Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[marty009]

itsMyOpinion,

I could not access your mail box.
So, you may make a note that myself and wife hold 22,000 wts that were in IRA accounts prior to brokerage cancelling them. We never accepted the offer to release them.
Marty

[marty009]

Linda,

Thank you again for printing the full letter...and all your work.
I am now under the impression that there are two or more objections....all that are necessary.
So, is my letter needed? I am still working off an old laptop ....so, reproducing a letter will be a long process.

Best,
Marty

[ItsMyOption]

Ha marty, if you can find my email in post 8071 give me full name and shares held. I will not supply that with anyone other than counsel if we need to join Ohio group.

My thinking is if we get the judge to deny the motion JPM will want to negotiate this out of court and quick. So we may not need legal counsel, but I am ready if needed.

It is also why I have been sending a Demand for Payment letter to JPM executive office and their counsel handing that claim. I have also been adding a 1.1% late fee monthly and will continue till paid in full.

Everyone else should also do that to get your share recorded. IMO

[marty009]

itsMyOpinion,

Hi....thank you for reply.
I did NOT opt in!
Please add me to your list and thanks again.

Marty

[investophil]

ItsMyOption -
Many thanks for doing all the leg work, writing the Objection and filing the document.

[ItsMyOption]

My Objection has been delivered will post a link when it is filed.

Tracking Number: 9505513002876138397253
Image of a progress bar displaying delivered status delivered
On Time
Expected Delivery Day: Thursday, May 19, 2016
Product & Tracking Information
Postal Product:
Priority Mail 2-Day™
Features:
Insured
USPS Tracking®
DATE & TIME
STATUS OF ITEM
LOCATION
May 19, 2016 , 11:15 am
Delivered, In/At Mailbox
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

[linda1]

I hope you are right.

[ItsMyOption]

great job Linda, so we will have the 2 Objection that will force a june 2nd hearing.

Counsel for Ohio group will be there as they need to be. IMO

That JPMC motion will get Denied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[linda1]

I have included more in my Objection
than what I just posted.

I also included excerpts from the
Hearing in the US Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit and a few
additions that I did not want to post
in case JPMC monitors I-Hub.

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, Great job on your Objection mine should get filed Thursday or Friday at the latest.

[linda1]

Marty - here is a letter.


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE



Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
824 North Market Street
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 - which was

promised/given to the LTW Holders upon

the issuance of the LTWs.


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

purpose of eradicating a Lawsuit by LTW Holders

against JPMC in the S. Ohio District Court -

Case No. 2:16-cv-00281.


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.



NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
Austin Tighe
3600 Capital of Texas Highway
Suite B350
Austin, Texas 78746
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the S. Ohio Case

[linda1]

Yes - it is word for word.

My I-pad was quite clear and I had no
issue understanding the words.

[ItsMyOption]

Marty009, IMO it is better to not send a copy or form letter. Judges do not like to see the same letter many times. We only need two objection to force a june 2nd hearing.

I am sure counsel for the Ohio group will do a good job proving that Judge Walrath must deny that objection.

Marty,I did make a list of us IHUB LTW holders and listed my e-mail, but did not get anything from you. Did you not opt-in or sign that release?

It is my opinion that all those LTW that did not sign that release have a very good change of payment before end of summer. JPM will not want to litigate this in front of a jury.

[marty009]

Thank you to all who have worked so hard on this matter !!!!!!
Would someone kindly post a copy of the suggested letter.
I have just returned after 2 weeks away to find all these posts and am working with an old laptop computer which will be replaced by the end of the month. I will also send my protest by priority mail.

Marty

[cubs]

Receive anything?

[rab]

In microsoft word choose "paste special" and then choose "unformatted text"

No highlights

[ItsMyOption]

My JPM motion Objection has been mail Priority with tracking and it should get filed by Friday.

I feel very comfortable that Judge Walrath will deny that motion, and will not be happy that JPM counsel brought this back to her.

Yes, she will spank the counsel to JPM on June 2nd. with a Motion Denied!

[ItsMyOption]

great that worked,its fun to keep learning something every day.

[wackena]

I use Mac-Office 2008 and that is the a way to clear highlighted text. I found this after google search.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Clear-formatting-199d9ab5-727d-4ab8-8c87-ccc641da4f35

[ItsMyOption]

no cubs did not get anything

[ItsMyOption]

I do not see a edit tab that has clear formatting



To remove Highlighting, copy iHUB text, paste into Word document, then select all text and then under Edit tab select Clear/Clear Formatting.

[cubs]

Did you receive my reply


cubs

[wackena]

Sorry for the double posting.
To remove Highlighting, copy iHUB text, paste into Word document, then select all text and then under Edit tab select Clear/Clear Formatting.

[wackena]

To remove Highlighting, copy iHUB text, paste into Word document, then select all text and then under Edit tab select Clear/Clear Formatting.

[goldcanyon341]

It was mentioned earlier that Judge Walrath made comments about the GSA. Specifically that parties were not precluded from making claims against JPM or other participants. Is there a Docket # that includes her comments?

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, that great you where able to pick out what was first unintelligible. Is that word for word as recorded?

The [unintelligible - 00:21:11] is
" collateral estoppel " and should read
as follows:


JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Fountain [Atty for JPMorgan Chase].
Can I ask the same question of you that I
just asked Mr. Todor, whether there would be
any collateral estoppel or claim preclusion
argument made or makeable in a separate action
against whoever ends up winning in the Court of
Federal Claims on the question of who owns the
cause of action?

[linda1]

Sorry - it was the incorrect address.

Any Objection should be mailed to:


The US Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware
Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
Case No. 08-12229
824 North Market Street
3rd Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

[linda1]

The [unintelligible - 00:21:11] is
" collateral estoppel " and should read
as follows:


JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Fountain [Atty for JPMorgan Chase].
Can I ask the same question of you that I
just asked Mr. Todor, whether there would be
any collateral estoppel or claim preclusion
argument made or makeable in a separate action
against whoever ends up winning in the Court of
Federal Claims on the question of who owns the
cause of action?

[ItsMyOption]

I know how to cut and past but if you do it using IHUB everything is blue highlighted. I have tried many edit highlighting just cannot remove it.

Anyway I have found a way around that as I go right to the documents as it must be correct.

[linda1]

Thanks - I heard that too when I listened
to the Hearing and will be including it in my
objection.

[goldcanyon341]

Mouse over

1) Hold your left mouse button down and scan over the text.

2) Click on right button and select "copy"

3) Open Microsoft Word

4) Click on right button and select "paste"

[ItsMyOption]

can anyone explain how one can cut and past from IHUB and edit it in Word to remove the highlighting that it give?

[ItsMyOption]

Yes, saw that goldcanyon341 everything I see I cannot see anyway that some dishonest judge from Delaware could approval the JPM motion.

The motion should get denied, or it will have an easy win on appeal. JPM has put the Judge in a bad spot and she will not be happy!

[goldcanyon341]

Case 13-5005; Doc. # 35, fn 12), and in its on-the-record representations to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in that same proceeding.

2. JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Fountain [Atty for JPMorgan Chase]. Can I ask the same question of you that I
just asked Mr. Todor, whether there would be any [unintelligible - 00:21:11] or claim preclusion argument made or
makeable in a separate action against whoever ends up winning in the Court of Federal Claims on the question of
who owns the cause of action?

JPMorgan ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor…the money will be sitting somewhere at that point; either the money
will have been paid to JP Morgan as a successor in interest to [A]nchor… Or it will remain with the government.
And so there will be a practical effect, and they can, as they say, follow the money.
JUDGE: But you’re not going to go in court and say, “Oh, you missed your chance.”
JPMorgan ATTORNEY: No, sir.

And from p. 13 of transcript:
1. JPMorgan ATTORNEY: Whether [JPMorgan Chase Bank] or some successor in interest … has a
contractual obligation to remit a percentage of those judgment proceeds to [LTW holders like Plaintiffs] can be
litigated in another proceeding

[linda1]

Yes - thank you. And if you will note it says
that Fees and Expenses - up to $ 3.2 M - are
to be deducted from the $ 9 M.

I seem to recall the LTW's Attorneys' Fees being
about that amount and if deducted it validates my
calculation of the number of LTWs who did not
Opt In.


Upon the effective date of the Stipulation
(the "Effective Date"), the LTW Holders
shall receive, in the aggregate:


An Allowed General Unsecured Claim
(as such term is defined in the Seventh
Amended Plan) in Class 12 in the aggregate
amount of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000.00)
(the "Allowed General Unsecured Portion");
provided, however, that the Fees and Expenses,
to the extent allowed pursuant to an order of the
Bankruptcy Court, upon notice and hearing,
shall be paid from the initial distributions to be
made to LTW Holders with respect to the Allowed
General Unsecured Portion; and, provided, further,
that, to the extent the Fees and Expenses are equal
to or less than Three Million Two Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($3,200,000.00), the Debtors and the Creditors'
Committee shall not oppose any such application;

[linda1]

I have amended the following paragraph to include
a mention of the S. Ohio Lawsuit.


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

purpose of eradicating a Lawsuit filed by

LTW Holders against JPMC in the S. Ohio District

Court - Case No. 2:16-cv-00281.

[ItsMyOption]

This is it.

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120111000000000007

MOTION OF DEBTORS FOR AN
ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 105(A) OF
THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, BANKRUPTCY RULES 7023
AND 9019, AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(E),
APPROVING STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE DEBTORS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LTWHOLDERS
RESOLVING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND THE LTW PROOFS OF CLAIM

[linda1]

Docket # 9389.

How are you accessing the Docket?
Through Pacer or another less costly
place?

[linda1]

I think it is saying that their LTWs are
worth at least $ 27 M - or that their LTWs
plus accrued interest plus legal fees are
valued at at least $ 27 M - and that is the
damage they are seeking to recover.

Collectively the Claimants hold
7,250,278 LTWs.

$ 27,000,000 divided by 7,250,278 =
$ 3.72 a LTW

The $ 3.72 is higher than my estimate of
$ 3.157 a LTW and so I think that other
expenses and accrued interest has been
factored into the $ 27 M. If awarded the
$ 27 M I do not think they will be entiled
to anything more.

[ItsMyOption]

I found my objection letter to it. It may have something in reference to it, but still looking

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120127000000000002

[linda1]

I think it was in Jan 2012.

[ItsMyOption]

can you remember the date of that we should be able to look it up.

I will also look.

[linda1]

OK thanks. I think the Objections should be mailed to
the Office of the Clerk for filing. I'll phone later to check.



Address

Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
844 North King St Unit 18
Wilmington, DE 19801-3570

Phone

302-573-6170

[linda1]

No - I mean the Stipulation and Agreement
in 2012 between WMI and the LTWs when
Art Steinberg was our Attorney.

[EH22]

Linda,

I believe, although I am not sure, that their claim for 27M is only for damages, in addition to the claim for their part of 85% of the LTW, etc. See the following quote:

"55. Under those contracts, Plaintiffs have a vested interest in their share of 85% of the recovery in the Anchor Savings Litigation. Plaintiffs are entitled to the specific performance of
these contracts. Additionally, and in the alternative, by failing to pay Plaintiffs this share, and in contesting those vested rights, Defendant is in breach of those contracts. As a result of that breach, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but at least $27,000,000."

EH22

[BBis]

Thank you Linda.

[ItsMyOption]

could you email that along with name? I have posted my mail address prior.

Also:

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in the event that one or more
objections or responses to the Motion are timely filed and not otherwise resolved, the Motion


will be considered at a hearing before The Honorable Mary F. Walrath at the Bankruptcy Court,
824 North Market Street, 5th Floor, Courtroom 4, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, on June 2, 2016
at 10:30 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time).

[merbendim]

I own 48775 warrants. Where will the hearing be held easy drive for me to Wilmington.

[sidedraft]

Do you mean Doc #6?

03/30/2016 1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. ( Filing fee 
 $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-5441188), filed by Marsha Schniedwind, David 
 Eidelman, Eric Wagoner, Arthur Wasserman, Frank E Williams, Michael Kovens, Ian 
 MacKenzie, Stephen Rosenbaum, Adam Shapiro, Carolyn MacKenzie. (Attachments: 
 # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Form) (Meyer, David) (Entered: 03/30/2016) 
  
 03/30/2016 2 Summons Issued as to JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (lvw) (Entered: 03/30/2016) 
  
 04/04/2016 3 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. JP 
 Morgan Chase Bank N.A. served on 4/1/2016, answer due 4/22/2016. (Boyle, 
 Michael) (Entered: 04/04/2016) 
  
 04/08/2016 4 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer New date requested 
 5/24/2016. by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of 
 Proposed Order Exhibit A - Proposed Order) (Corcoran, Matthew) (Entered: 
 04/08/2016) 
  
 04/11/2016 5 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson recused. Case 
 reassigned to Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp for all further proceedings. Signed by 
 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 4/11/2016. (pes) (Entered: 04/11/2016) 
  
 04/22/2016 6 STIPULATION by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. (Corcoran, Matthew) 
 (Entered: 04/22/2016) 
  
 04/29/2016 7 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference of the parties set for 6/28/2016 @ 3:00 PM 
 before Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (sh) 
 (Entered: 04/29/2016) 
  
 05/10/2016 8 Emergency MOTION to Stay by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. 
 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Motion for Enforcement, # 
 3 Exhibit B - Declaration Part 1, # 4 Exhibit B - Declaration Part 2, # 5 Exhibit B - 
 Declaration Part 3) (Corcoran, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2016) 
  
 05/10/2016 9 Emergency MOTION to Expedite by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.. 
 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Corcoran, Matthew) (Entered: 
 05/10/2016) 
  
 05/11/2016 10 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 Emergency MOTION to Expedite filed by Plaintiffs 
 David Eidelman, Michael Kovens, Carolyn MacKenzie, Ian MacKenzie, Stephen 
 Rosenbaum, Marsha Schniedwind, Adam Shapiro, Eric Wagoner, Arthur Wasserman, 
 Frank E Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Wilson, Matthew) 
 (Entered: 05/11/2016) 
  
 05/11/2016 11 ORDER denying 9 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 5/11/16. 
 (lvw) (Entered: 05/11/2016) 
  
 Case: 2:16-cv-00281-GCS-TPK As of: 05/11/2016 06:26 PM EDT 4 of 4

[linda1]

Per the info on the Complaint I add up 7,250,278

I can't find the $ 9,999,000 in any of the
documents filed by LTWs - only $ 27 M.
It must be an error.


The $ 9,999,000 is on the Docket -

Rosenbaum et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
Assigned to: Judge George C. Smith
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp
Demand: $9,999,000
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute