. XXXXXXXX TO THE MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE SEVENTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE



Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
Case 08-12229
824 N. Market St. 5th. Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Dear Honorable Judge Mary Walrath:

As a Private Person and LTW Holder I, XXXXXXX X. XXXXXXX have a valid lien/claim against, and interest in 85 % Net of the Award – which was given/promised to the LTW Holders upon the issuance of the LTWs.

The following are not proper legalizes, but I feel they are correct. Especially, “…ownership interests in the Anchor litigation…” in item 2 below.

1) As the Anchor Litigation was transferred to JPMC, the bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction to allow or dis-allow LTW holders’, that did not opt-in to the Washington Mutual stipulation, their right to claim the 85% net of the Anchor award.

2) The DIME warrants were actively trading on the NASDAQ Market on the day JPMorgan Chase acquired Washington Mutual Bank. And as Judge Block stated in his Order/Opinion, " In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPM acquired them. " - PG 6

3) As a LTW Holder that purchased the Warrants in good faith, JPMC should honor my claim.


Sincerely,

[ItsMyOption]

it could start out something like this: The formatting does not come out correctly but you could e mail dshutvet @ comcast.net and I can sent clear copy

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

--------------------------------) Chapter 11
In re: )
) Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al.,)
) Jointly Administered
Debtors. ) Re: Docket No: 12237

OBJECTION OF DAVID XXXX TO the MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE SEVENTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE


Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
Case 08-12229
824 N. Market St. 5th. Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Dear Honorable Judge Mary Walrath:

As an LTW Holder I, David XXXXX have a valid lien/claim against, and interest in 85 % Net of the Award – which was given/promised to the LTW Holders upon the issuance of the LTWs.

[wackena]

This this the correct address for:

Judge Mary F. Walrath
Bankruptcy Court,
824 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

if not correct, does someone have or can direct me to contact information for Judge Walrath to send objection letter?

[ItsMyOption]

I feel the best we can do to help is write an objection letter to help support their case. IF one group wins we all win!

[wackena]

I don't know if a good idea, but Is there a way to contact this Rosenbaum person and inquire if we can join or assist in some way in their law suite.

[ItsMyOption]

it would help if we could get a copy of their objection letter.

[linda1]

The Law Suit filed in the Southern Ohio
District Court against JPM is on behalf of
10 individual LTW Holders -

Two I know of as named Plaintiffs when
we tried to intervene in the Anchor Litigation.

The Law Suit was filed on March 30, 2016
and is for $ 9,999,000 - Civil Case No. 00281 -
Rosenbaum v. JP Morgan Chase.

[linda1]

Yes I think we should file Objections
with Judge Walrath.

And be sure to Include and cite
Judge Block's Opinion that the LTWs are
" ownership interests in the Anchor Litigation "
and that JPM " acquired them ".

[linda1]

Hi Sidedraft.

There was a Law Suit filed by
10 individual LTW Holders in the
Southern Ohio District Court
on March 30, 2016.

The Civil Case No. is 00281 -
2:16-cv-281 - or just type in
Rosenbaum and then click on
Stephen Rosenbaum.

Can you please post a link to
Docket # 1 and # 9. For some
reason I only receive PG 1
even though there are 22 pages
and 5 pages that I got charged for.

Thanks very much.

[Tradeinman]

You are correct, we should all send it.

[ItsMyOption]

cubs our best hope is an objection letter that needs to get filed before May 24th

I have started one and will post when finished I have some emails that I will send those a clean copy, but we must all object!

It will start out something like this but still working on it.


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

------------------------------------------------------ ) Chapter 11
In re: )
) Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al., )
) Jointly Administered
Debtors. )
) Re: Docket No: 12237
------------------------------------------------------ )

OBJECTION OF DAVID XXXXXX TO the MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE SEVENTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE

[cubs]

It appears it is time to act.

Others....what are your thoughts?

cubs

PS. My follow up from my last email to
Adrian: I have received no response.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, I also sent you email. I plan to start on an objection letter today it is our last hope and a good chance we can convince Judge Walrath that those DIME LTW holders that did not opt-in must be paid.

[linda1]

That is good news.

So there has been a Law Suit filed against
JPM - on March 30, 2016 - by an LTW Holder
named Rosenbaum.

If you recall he was one of the named
Plaintiffs when we tried to intervene in the
Anchor Litigation.

I will have to check with Pacer to see if the
Law Suit is on behalf of himself, or himself and
others, or all LTW Holders who did not " opt in ".

JPM is clearly concerned enough to try to get
additional confirmation from the bankruptcy
court that the GSA is binding on the LTWs.

If my memory serves me right, one of the Judges
at our hearing with the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit did not think that the 363 Sale
of the Anchor Litigation from WMI to JPM was
binding on the LTWs. Our California lawyers
brought up this concern with the Judges. The
Judge stated it was an Agreement between WMI
and JPM and not the LTWs.

[ItsMyOption]

IMPORTANT!

MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE SEVENTH AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE dated 5/10/2016

www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160510000000000003

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO READ IT IS ALL ABOUT JPM GETTING THAT ANCHOR AWARD FREE AND CLEAR UNLESS WE CAN PROVE OUR OBJECTION FOR PAYMENT!

Important thing to note: This is a motion filed by JPMC that isn't signed by a judge. If the judge signs it, it means LTW cannot seek recovery from the Anchor Litigation with JPMC. If the judge doesn't sign it, expect a hearing regarding this. At that point, visit the DIMEQ board section of IHUB. The link is near the beginning of this post.

Hearing Date: June 2, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. (ET) Obj. Deadline: May 24, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)

Mary F. Walrath United States Bankruptcy Judge

I think it is important that we write an Objection letter to Judge Mary Walrath before May 24th to request JPM pay those that did not opt-in our 85%

This is our last hope!

[ItsMyOption]

I’ll let others read through this to see if it puts the end to use LTW. Dated 5/10/2016 it sucks!

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160510000000000003

8. The Global Settlement, in relevant part, states that JPMC would own the Anchor Litigation. Section 2.13(b) of the Global Settlement provides that pursuant to the 363 Sale and Settlement, JPMC acquired all disputed interests in the Anchor Litigation: free and clear of the liens, Claims, interests and encumbrances of any Person, including, without limitation, any liens, Claims, interests and encumbrances of holders of Litigation Tracking Warrants as set forth in the 2003 Amended and Restated Warrant Agreement, dated as of March 11, 2003. (Global Settlement § 2.13(b) (emphasis added).) The “363 Sale and Settlement” implemented the resolution of the disputed assets. These assets are defined as the “Plan Contribution Assets” and set forth on Exhibit G to the Global Settlement. The Plan Contribution Assets include the Anchor Litigation, which is listed on Exhibit G as being among the assets acquired by JPMC. The 363 Sale and Settlement provided for the “sale, transfer and assignment pursuant to the Plan and sections 363 and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code” of “any and all right, title and interest any of the WMI Entities may have” in various assets, including the Anchor Litigation. (Global Settlement § 1.2, Definition of 363 Sale and Settlement.)

[ItsMyOption]

Not sure what you mean "what was his first response"

Maybe spend a minute and read plus it was not a his.

[Mike D1]

what was his first respose he sent

[ItsMyOption]

JPM attorney sent a response to my second request for payment.

So next move would be if someone has a good security attorney that would work on consignment and would review if we should go forward.

Mr. xxxxx

In response to your recent emails and phone calls, I am resending my response to your first inquiry on this topic. That rationale remains unchanged.

Respectfully,

Adrian Wager-Zito
Partner
JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide?
51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Office +1.202.879.3891
[e-mail]

[investophil]

On thought. When I send the letter, I will include my broker of record's name, account number, the number of shares and any other pertinent information.

[ItsMyOption]

after I send it I will post it.

[Mike D1]

Share that letter. Lets all send one!

[ItsMyOption]

I wanted to go over the calculations to make sure it is correct.
Linda's calculation used to estimate the claim is based on 85% of the base award of
$ 419,645,910.91 - before the tax gross-up of
$ 93,999,673.00 is added - and then divided
by 112,975,597 LTWs.

85 % x $ 419,645,911.62 = $ 356,699,024.80

$ 356,699,024.80 - divided by 112,975,597
LTWs = $ 3.157

The court stated
For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to a gross up award of $118,969,673.71. This court previously held, on May 18, 2015, that plaintiff is entitled to a pre-gross up judgment of $419,645,910.91. In sum, plaintiff is entitled to recover a total of $538,615,584.62. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter judgment, and take the necessary steps to dismiss this matter.

I think it should be:
$ 419,645,910.91 - before the tax gross-up of
$ 118,969,673.71 is added - and then divided
by 112,975,597 LTWs.

85 % x $538,615,584.62 = $ 457,823,246.93

$ 457,823,246.93- divided by 112,975,597
LTWs = $ 4.05


I would rather have my calculation high and let their attorney adjust it if needed.

I have a new updated Demand for Payment letter going out on Monday which Linda and I have worked on. I plan to follow up with phone call to their attorney to get an feeling of if she is someone we can work with or if an attorney is needed to litigate our claim.

[investophil]

Wackena - The same thing happened to me despite numerous phone calls to the representative and leaving messages requesting a call back with the status. Let's see how they respond to Cubs (8022).

[wackena]

I received today same form letter response from JPM-Chase. As reported to board earlier, JPM-Chase advised me by telephone that a representative would be contacting me by phone to discuss my letter for LTW payment claim. As of today, no call. On the several LTW claims sent to JPM-Chase they may have decided to send letter rather than call.

[cubs]

Followed up with Adrian.
Will report back to the board.

Thanks,

cubs

[ItsMyOption]

I received the following response:below

Note, My plans will be to resubmitted my Demand for payment letter on Monday and as stated in my letter I will add a 1.1% late fee per month. I will inform them any additional cost will be added to total Demand for Payment. IMO, I think others should also add a fee so they understand if this gets delayed, or litigation cost added it will all get added to my final demand for payment



"Executive Office (Chase)
Mail Code TX2-K266
P.O. Box 19020
Houston, TX 77224-9020

April 25, 2016

PLEASE CONTACT OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER

Dear Mxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx:

I am replying to your email requesting compensation in connection with a settlement reached with the FDIC regarding Dime Bank. Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Please note that in connection with the litigation involving Anchor Savings Bank, FSB vs. United States of America, Chase is represented and all questions and inquiries regarding this matter should be addressed to our outside counsel:

Adrian Wager-Zito
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[e-mail]

Thank you for contacting us. If you have questions, please us at 1-877-685-5560.

Sincerly,

[investophil]

Mike D1 -
I received the same referral letter yesterday. Maybe it's time to contact a lawyer and discuss our options even if there is a consulting fee.

[ItsMyOption]

yes, Mike many of us have and received simple rejection letters. I have resent Demand for pay letter and have not received reply.

Have you been reading the last weeks posts?

I rely do not expect any response - as this is attorney that makes money litigating.

She will wait tile we present a legal front. We may need to start checking for legal representation. IMO but I intend to resubmit my demand letter to the executive office with late fees attached May 1st.

[Mike D1]

Has anyone else already written to Adrian Wager-Zito?

[Tradeinman]

https://www.facebook.com/massreport/videos/1182654018414280/

[cubs]

Thanks Mike,

Several months ago I emailed Adrian.
At that time she referred me to
JPM. The JPM rep I spoke with
was not familiar with my question.

cubs

[Mike D1]

I received the following response:

"Executive Office (Chase)
Mail Code TX2-K266
P.O. Box 19020
Houston, TX 77224-9020

April 25, 2016

PLEASE CONTACT OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER

Dear Mxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx:

I am replying to your email requesting compensation in connection with a settlement reached with the FDIC regarding Dime Bank. Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Please note that in connection with the litigation involving Anchor Savings Bank, FSB vs. United States of America, Chase is represented and all questions and inquiries regarding this matter should be addressed to our outside counsel:

Adrian Wager-Zito
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[e-mail]

Thank you for contacting us. If you have questions, please us at 1-877-685-5560.

Sincerly,

Executive Office"


DID ANYONE ELSE RECEIVE THIS RESPONSE?

[Tradeinman]

I have been of the grid for a while.

Thank you all for the continued info.

I would like to be the fly in the wall, when the realization hits that there isn't just "mom & pop" owners here.

There in fact are very intelligent people that are dead on in demanding payment here.

Since I have been traveling lately, I will wait for some more
Info before I send my letters.
My holdings pale in comparison to some here, but will be nice to get what is rightfully ours.

Thanks again.

[linda1]

Excellent replies by you and " wakena ". Much more
detailed than my hurried reply.

Let us know if you receive a response.

[ItsMyOption]

Reply to Zito & JPM

Adrian Wager-Zito,
Cc: [e-mail]

It seems clear that your simple rejection of my claim is for the many propose of increasing revenue for your legal firm in complete disregards to the statements Judge Block stated when he awarded JP Morgan the Anchor Savings/DIME LTWs Award of $538,615,584.62

You may wish to explain to the JP Morgan Executive branch that all LTW holders that elected to opt-out on the February 29, 2012 election deadline have a valid lien/claim against, and interest in 85 % Net of the Award – which was given/promised to the LTW Holders upon the issuance of the LTWs. Any additional delay in payment will just be added the cost with interest / late fees plus all addition cost added to my Demand for Payment.

Please review Judge Block’s Opinion and Order of Aug. 31, 2015 which states that the LTWs are “ownership interest in the Anchor Litigation” Additionally, Judge Block stated “JPMC did not acquire the Anchor litigation piecemeal, at a specific price; rather, it acquired Anchor’s assets (including the Anchor litigation) as part of a package that was sold by the FDIC Receiver, under the terms of the purchase and assumption agreement. See Anchor V, 121 Fed. Cl. at 314-18.” And “the Litigation Tracking Warrants (“LTWs”) for the Anchor litigation, which were publicly trading on the day of acquisition.”, and the Tax Gross-Up is based on the value of the LTW’s.

Judge Block stated: “ In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPMC acquired them.”

Link to Judge Block’s Opinion and Order:
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?1995cv0039-377-0

My second request for payment calculates the LTW shares held 95,000 X $3.157 = $299,915.00


Respectfully,

[wackena]

I also replied to Ms Wager-Zito's email. Cc- JPMC Executive Office

Ms. Wager-Zito,

I assume your rejection of my claim is from the bankruptcy court. Please accept my reasoning as to why I think that opinion is wrong.

1) As the Anchor Litigation was transferred to JPMC, the bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction to allow or dis-allow LTW holders’, that did not opt-in the to Washington Mutual stipulation, their right to claim the 85% net of the Anchor award.

2) The DIME warrants were actively trading on the NASDAQ Market on the day JPMorgan Chase acquired Washington Mutual Bank. And as Judge Block stated in his Order/Opinion, " In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPM acquired them. " - PG 6

3) As a LTW Holder that purchased the Warrants in good faith, JPMC should honor my claim.



Best regards,

[linda1]

I replied to Ms. Wager-Zito the following and I also
sent a CC to JPM's executive office -


Dear Ms. Wager-Zito:

In light of Judge Block's Opinion and Order - which
points out " JPM acquired them " (the LTWs) when
it acquired WMB, and the LTWs are " ownership
interests in the Anchor litigation " - the bankruptcy
court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the Claims
of the LTW Holders.

The Claim against JPM for 85 % net of the Anchor
Award is correct.

Respectfully,



" In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking
warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis
of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these
ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively
traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPM
acquired them. " - PG 6

[linda1]

I would also add that Judge Block's Opinion and
Order states that JPM acquired the LTWs - when
it acquired WMB - and the amount of the
Tax Gross-Up is based on the value of the LTWs.


" In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking
warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis
of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these
ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively
traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPM
acquired them. " - PG 6

[linda1]

I would also add that Judge Block's Opinion and
Order states that JPM acquired the LTWs - when
it acquired WMB - and the amount of the
Tax Gross-Up is based on the value of the LTWs.

" In this case, the court finds that the litigation tracking
warrants provide a reasonable proxy for the tax basis
of the Anchor litigation. As plaintiff points out, these
ownership interests in the Anchor litigation were actively
traded on the NASDAQ market on the day that JPM
acquired them. " - PG 6

[ItsMyOption]

If you get that call have your facts ready for what you wish to state.

- Judge Block’s Opinion and Order of Aug. 31, 2015 which states that the LTWs are “ownership interest in the Anchor Litigation” - so we do have a claim.

- That you hold LTW's and do have claim against what the award to JP Morgan received.

- You did not opt-in so your claim is still standing for what was a contractual agreement.

-

[wackena]

At 5:30 PM EST today, I received a phone call from a JPM Chase representative and was advised that I would be contacted soon by phone call from another JPM Chase individual to discuss my claim. I do not know if this is good or bad news in reference to my LTW claim. At present, I don't expect a positive reply after Adrian Wager-Zito rejected my claim this AM. Maybe right hand does not know what left hand is doing, When I know more I will advise the board.

[ItsMyOption]

I received the same response. I think it is standard attorney response hoping we go away. I plan to respond to the letter tomorrow. I may send it directly to executive office as Zito will play this game until we get attorney involved.

Any other ideas?

Mr. xxxxxxxx:

I am responding to the below email on behalf of JPMorgan Chase. Your claim is rejected on the grounds that you are not entitled to make a claim related to such warrants against JPMorgan Chase.

Respectfully,

Adrian Wager-Zito
Partner
JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide?
51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Office +1.202.879.3891
[e-mail]