Democracy starts with you, tag your it! ...Thom Hartman
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
According to the DTCC (GLEIF.org), the domestic operator for the international G20's FSB...the Ultimate Parent (XXX) who has an ownership interest greater than 50%, owns Direct Parent (xxxx) who has an ownership interest greater than 50% in COOP, Mr Cooper Group Inc. COOP is clearly hiding which corporation is really standing behind it, which is in direct conflict with who it offers itself to be to investors.
COOP's self generated application for their own international LEI # states their ownership hierarchy. COOP wrote this! Did COOP lie in their required LEI # application? It's one or the other buddy! I'd trust an international regulatory body responsible for managing global financial security to have more accurate information than the domestic regulatory bodies, responsible for the theft and cover-up of WAMU. It's starting to stink around here.
As a 15 year plus investor of the COOP lineage, I and others need to know exactly what we are invested in. Pumping half truths is dishonest.
A bit of color: remember GLEIF.org states MR Cooper Group Inc's application for LEI registration, gave the Exception rule for NON-PUBLIC Reporting of its Direct & Ultimate Parent(s) names based on....Direct Parent: "fully consolidated..by the accounting standards specified." Ultimate Parent: ultimately consolidated..by the accounting standards specified"
"What is the difference between consolidated and parent accounting?
Consolidated financial statements are used when the parent company holds a majority stake by controlling more than 50% of the subsidiary business. Parent companies that hold more than 20% qualify to use consolidated accounting. If a parent company holds less than a 20% stake, it must use equity method accounting.
"Consolidated financial statements: the financial statements of a group presented as those of a single economic entity. Subsidiary: an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, that is controlled by another entity (known as the parent)." COOP is a Registrant
"Ultimate Parent Company means a Company, which owns more than fifty percent (50%) equity shareholding either directly or indirectly in the Parent Company.
We need to demand from COOP at the next shareholder meeting, Who is COOP's Direct (xxxx) and Ultimate (XXXX) Parent !! Investors have a legal right to know who is pulling strings that can affect their investment. It is dishonest to pump half truths about COOP, because COOP is just a puppet.
This data is clear and true. GLEIF.org operates under mandate from the DTCC (formerly GMEI) to issue, track, and manage LEI #s (legal entity identifier) for corporations around the globe. This whole system was created by the FSB, and the DTCC is the USA's managing mechanism for the FSB.
The data is clear. GLEIF.org registered Mr. Cooper Group Inc (COOP) with a NON-PUBLIC Direct Parent...and...a NON-PUBLIC Ultimate Parent. Another fact according to GLEIF.org, as early as 2018 and updated in 2022 to present, is that WMIH CORP and WMI HOLDINGS are in fact alive - a GLEIF.org stated as "New Value".
FSB who is in charge of global financial security would get this right. They aren't under the thumb of the US courts, SEC, FDIC, or any other domestic regulating entities. COOP is clearly hiding its hierarchal Parents due to some "binding legal constraint" within the United States only. COOP has a duty to report any legal constraints that restrict my 15 year investment about Who or What I am invested in. When COOP says in shareholder meetings they 'could' sell XOME but really can't without Parent corporation approval, it's quite misleading.
Screenshots were taken, stored, and printed. I'm not letting this one go.
"In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, regulators worldwide acknowledged their inability to identify parties to transactions across markets, products, and regions. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), together with the finance ministers and central bank governors represented in the Group of 20 (G20), therefore, advocated developing a universal Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) applicable to any legal entity that engages in financial transactions. Implementation of the LEI will increase the authorities’ ability to evaluate systemic and emerging risk, identify trends and take corrective steps." https://www.gleif.org/en/about/history
"The FSB represented the G20 leaders' first major international institutional innovation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has described it as "in effect, a fourth pillar" of the architecture of global economic governance, alongside the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization."
New proof that "COOP is just a "Registrant" or "CHILD" corporation for a much larger corporate entity in hiding. According to GLEIF.org.... 'Mr. Cooper Group' is the "CHILD" of both an unreported "NON-PUBLIC" "Direct" Parent, and "Ultimate Parent".
Scroll down the MR. COOPER GROUP page on GLEIF.org, to the 'PARENTS' section. Review both the Direct and Ultimate Parent tabs which refer to the "Exception" by which the Direct and Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc, uses to hid their identity to the public. Direct Parent being the closest Parent Corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation. And, Ultimate Parent being the furthest Parent corporation to Mr Cooper Group Inc as the Child corporation.
Direct Parent: "Direct Parent Exception Reported" "The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
Ultimate Parent: "Ultimate Parent Exception Reported" The "child" entity has its accounts fully consolidated by the "parent" entity, in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified. The direct parent entity is the closest fully consolidating parent to the "child" entity in any applicable hierarchical ownership structure.
https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record
So, how does an LEI numbered corporation (originally granted & generated by GLEIF) such as Mr Cooper Group Inc claim a "NON-PUBLIC Parent Exception" in their LEI Reference DATA to GLEIF.org, if it doesn't have a parent as some claim ?
"Non-Public, whenever the relationship information is non-public and therefore creates obstacles to releasing this information. This category includes cases where there are obstacles in the laws or regulations of a jurisdiction restricting the reporting (“Binding Legal Constraint”); the existence of other legal constraints such as articles governing the legal entity or a contract (“Legal Obstacles”); where disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the legal entity or the relevant parent (“Disclosure Detrimental” and “Detriment Not Excluded”); and where the consent to disclose the parent LEI was not obtained (“Consent Not Obtained”). An entity is not required to provide non-public relationship information in order to register or renew an LEI. https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/current-versions/level-2-data-reporting-exceptions-2-1-format
What is a "binding legal constraint" is A binding constraint is one where some optimal solution is on the line for the constraint. Thus if this constraint were to be changed slightly (in a certain direction), this optimal solution would no longer be feasible."
What binding legal restraint prohibits Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) from Reporting its Direct and Ultimate corporate Parent relationship ? Let that sink in...... That tells me there is a gag order on who owns COOP right now...what could be so controversial? JPMC ?
So, Why would releasing Mr Cooper Group Inc's Direct & Ultimate Parent identification create an obstacle? Why stay Non-Public if its just an...'accounting thing' as stated "in the sense given by the accounting standard(s) specified." Why is it detrimental for BOTH the Direct & Ultimate Parent of Mr. Cooper Group Inc to be public information? What would the damage be if these Parent corporations of Mr Cooper Group Inc were to be named publicly?
A bit of color: remember GLEIF.org states MR Cooper Group Inc's application for LEI registration, gave the Exception rule for NON-PUBLIC Reporting of its Direct & Ultimate Parent(s) names based on....Direct Parent: "fully consolidated..by the accounting standards specified." Ultimate Parent: ultimately consolidated..by the accounting standards specified"
"What is the difference between consolidated and parent accounting?
Consolidated financial statements are used when the parent company holds a majority stake by controlling more than 50% of the subsidiary business. Parent companies that hold more than 20% qualify to use consolidated accounting. If a parent company holds less than a 20% stake, it must use equity method accounting.
"Consolidated financial statements: the financial statements of a group presented as those of a single economic entity. Subsidiary: an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, that is controlled by another entity (known as the parent)."
"Ultimate Parent Company means a Company, which owns more than fifty percent (50%) equity shareholding either directly or indirectly in the Parent Company.
COOP's Direct Parent is alive (xxxx) and owned by those who released...who is then owned by (XXXX)'s controlling interest in (xxxx).
And if one thinks old WMIH Corp or WMI Holdings Corp is dead ??..., as of May 20, 2022 they were both listed as "NewValue" "Modifications" to GLEIF.org's "Changed Fields" under Mr. Cooper Group Inc's LEI identification number under "LEI Record Changes". https://search.gleif.org/#/record/549300KD8C6DPXYC2M26/record_modifications
So, Mr Cooper Group Inc is hiding both its corporate Direct & Ultimate Parents under a NON-PUBLIC veil, yet illuminatingly lists WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp as the "NEW VALUE" other entity names for the CHILD corporation we and the public know as Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP) !!! I betcha one of the two, WMIH Corp and WMI Holdings Corp, is the Direct Parent (xxxx) of Mr Cooper Group Inc, and the other is the direct Parent of the other.
AS to the Ultimate Parent (XXXX) of Mr Cooper Group Inc ? Who'd stand the most to gain? JPMC ?! They bought the farm in 2008, why wouldn't they need to buy the landscape as well - especially to make RICO lawsuits go away. According to the definitions provided, the Child corporation Mr Cooper Group Inc can't do anything without the say-so of its Direct and Ultimate Parent who own the controlling interest in Mr Cooper Group Inc.
Think about that last sentence... how could the Ultimate Parent (JPMC ?) dictate COOP's corporate direction? They'd have to own more than 50% of the company.... How could/did they (JPMC ?) get greater than 50% of the Child corporation COOP ? Either through 1) buying up enough Preferred and Common shares before 2012 reorganization and/or a combination of both 2) buying up WMIH/COOPs loose shares quietly and steadily for years....Whatever they couldn't get pre-bk, they could've got for pennies from frustrated legacy holders who bailed early.
Makes me wonder about COOP's year long statements to this day !! about buying up so many shares of itself...or really maybe for another's ultimate benefit.....JPMC ? As COOP was a portion of the legacy WMI for those who released, If there's a COOP payout component in the future from JPMC ?, the more you own of yourself the less you pay to others...meaning it'll cost them nothing really.
In any case, AZ was and is g.d right this whole time about COOP hiding behind someone else's skirts. He's graciously shared other direct and 'accredited' proof that I'm grateful for, but I still wanted to see if there was other info available to those who might look. And there is, and its quite revealing...and not that hard to find and disect.
Why would COOP ever do something Bullish to protect their PPS ? They've announced quarter after quarter, years over year, that blah blah they keep authorizing share purchases....stock purchasing goals which never get completely met. And stock repurchase goals won't be met the higher the PPS goes. COOP is probably driving down its own stock, in relation to whatever minimum PPS threshold needs to be crossed. There is no incentive to protect the PPS if your goal is to buy it back.
It's always bothered me from day 1 how this stock wasn't supposed to trade initially, but it did. I can't help but wonder if all of WMIH/COOP's quarter after quarter flogging the 'buyback our shares because it's undervalued' pony is because it was over authorized / oversold to begin with...
No, its about Washington Mutual Preferred Funding as manager for incoming REIT Trust interest income, and how Oregon state thought that because they had WAMU banks operating in their state, that WMI then owed them excise taxes (which is not an income tax, just a transactional tax) for Washington Mutual Preferred Fundings REIT income collections for the benefit of WMI.
What I love about the footnotes I posted, is that while Oregon and the WMILT argue about whether an excise tax is appropriate in the filing, The LT is forced to explain in detail, what and how they've been hiding for years.... how they hid the sausage. Honestly they didn't even have to hide it, because it always was hidden from the books. remember, Washington Mutual Preferred Funding's source of interest income from the Capital Trust REITs, is hidden as it doesn't report on WMIs Federal or State Consolidated Tax Statement !! Hidden in Plain sight ! The REIT trusts are separate tax entities from the whole WMI consolidated tax group that you posted. When the REIT Capital Trusts distribute annual interest income, then WMI receives it (annual 90% rule) and that income becomes baked into shareholder profit.
Tax stuff was boring to me, and I didn't read it until now, and I'm glad I did. It proves that WMI has always had residual interest income assets coming from OUTSIDE of the Bankruptcy court's jurisdiction AND the Receivership....and that the residual legacy estate for those who released is not worthless !
_________________________________________________________________________
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
haha, no the MB is apparently not ready. I'd never read that footnote before, largely because the tax filings as a topic seemed too boring to want to dig into ....but it's funny what you find in places you wouldn't expect it to be !
well, Oregon was not claiming tax for the REIT profit,....Oregon was just going after the transactional excise taxes plus penalties and interest....again,...Not the WMI REIT's profit. If so it'd be a far far far larger number.
In any case, the WMI REITs were never taxed solely as a business, nor could it be. Oregon lost, Walrath signed off in 2012. Generally speaking, REITs dont pay tax as a business, because the tax liability is passed down to each beneficial owner upon receipt of their share of the REIT's income. That's the whole point of a REIT. Each and everyone of us who released had to fill out a W-9, as we are all individual beneficiaries of the WMI REITs.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
I do like footnote 2, on page 2 of this KCCLLC filing. How they hid the sausage from court and creditors. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/wamu-v.oregon-otc-f12-19-12.pdf Dec. 19, 2012
"The REITS themselves, however, were not members of the [WMI] Consolidated Tax Group and were not included in the consolidated federal returns. During the same period, WMI filed consolidated returns on behalf of the Consolidated Tax Group in Oregon as well. The REITS were not included in the consolidated Oregon returns. Thus, the income of the REITS from the REIT loans was not reflected in the consolidated federal or Oregon tax returns."
Background: same doc, page 1 "In late 1999, each of the REITS became directly-owned subsidiaries of a holding company of WMI and changed their
commercial domiciles from the State of Washington to Oregon."
Mr Cooper Group...is going to need a new trick pony to ride going forward in this new economy. The party is over. Mortgage originations are gonna be unreliable income as homeowners don't want to sell/move/give up 3 times the house for half the money at 3% interest, versus a new smaller un-updated home now at a 7% + interest rate. The few people moving now are largely those without a choice. The majority of homeowners are gonna stay put, and the real estate inventory market is gonna continue to be constipated. Stuck
COOP's always got its efficient servicing platform to continue generating some income, but as far as buying new servicing portfolio rights?...I think its gonna be an extremely tough row to hoe. As mortgage originations dry up, there's gonna be a lot of competition for purchasing new servicing rights for easy income.
What's COOP's next move before the end of the year, and income drops from sputtering mortgage originations? For one, I think I'd be tapping those legacy WMI capital trusts for future passive income to make up the gap. WE and they could all use it going forward. It's been over a $50 average PPS for many days.... I guess we'll find out in the next few months to come.
GLTE, it isn't easy out there
Lol, probably! This’ll be the last time they can report that now that home grown mortgage originations are falling off a cliff.
please stick to the classic look. Classic is much easier to distinguish between posts
If JPMC were to be closing the sale of not just the bank, but the entire WMI enterprise lock/stock/barrel, to satisfy the Texas and DC litigations that went silent.....then "the financing of possible acquisitions or business expansion" is very relevant.
JPMC could simply announce they acquired the WMIH/Mr Cooper Group enterprise, as a complimentary marriage to the 2008 purchase of WMB... as part of that, those who released are quietly folded into the transaction, and compensated for their % of legacy ownership.
Time will tell.
Ps and Ks who released......regarding the 'Preferred Managing Sub'...it has also "never been sold to JPM" through the PAA even though it was a WMB sub.
"Not Acquired by JPMorgan"
"Washington Mutual Preferred Funding Delaware / Not acquired by JPMorgan"
"Washington Mutual Preferred Funding LLC / Not acquired by JPMorgan"
Further confirmed by Norway's Central Bank (Norges Bank) Government Pension Fund Global Holdings, page 11. 2009 https://www.nbim.no/globalassets/documents/holdings/fi_holdings_spu_sorted_09.pdf
As you said..it's never been dissolved, it is SEC trackable, ...and JPM didn't buy it in the Purchase & Assumption Agreement"
https://www.nbim.no/globalassets/documents/holdings/fi_holdings_spu_sorted_09.pdf
One of your best posts ever! The italicized verbiage quoted 1000% sums it up perfectly
Thanks AZ for clarifying. That is obviously even better news. So I will go out now and have another nice day !! lol
holee molee, I am more than ready.
Thinking about the Capital Trusts liquidation preference and the $50 day average for 90 days requirement as the last blockade to fall, before COOP can utilize the Trust debt structure, and those who released commons get their % of the last 15 years of interest income and compounding interest.
Taking a random sample of the last 90 days of COOP's average daily trading, I come up with $48.80. Thinking about the fast rise of COOP's PPS over the last few days, I wondered how many more days of COOP trading at $60 + were neccessary to effect a 90 day average PPS of $50 or higher.
I come up with 8 days at $60, minimum,...before COOP can get there hands on the Capital Trusts, and we get our hands on what we waited for. minimum.
Of course a random average sample is just that..random and variable. COOP could get there in less than 8 days by trading far higher than $60. Obviously there is a rush to get somewhere with the PPS, and something is about to happen.
What they'll do, and how they'll do it is the big question. It's been an exciting week for sure!
Wonder how much the lurker lost when Piers were capped ? ; )
Makes sense to me also! Don't need the DTC when you got (xxxx) managing the distributions on behalf of (XXXX)
man, I can't wait for this to wrap up.
That was a huge find! Thanks for your persistence. What you're seeing with your bonds changes everything. Canary in a coal mine... it's a big bird...and it aint dead, lol
the Capital Trusts liquidation preference requires a maintained average of $50 or higher, before 15 years of withheld safe harbored earnings + compounding interest can be released to shareholders...PLUS..as well as the release of ongoing future disbursements potentially out to year 2041 I recall. The fact that this is suddenly over $50 and holding has got my attention. We shall see if it holds. Those who released will be well into the money if so.
Good Volume today!
I know right? It's been sustained for a while and climbing. My attention is piqued. But I'm still tempered by the low volume.
To add, If COOP wants to access the WMI Capital Trust assets to leverage etc, then they have to maintain an average PPS of $50…while simultaneously paying back old commons their back interest and dividends.
The fact that the PPS is now at $50 + and holding has got my attention for sure! Question is, will the $50 average PPS hold..meaning is COOP finally ready to utilize this asset pool ? Or is this just another head fake on no news. Based on past history, prob just another head fake unfortunately
Specifics bob.... "he owns all issues of bonds".. All issues of whose bonds? which issue? Pretty blanket statement.
Only certain of many bonds, are actually paying now. These are now re-labeled with cusips from (xxxx)
If JPMC owns WMIH/COOP then JMPC buying, trading, shorting WMIH shares would be fraught with inside trading risks and equitable dissallowances.
The court has been down that road before with the SNH, and look where that got them....They lost to equity holders due to their greed. No way does the court or any insider take that risk again in this case. Being barred from buying any WMIH shares (if that happened) would be to prevent the temptation to trade on nonpublic material information under seal, regarding who 'actually' owns who. as in JPMC could 'actually' own WMIH/COOP.
JPMC and the FDIC have gone a long way to disguise this 15+ year transaction. No way would they risk an inside trading slap down.
The only way that JPMC could ever take ownership of WMI's charter, or anything WMI is if JPMC agreed to buy out the whole WMI enterprise, starting with and including WMB.
It'd be the only sane way to unwind tens of billions in Mortgage assets, resolve JPMC's exposure to RICO, LIBOR, etc. and bury the FDIC's complicity in the corporate assassination of WAMU to prop up JPMC's Trillion dollar failure. Litigation morass.
Remember how quickly ANICO and the 5th Amendment Taking Texas Litigation disappeared on a jurisdictional technicality, and then was never re-filed? JPMC and the FDIC couldn't let this lawsuit see the light of day in a very public litigation, and had to bury this fast, before it could be refiled. The result is there is another or an amended GSA or P&AA (Purchase & Assumption Agreement) that isn't publicly available.
Where there were once 3 parties (WMI versus JPMC, FDIC) in an adversarial conflict.....the quickest way to silence and quash the noisy one from the equation, was to buy out WMI as a complete enterprise under seal and gag order. The FDIC and JPMC would've done anything to hide their liability from a 5th Amendment Taking of WAMU the bank.
Killing the WMI EC and shareholders, equals less for JPMC to pay in the end. Fortunately we surived. The purchase balance for the WMI enterprise is now due from XXXX.
Recently certain specific bonds have lately revealed this truth, as they've now been reclassified to 'xxxx'. And it's a bombshell. After all, Washington Mutual Inc. in it's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, did own other banks that were outside of the FDIC receivership of WMB.
The only friggin way 'xxxx' could now be listed on the reclassified bond description is if 'XXXX' bought the entire WMI enterprise, not just WMB.
"Should've held out for more"....
Tic Toc XXXX
Its all pretty comical!
COOP's Tender Offer for Home Point Capital https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000933136/76dedc76-ea1e-4385-8e41-6b49408ecc01.html
Can this actually be cross referenced and corroborated? I wouldn't take ChatGPT as gospel yet.
I searched the first named transaction and can't find jack about what's listed by Chat GPT
Maybe Coop is getting into the mortgage securization game again, based on its originations
My Schwab has always shown the interest since I bought my shares
Thanks for confirming the WMB (now xxxx) notes do not trade, despite the fact that they are now once again paying, as they once originally did.
..nope. they no longer trade. they name changed to (xxxx) just prior to becoming active and paying money last month
Those bonds are no longer for sale. It's like finally seeing value for your Uqs or PQs. They no longer trade since 2012, but the legacy income interests start firing up one day out of the blue.
Canary in a coal mine.....those bonds
Whose PPS would react? is the question you should ask yourself..... Not COOP. Coop has nothing to do with the bonds of Parent (XXXX) or former WMB (now xxxx) bonds
Why would our COOP PPS react to WMB bonds ?
It's not my right to share these specifics. I figure when AZ wants to he will, or maybe never. There are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from his bonds, and would make for interesting discussion topics some day.
Now that we know certain WMB bonds (now called xxxx) are active again after 15 years, it's a great sign of things to come.
The eventual 'when' and 'how' it will manifest in relation to the other legacy interests in Us, Ps, and maybe Ks is yet to be witnessed. When it does I suspect we will ALL know at the same time.
Yes the wait is lame, and I really do have better things to do in life. Ready for this to wrap up also. GLTY
It couldn't be clearer !
It wasn't logical inference or guessing either. It is what it is. It's what it says....and what that reveals.
That's not what I'm referring to. The FDIC exerted claims throughout the BK. Some people wonder if the FDIC not being released at the 2012 reorganization means there is an outstanding unfulfilled claim against the FDIC.
The FDIC could say they have nothing to do with remote BK assets directly because the FDIC doesn't manage those assets like a 3rd party trustee would, but that doesn't mean the FDIC isn't off the hook for damages to these remote BK assets due to their collusive seizure and gift to JPMC...and why they aren't released by us...yet