Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[ItsMyOption]

Hi Linda, IMO the WMI estate wasted millions in paying Litigation cost to Art Steinberg who all along know he had conflict of interest with JPM.

Again IMO - he was put in place to delay the litigation knowing he would bow out when JPM won that claim.

Art also worked a terrible Stipulation agreement for those that opt-in.

[linda1]

I am referring to the LTWs who " opted in "
to the Stipulation and Agreement negotiated
between WMI and Art Steinberg.

In exchange for their LTWs they received
WMIH common stock and/or cash - all
amounting to about .08 a LTW.

[marty009]

A sad day today ...Memorial Day

Let's think of those that served and lost so much...and still paying the price in many cases. Will take a walk and look for some homeless individuals to drop a buck or two into their lap. Many who came home are still wandering.

[marty009]

Linda,

Thank you for your opinion.
I would like to read the offer made to LTW's for them to opt out of future litigation. Please advise if you have that available.
Marty

[linda1]

It can be argued that WMI owns
the LTWs that " opted in " and
exchanged their LTWs for WMIH
stock.

I don 't think a Judge will agree
the remaining LTWs are entitled
to all of the 85 % .

[linda1]

According to the Formula - set out in
the LTW Prospectus - the Taxes are
deducted first from the Total Award
before the 85 % is calculated.

That is why I do not include the
Tax Gross-Up in my calculation of the
85 % as you do. I use the base
award of $ 419 M to calculate the
85 %.

My estimate is about 18 M of 113 M
LTW Holders did not " opt in ".

[marty009]

brutus,

Thanks for your reply.
I just feel that the original holders gave up their right to litigate for compensation re them....which translates to cancellation of their LTW's in my eyes. In that case 85% of the proceeds would be divided amongst the remaining LTW's. I don't think that JPM became their owner...all just my opinion.
I do think that the cancelled LTW holders may have a case against JPM if they can prove they were hoodwinked in some manner. But, that's a different matter.

I am sorry for my double post...and to Linda who I hope didn't think my post was directed towards her. She has been the best!

Marty

[fbrutus]

And if they weren't cancelled, who owns them? Not JPM.

[fbrutus]

I haven't posted for 2 years and it's been hard catching up. I sent in my Demand for payment yesterday. Thinking what has past and, coincidentally some what Marty has just posted has also been on my mind. If the warrants of those who had opted out ( I myself had opted out for 90% of my warrants 35,000) were cancelled then the remaining warrant holders should share the 85% of the award and JPm should not be allowed to keep that portion as a windfall.

[marty009]

Thank you Linda!
I don't know the total LTW's that were issued (maybe 115 million to my recollection)....nor the remaining LTW's after JPM cancelled the majority for pennies (maybe 10-15 million).
I am of the opinion that JPM is entitled to 15% of the $538 million total after tax up. The remaining $457 million should go to the remaining LTW holders!
Those that sold their RIGHTS to payment should take JPM to court for any amounts they believe THEY are entitled to (which is a separate issue).
We are demanding too little....and I believe JPM will make us fight for scraps. Let's just think back to how some of the facts were misrepresented ...in my opinion.
Should JPM walk away with their 15% cut intact after all that has happened?
No penalty?
Does JPM believe they now own the LTW's that gave up their claims?...or were those LTW's the equivalent of CANCELLED?
Should the LTW holders who accepted payment for cancelling their rights step back in for a second dip...or should they now bring suit separately against JPM?

[marty009]

Thank you Linda!
I don't know the total LTW's that were issued (maybe 115 million to my recollection)....nor the remaining LTW's after JPM cancelled the majority for pennies (maybe 10-15 million).
I am of the opinion that JPM is entitled to 15% of the $538 million total after tax up. The remaining $457 million should go to the remaining LTW holders!
Those that sold their RIGHTS to payment should take JPM to court for any amounts they believe THEY are entitled to (which is a separate issue).
We are demanding too little....and I believe JPM will make us fight for scraps. Let's just think back to how some of the facts were misrepresented ...in my opinion.
Should JPM walk away with their 15% cut intact after all that has happened?
No penalty?
Does JPM believe they now own the LTW's that gave up their claims?...or were those LTW's the equivalent of CANCELLED?
Should the LTW holders who accepted payment for cancelling their rights step back in for a second dip...or should they now bring suit separately against JPM?

[linda1]

A tax gross-up is an additional award of money
by the Court to cover the taxes that will have to
be paid on base award.


Judge Block first awarded damages of
$ 419,645,910.62.

Subsequently he awarded a Tax Gross-Up
of $ 118,969,673.71 to cover the Tax JPMC
will have to pay when declaring the Award.

In total $ 538,615,584.33 was awarded -
$419,645,910.62 + $ 118,969,673.71.

[marty009]

TAX GROSS-UP ?
Please...Would someone care to explain just what that term means?
Marty

[linda1]

I think the $ 3.72 includes interest and
expenses. I get your point.

[ItsMyOption]

I understand but I will keep my higher calculations and let them negotiate them. I also calculated the Ohio group was closer to 3.72, but if you want less go for it.

At this point it make no difference as it will get negotiated along with all my late fees compounded at 1.1% month from date of AWARD.

In negotiating if you start low you get that low price, and if you start higher it may may get a price you are happy with. I like it high!

[linda1]

I reviewed the calculations you
e-mailed to me. You are including
the Tax Gross-up when you get $4.05.

I don't think this correct per the Formula
set out in the LTW Prospectus. Taxes - or
Tax Gross-up - is to be deducted first before
the 85% is calculated.

I stand by $ 3.157.

[linda1]

I received a letter from JPMC from the
following address:

CHASE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
PO Box 19020
Houston, TX 77224-9020

I was also advised to call
1-877-658-5560 if I had any
questions.

I think that perhaps our Renewed Demand
for Payment should be mailed to this address.

[linda1]

Sorry - I was incorrect.

I did include my mailing address
in my Demand For Payment E-mail.

I couldn't locate the E-mail I had
sent so I was relying on my memory.
I finally found it this morning when I was
clearing out unnecessary E-mails
I had accumulated.

[OHMYGOD]

Thanks to you, you made it easy. Mine goes out on the first. Thanks for leading the charge.

OMG

[nodnub]

I assume JPMC had LTW shareholder register with names and address after the opt-in election deadline. When the shares are held in "street name" at your broker... the brokers provide the names and address of holders to the company when requested so the company can mail things directly.

[ItsMyOption]

in addition. note: I calculated my demand at $4.05 pps and we should all use that higher amount for now. If we are not correct let them explain why and we can adjust it when we negotiate our amount.

[ItsMyOption]

TO ALL DIME LTW HOLDERS THAT DID NOT OPT-IN:
I have sent all in Bcc to all the emails of holders I have on file. Check your emails.

I have edited my/our Demand for Payment letter. Everyone must edit their personal info and calculate your shares for your demand. I do plan to email this to [e-mail] on june 1st with CC to [e-mail]
I have shorten the part FACTS TO PROVE OUR REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DEMAND:
As we do not need to prove anything to their attorney Adrian Wager-Zito as she has been put in charge to handle any claims. We may need to prove at some date our records show trade or proof of ownership of our LTW.

It may be important to note any shares held in IRA or Roth accounts as they may need to get paid separately, but may need to talk with accountant on that or is someone is a CPA post your opinion on IHUB or reply to all which I have addressed all in a Bcc:

We will know much more come our June 2nd court date. Counsel for Ohio group will work that for ALL of us – they win we win!!
If motion is denied, JPM will not want a Jury trial and will wish to settle very soon. That is why it is important for all holders without legal counsel to get your shares recorded for payment!
I do expect Judge Walrath will deny that JPM Motion.

[linda1]

I did not mail in my demand for payment to
JPM's head office - I sent an e-mail.

[linda1]

The letter was to the same address I had
when the LTWs were canceled by WMI in 2012.
I don't think my broker would have that
information readily available - that I held
LTWs - after the LTWs were canceled.

I think that JPMC may have received the
addresses/list of LTW Holders from Jones Day.

[investophil]

Linda -
One other thought is that your address was on the envelope and that was attached to the letter that the lawyer responded to.

[nodnub]

Linda, was the letter you received from JPMC sent to the postal address on record with your broker? (the brokerage account where you held the DIME LTWs).

Maybe they had accessed the shareholder list and addresses that way?

[ItsMyOption]

yes my first demand for payment letter they request to send any info to this Adrian, as she is handling any Demand for payment letter.

My guess is if the JPM motion gets denied as I feel it will. They may reach out to those that requested payment to settle. I would also think they will deal with Ohio group as taking this case in front of jury would not be good for them.

It is the main reason I feel any LTW holder that is not with Ohio group should send letter to get recorded of our wishes to settle out of court.

My calculations may be high and will let them negotiate, but have been adding late fee interest per month.

[linda1]

I received a letter in the mail
from Chase's Executive Office
regarding my request by E-mail
for compensation for my LTWs.
It referred me to
Adrian Wager - ZitoZito.

The odd thing is I did not
include my mailing address in my
E-mails to JPMC. How did JPMC
know my address?

Did you or anyone else receive
a letter?

[ItsMyOption]

i do request all DIME LTW holders that have not opt-in or sign that release to JPM. Send to the JPMC office and their attorney a Demand for Payment letter.

For us that are not being represented by Ohio group counsel you must get your claim recorded. If anyone needs help with Demand for Payment letter to the JPM executive office and their attorney let me know as I have a copy you can use.

We are all riding on the outcome of Ohio group - they win we win if you get your claim documented. IMO

[ItsMyOption]

pjl!, I feel good that there is no way that Judge Walrath would approve the JPM motion. It will get denied with some very firms statement from her to the JPM counsel.

JPM has overstepped on statements that Judge Walrath has made in the past, and she will not be happy that they brought this back to her court.

That JPM motion will get denied, and they will settle with all DIME holders that did not opt-in quickly. They will not want to continue this in front of a jury in Ohio - they would loss and pay more in damages. IMO

I do expect all DIME holders will have payday this summer!

I have calculated that the group of IHUB's that are not represented by Ohio group has a little over 1 million shares, but some have not given their total to me.

[pjl1]

Wow, a 223 page filing! I just read the first 10 pages and hope that this attorney will represent all of us who have not opted in! JPMC should get a good scolding from THJMW!

[ItsMyOption]

New Objection Ohio group:

Court Docket: #12249 Email

Document Name: Objection of Certain Litigation Tracking Warrant Holders to the Motion to Allow Enforcement of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming the Seventh Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors (related document(s)[12237]) Filed by Stephen Rosenbaum (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit Exhibit B # (3) Exhibit Exhibit C # (4) Exhibit Exhibit D) (McLaughlin, John)

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160524000000000004

[linda1]

That's it - thanks very much.

[ItsMyOption]

This is link to all court documents.

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/list/3853#

[linda1]

He is definitely following I-Hub - if not posting.

I have misplaced the link you gave me to
the WMIH Docket. Did you post it on I-Hub
or did you E-mail it to me?

[ItsMyOption]

Linda, This objection was also filed. Not sure if he is on IHUB

Document Name: Letter to the Court by William D Symmes re: Objection of William D. Symmes to the Motion of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. for Enforcement of Findings of Fact, Conclustions of Law, and Order Conforming the Seventh Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United State Bankruptcy Code

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160523000000000003

I also expect the Ohio group counsel to file one today.

[linda1]

Thank you very much.

Now are there any other Objections to
be filed from this board besides David
and I? The due date is today at 4:00PM.

[linda1]

Thank you -

Did you notice I had a lapse in proper
grammar in my first paragraph? I stated
" upon their issuance " and it should read
" upon the issuance of the LTWs ".

It reads like I am saying the LTW Holders
were issued. It is still annoying me that I
missed that error.


" I have a valid lien against and interest in
85 % of the Anchor Litigation Award - which
was given/promised to the LTW Holders
upon their issuance ".

[linda1]

Thanks very much - I also added an Exhibit "A" following
Pg. 6 of my Objection - to include pages from
Judge Block's Opinions that I referenced.

[investophil]

Linda1 -

Your objection was very well written and thanks for all of your dedication and work for the cause.

[Tradeinman]

Well Done - THANK YOU LINDA!

[ItsMyOption]

Good Job Linda,

Document Name: Objection of Linda Neufeld 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

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160523000000000002

[linda1]

Thank you David.

You are quite a motivator!
And considering we do not have
legal representation as you state
the Attorneys in the Ohio Case
should be grateful for such support.

I particularly like your Prayer for Relief.

[investophil]

David - Thanks so much for the great work.

[wackena]

Very impressive objection letter. Good job.

[Tradeinman]

Well done David - THANK YOU!

[cubs]

Thanks David,

Well done.

cubs

[ItsMyOption]

My objection has been filed court Docket #12242

Document Name: Objection of David Shutvet, and along with all other DIME LTW Holders that have no legal representation, file the Objection Against 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 (related document(s)[12237]) Filed by David Shutvet (LAM)

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229160520000000000001

[ItsMyOption]

marty, I made that note and let you know if I need anything else.

[linda1]

No - it is not necessary.