Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[linda1]

No - not if you want it docketed.

Plus you need to send copies to the
Attorneys representing JPMC - which
I have included their names and addresses
at the end.

Please don't feel obligated to file any
Objection if it is not convenient. Others
will be doing so for all LTW Holders.

[dsstyle1]

Can this be faxed to the judge? what about the others?

[linda1]

JPM already mentions that in its Motion -
so Judge Walrath will be aware of that.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda that all looks good. As this motion is attempting to stop the Ohio group you may wish to include at the end and add.

I am sure the counsel for Ohio group will be at the court hearing.

cc:

NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
Austin Tighe
3600 Capital of Texas Highway
Suite B350
Austin, Texas 78746
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Ohio case NO: 2:16-cv-281

[linda1]

Following is a simple form letter.

Keep in mind I have had to narrow the
paragraphs to fit on I-Hub and you will
have to adjust them. Give Me 15 minutes
to align the paragraphs.

If you are able to, attach as Exhibit A or 1
the pages I mention from the 3 Orders. I
think 2 copies of your Objection may have
to be mailed to the Bankruptcy Court.



IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE



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


RE: CASE NO. 08-12229 - DOCKET NO. 12237



OBJECTION OF (Your Name) 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


Dear Honorable Judge Mary Walrath:



I, (Your Name) am a Dime LTW ("LTW") Holder

who did not "opt in" to the Stipulation and

Agreement signed by WMI and Counsel

representing all LTW Holders. I have a valid

lien against and interest in 85 % net of the

Anchor Litigation Award.


On May 18, 2015 the US Court of Federal

Claims awarded the Anchor Savings

Bank Litigation and $419,645,910.91 to JPMC.

An additional Tax Gross-Up of

$118,969,673.71 was awarded on Aug 31, 2015 -

for a total of $538,615,584.62.


In the Opinion and Order of the US Court of

Federal Claims for the Anchor

Savings Bank Litigation - dated Aug 31, 2015 -

it states on Page 6 that the LTWs

are " ownership interests in the Anchor Litigation...."

and " were actively traded on the NASDAQ market

on the day JPM acquired them. "


" 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. "



The US Court of Federal Claims' Opinions never

do state or agree that the Anchor Savings Bank

Litigation was transferred to JPMC by way of the

363 Sale/GSA. In its May 18, 2015 Opinion and

Order - Page 16, 2 (a) - it states as follows:


" For the reasons explained below, the court holds
that the P&A Agreement clearly and unambiguously
conveyed the Anchor judgment to JPMC. "


WMI's claim that it owned the Anchor Savings Bank

Litigation while in bankruptcy was erroneous. The

PAA was signed by the FDIC and JPMC on

Sept 25, 2008 - WMI's date of bankruptcy was

Sept 26, 2008. The Bankruptcy Court was therefore

not the correct jurisdiction in which to adjudicate

the Claims of the LTW Holders.


In addition, in the Feb 23, 2012 Order approving

WMI's POR, it states - on PG 69, Para. 29 - as follows:


" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Global

Settlement Agreement or the Plan to the contrary,

nothing is intended to release, nor shall it have the

effect of releasing (a).........the JPMC Releasees

(as defined in the Global Settlement Agreement)..

.........and (b) any Releasee (as defined in the Global

Settlement Agreement) or any Person, including,

without limitation, the United States of America,

from any claims and causes of action asserted

or that could be asserted in..............the Anchor

Litigation............" and " .........nothing in the Global

Settlement Agreement, the Plan, or this Order

shall waive, release, acquit or discharge........the

rights and obligations of JPMC.........pursuant to

the Purchase and Assumption Agreement........"



JPMC is erroneously seeking to limit the rights

of the LTW Holders to file a Lawsuit/Claims

against JPMC to the jurisdiction of the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.


For the foregoing reasons set out in my Objection

I respectfully request that the Court deny JPMC's Motion.


Respectfully,



(Your Name)___________ Date: May 17, 2016


(Your Address)
(xxxxxxxxxxxx)
(xxxxxxxxxxxx)
(Phone No.)



CC:

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.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, I think that value is low as the Ohio group collectively holds 7,250,162 LTW shares that did not opt-in

I have estimated from those that supplied their information to me us IHUB ers have about 750,000 shares but some have not provided shares amounts.

[linda1]

JPMC's main argument to Judge Walrath -


1. JPMC requires the assistance of this Court to enforce
the terms of the Confirmation Order—which became final
more than four years ago—to prevent holders of Litigation
Tracking Warrants (“LTWs”) from attempting to impose
liability on JPMC for contractual rights that they had
against Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and that were
extinguished in accordance with the terms of the Debtors’
confirmed plan of reorganization that went effective in
March 2012. In violation of the Court’s Confirmation Order,
certain LTW holders have sued JPMC in federal district
court in Ohio seeking to collect from JPMC a portion of
the proceeds of the Anchor Litigation, based on a theory
that their LTWs entitle them to such a recovery.

2. On the contrary, JPMC’s actual interest and Plaintiffs’
purported interest in the Anchor Litigation are both
controlled by the Court’s Confirmation Order, the Plan it
confirmed, and the Global Settlement that the Plan
incorporates by reference. Those documents demonstrate
beyond dispute that the proceeds of the Anchor Litigation
are JPMC’s, free and clear of any claim by Plaintiffs, and
Plaintiffs’ claim, such as it is, only was an equity interest
against WMI.

[linda1]

The $ 9,999,000 is for the value of their LTWs.

The total claim is for $ 27 M - which includes legal
fees, interest, etc.

[linda1]

Correction: the Ohio Lawsuit is for a total of $ 27 M.

[linda1]

I doubt it.

I know of a few large LTW Holders who Opted In
to the Stipulation and Agreement and who are closely
following any Court Actions.

I do not expect any Action by the LTW Holders who
Opted In until the LTW Holders who did not Opt In win
a Lawsuit against JPMC.

[linda1]

Do you also have the Stipulation and Agreement
for the LTWs in your file? Thanks.

[nodnub]

ItsMyOption, I have sent you an email.

[linda1]

It is the Order approving the POR.

It is on PG 69, Para. 29.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda I found the link here:

www.kccllc.net/wamu

Seventh Amended Joint plan – very large file

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120224000000000001

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, I have been trying to find the link to the Global Settlement Agreement or where did you see this

29. Non-Release of Certain Obligation.
Not withstanding anything contained in the
Global Settlement Agreement or the Plan
to the contrary, nothing is intended to
release, nor shall it have the effect of
releasing, (a) the WMI Releasees (as
defined in the Global Settlement Agreement),
the JPMC Releasees (as defined in the
Global Settlement Agreement), or the the
FDIC Parties from the performance of their
obligations in accordance with the Global
Settlement Agreement and the agreements
ser forth on Schedule 3.1 (b) and 3.2 to the
Global Settlement Agreement and (b) any
Releasee (as defined in the Global SettlementA
Agreement) or any Person, including, without
limitation, the United States of America, from
any claims and causes of action asserted or
that could be asserted in either the American
Savings Litigation or the Anchor Litigation......

[linda1]

I have corrected my errors in my posting of
Para. 29 of the Order approving the POR.


Thanks very much.

The COMPLAINT filed in the S. Ohio
District Court - on Pg. 14 - cites Pg 69,
Para. 29 of the Order approving the
POR - which clears the way for LTWs
to file claims against JPM.


49. Likewise, the Bankruptcy Plan itself
states that nothing in the GSA waives or
releases Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank
“from any claims and causes of action
asserted or that could be asserted in the
Anchor [Savings] Litigation...or any
obligations of JPMC Bank pursuant to
the Purchase and Assumption Agreement....
Seventh Amended Bankruptcy Plan, p. 69;
Para. 29, Final Approval Order. This was
confirmed by the bankruptcy court judge
at the approval hearing of the GSA, where
she stated that the GSA “does not affect
any rights the Litigation Tracking Warrant
holders may have against JP Morgan
[JPMorgan Chase Bank].”


29. Non-Release of Certain Obligation.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Global Settlement Agreement or the Plan
to the contrary, nothing is intended to
release, nor shall it have the effect of
releasing, (a) the WMI Releasees (as
defined in the Global Settlement Agreement),
the JPMC Releasees (as defined in the
Global Settlement Agreement), or the
FDIC Parties from the performance of their
obligations in accordance with the Global
Settlement Agreement and the agreements
set forth on Schedule 3.1 (b) and 3.2 to the
Global Settlement Agreement and (b) any
Releasee (as defined in the Global Settlement
Agreement) or any Person, including, without
limitation, the United States of America, from
any claims and causes of action asserted or
that could be asserted in either the American
Savings Litigation or the Anchor Litigation......

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, good catch I already reworded that into my objection except for what was quoted by the Judge.

[linda1]

Thanks very much.

The COMPLAINT filed in the S. Ohio
District Court - on Pg. 14 - cites Pg 69,
Para. 29 of the Order approving the
POR - which clears the way for LTWs
to file claims against JPM.


49. Likewise, the Bankruptcy Plan itself
states that nothing in the GSA waives or
releases Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank
“from any claims and causes of action
asserted or that could be asserted in the
Anchor [Savings] Litigation...or any
obligations of JPMC Bank pursuant to
the Purchase and Assumption Agreement....
Seventh Amended Bankruptcy Plan, p. 69;
Para. 29, Final Approval Order. This was
confirmed by the bankruptcy court judge
at the approval hearing of the GSA, where
she stated that the GSA “does not affect
any rights the Litigation Tracking Warrant
holders may have against JP Morgan
[JPMorgan Chase Bank].”


29. Non-Release of Certain Obligation.
Not withstanding anything contained in the
Global Settlement Agreement or the Plan
to the contrary, nothing is intended to
release, nor shall it have the effect of
releasing, (a) the WMI Releasees (as
defined in the Global Settlement Agreement),
the JPMC Releasees (as defined in the
Global Settlement Agreement), or the the
FDIC Parties from the performance of their
obligations in accordance with the Global
Settlement Agreement and the agreements
ser forth on Schedule 3.1 (b) and 3.2 to the
Global Settlement Agreement and (b) any
Releasee (as defined in the Global SettlementA
Agreement) or any Person, including, without
limitation, the United States of America, from
any claims and causes of action asserted or
that could be asserted in either the American
Savings Litigation or the Anchor Litigation......

[linda1]

I don't think that secrecy is necessary for
the issue of the Objection.

Most of what I am going to say in my
Objection has already been stated directly
by us to JPM or is in the COMPLAINT
filed in the S. Ohio District Court.

Plus there may be some LTWs who need
a Form Letter to copy for proper Headings,
Addresses, CCs and basic content.

I intend to post a basic Form Letter by Monday
and I would like you to correct any errors.

Thanks.

[ItsMyOption]

Thanks Linda I just emailed you a note.

I also want to inform any that want to file a Object to be very careful, and it may be best to not file any objection. I will be submitting one next week

This JPM motion is all about who has jurisdiction so wording must show why the Delaware court does not have the jurisdiction to stop the Ohio group litigation.

[sidedraft]

KCCLLC has it here:

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120224000000000001

Or, it is also HERE

[linda1]

Do you have Judge Walrath's
Order approving WMI's POR
in your files?

I would be thankful if you could
post a link to it.

[linda1]

I think there is something in the
Order approving WMI's POR about
the LTW's are clear to intervene in the
Anchor Litigation if possible.

Do you have an Apple I-Pad?

[linda1]

I'll try that as well as E-mail to myself.

[ItsMyOption]

philipmax can you contact me I put my e mail contact in one of my last posts. Thanks

[BBis]

Is any party moving forward for rescission of the tenders/releases coerced under duress and obtained by the misrepresentation of the DIMEQ being part of the Washington Mutual bankruptcy ?

Could this be incorporated into a second version of an objection as a dual pronged attack with stronger language as to the actions of JPM ?

While there appears to be a hint of animosity from a couple posters to the ones who released, would fighting the releases be more clear cut and involve heavier accusations ?

[ItsMyOption]

I may have too many document opened now, but what I want now is the final GSA- Global settlement agreement. Judge Walrath has made comments favorable to DIME.

[ItsMyOption]

excellent and thanks!

[sidedraft]

See if something HERE helps

[ItsMyOption]

sidedraft,or others I am looking for document links to:

GSA - Global settlement agreement
POR- final plan of Reorganization
any Judge Walrath ruling regards DIME LTW

I had them on my computer but can not find

[cubs]

Done.

[dsstyle1]

Thanks Linda.

[ItsMyOption]

To all DIME LTW holders I now feel making posts on this site may not be in our best interest.

We should not post anything we may include in objection letter as IMO JPM is watching reading what we post

I would like to get E-mails from all which we could share and exchange ideas. If you wish my e mail is dshutvet @ comcast.net

I will not respond to any board members that I can not verify so also send your ihub name and how many LTW held

[ItsMyOption]

Hi dsstyle1 yes an objection letter need to get filed by May 23.

follow the board the next week as we should all mail our separate objections by the 19th or so.

[dsstyle1]

I'm an LTW holder and I didn't opt in. I've been lurking here and it seems some progress is being made. If there is a group that's getting together to make an objection to a court, I'd like to join.

[Tradeinman]

You can probably save them in your "iBooks".

[goldcanyon341]

Recommended reading-- go to msg #8057 by sidedraft and click on HERE.

Then read 1-main.pdf which is the plaintiffs case filed in Ohio.

Very interesting! Thank you sidedraft.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, I will look for some Walrath statement that may help if you see any send them and link.

Re saving document I use good reeder iPad app to put documents in and put setting to read off line.

[linda1]

It isn't detailed enough about Judge
Block's Opinion so be sure to include
a copy of Page 6.

[linda1]

Since you are so sharp with computers I have
a question to ask you.

I own an I-Pad now since my obsolete MacBook
broke about 2 months ago and it can't be repaired.

I could save documents to my desk top or other
files on my MacBook and then access them when
I was not connected to the Internet. I find that
if I save documents to my home screen on my
I-Pad I cannot access the document without
being connected to the Internet.

Do you know of any way to save documents on
an I-Pad and subsequently access without
having to be connected to the Internet?

Thanks.

[linda1]

The reason JPM is seeking an enforcement of
the findings of facts...from the bankruptcy court
is because it is arguing in the Ohio proceedings
that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate
the claims of the LTWs.

JPM is stating that only the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court has jurisdiction and is basing that position
on Judge Walrath's own words -


On May 10, 2016, JPMorgan filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings in this case pending resolution of the
Motion 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, which JPMorgan filed on
May 10, 2016 in In re Washington Mutual, Inc.,
Case No. 08-12229 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del.) (the
“Motion for Enforcement”). Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by multiple orders of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, which retained
“exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out
of, and relating to” Washington Mutual, Inc.’s
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. See In re Washington
Mutual, Inc., No. 08-12229 (MFW), 2012 WL
1563880, ¶ 83 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2012).
JPMorgan should not be required to defend, and
engage in discovery, with respect to claims barred
by another court’s orders.


We need to include in our Objections any statements
by Judge Walrath - such as in the Order approving
the POR - that says the LTWs can pursue claims
against JPM.

[linda1]

It doesn't make economic sense to have multiple
Law Suits against JPM by groups of individual LTWs.

JPM would probably object and request of one of
the Courts a class action status.

We could file a Motion to Intervene in the Ohio
Law Suit - Rosenbaum v. JP Morgan Chase -
and request a Class Action Status and also
include our own long list of LTW Holders and
their holdings.

[linda1]

Thanks very much.

[creyno58]

The screwing continues one turn after another.

[ItsMyOption]

Thank you sidedraft this is what I wanted to see.

Thanks for your help!

do you also own DIME LTW?

You have helped me in the past getting documents Re: Fee objection letters

I may have 50 plus objections filed in the WMI & DIME litigations

[investophil]

ItsMyOption - thanks.

[sidedraft]

Some are HERE

[ItsMyOption]

yes I would I listed it in this paragraph.But word it as you wish I am still working on ruff draft.

Judge Block awarded JP Morgan the Anchor Savings/DIME LTWs Award
a pre-gross up judgment $419,645,910.91 plus tax gross up of $118,969,676.71 for total award of $538,615,584.62 The LTW holders have a valid lien/claim against, and interest in 85% Net of the Award was attached to the transfer from FDIC to JPMC, and remains unpaid!

[investophil]

ItsMyOption -

Do we need to include a sentence about the tax gross up that JPM received? Isn't that also part of the settlement?

[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