"The court has found that none of these Schedules includes the Anchor claim. Therefore, the court can only conclude that the FDIC assented to the transfer

Plaintiff is entitled to additional mitigation costs of $63,191,000. In sum, the total Anchor is entitled to recover, before the addition of the gross-up figure, is $419,645,910.91. The court also finds that $227.1 million of these damages are subject to a tax gross-up. The parties are hereby directed to meet to determine the appropriate calculation for the final gross-up rate, and submit a status report to the court by Friday, June 19, 2015."


It's difficult not to gather that the court agreed with the FDIC and JPMC gets the proceeds of the Anchor litigation as per the P&AA.

Be wary of these spikes on no real info gents. Do not allow yourselves to increase your cost basis above $2.25 or anywhere close for that matter. I can assure you there will be major games played with this stock until the "players" actually let this run. I for one am not going to allow myself to be F@$#ed again by these scoundrels!!!

Post #415890 on 03/03/15...."There is much speculation regarding Escrows and WMIH to some extent on this board which is warranted since we lack clarity and "concrete facts. As far as I'm concerned, WMIH is already a winner and we just await the final announcement of our acquisition to move forward. Escrows though are totally different scenario and the cause of much consternation and rife among the parties here. Personally, I believe the lack of unambiguous information re Filings etc. is the crux of the problem at present otherwise this topic would have long been "put to bed" in favor of either one of the theorized outcomes."
This basically sums up my position here....anger???

"...and the free shares from releases would have been better served by selling and re-entering.
...simple math, respectfully."

With a cost basis of sub $0.45c(not $1.00, $2.00 or $2.25) per share of WMIH equating to a current 700+% gain based solely on "free shares" and not exceeding 15% of my total portfolio value. Any cash derived from "flipping" WMIH during the past 1&1/2 yrs has been redistributed to my account cash or invested in other fluid opportunities....not WMIH. Hence "DIVERSIFICATION" is absolutely relevant since that is what most smart investors would do.
Thanks for the advice but "no thanks" and no exclamations.

"Sorry, but your respect is irrelevant..."

Rather presumptuous of you to assume that is something you ever had sir...from me at least!!!
BTW Trading 101...It's called DIVERSIFICATION!!!!!!!

Haven't read the full doc yet but from what I have it seems the OCC, tasked to oversee the duties of the now defunct OTS (Dodd-Frank Reform Bill) is attempting to create a uniform set of rules that will govern National Banks and the newly acquired Savings Associations (WAMU type institutions). These changes when effected (2015/07/01) will theoretically make it easier for organizations to be recognized as and fall under the supervision of the OCC as financial type institutions through additional avenues not available before.

This quote.... "The final rule revises and reorganizes
the definition of “business combination,” § 5.33(d)(2), in several ways. First, § 5.33(d)(2)(i) now
includes consolidations and mergers of Federal savings associations with state trust companies." is encouraging in that it provides an avenue for WMIHC to achieve this end and enhances the theory that financial assets of the former WMI estate could be returned and subsequently sold to WMIHC for the benefit of escrows/LTI's and WMIHC.

It is an extremely long document,(500+ pgs long) so I suggest being patient as more info is gleaned and shared by the board.

This now brings the question whether JPM has been operating former WMB now JPM owned branches on WMI owned land for the past 6-7 years for FREE???

"Lehman filed BK and Wamu was taken by OTS" ....you

"WAMU was never bankrupt and had many illiquid assets"....me

What's your point???

The problem with your theory is that WAMU was never bankrupt and had many illiquid assets. Lehman also had many assets but they also had huge debts and a lot of "bad paper" which is why the bondholders had to settle for partial payment. Comparing both cases is like comparing an apple to a brick. As for the Anico lawsuit I suggest you read what they are claiming and you will understand why it will soon be dismissed(FIRREA).

This exact scenario seems oddly familiar.......K-MART you say???

This could very well be why they have been so vehemently denying for years, they are responsible for the liabilities/"repurchase obligations" of certain loans, made by Deutsche Bank et al.

If they are indeed just a "bridge bank" then they wouldn't be liable for these claims, it would be the FDIC-R(???). One has to ask then, why would JPM not assert this fact to alleviate at least some of their substantial legal woes?

This was my thinking also since a couple hundred dollars invested in bonds by anyone could potentially reap them a windfall, should the FDIC-R actually make amends. I say this since some have stated on many occasions that the FDIC-R is only concerned with bondholders and not shareholders!!! Just another piece of the puzzle, that's still to be deciphered.

Have you or do you know of anyone who has successfully bought former WAMU Bonds that are currently trading for pennies on the dollar?

Has anyone ever attempted to or succeeded in purchasing former WAMU Bonds that are currently trading at "junk" status?

Since becoming aware of the "expunged" $27 Billion FDIC claim, i have been trying to decypher why was this claim even made. The remaining existing claims against the estate by JPM, former employees etc. are understandable...albeit frivolous in some cases but still understandable. Why would the authors of the "TOP SECRET" P&AA, who had unfettered access to WMI's books have such a huge claim against an apparently bankrupt estate??? This makes absolutely zero sense and has convinced me that it was merely a stalling tactic to facilitate the background activities in play and in addition further cements my belief in a direct link between the LT and current WMIH activities.

One simply has to view the "Predatory" investment strategies of the AAOC group to come to the conclusion that these "VULTURES" are not in the business of building businesses. Their primary goal is making obscene profits as quickly as possible by picking the carcasses of distressed companies clean, while bending the LAW to almost its breaking point. As others have stated here, AAOC were not solely interested in the reorganized debtor for its NOLS but were actually salivating over the returns to the estate ie the NOLS were just the icing on the "CAKE".

Is it just me or do all these major developments regarding the former estate occurring at the same time with WMIH events seem a bit too coincidental to you guys also???

You are absolutely correct, hence the reason no retail buyer has a perfect record in the market. Even the "Big Boys" who usually have "unfair" access to "inside info" we could only fantasize about, still lose their shirts at times.

"Its all fugazi!!!"....Matthew McConaughey, The Wolf of Wall Street.

"In connection with the Distribution, eligible claimants in Class 22 who held shares of common stock issued by WMI prior to September 25, 2008"



For the umpteenth time....WMI could have only issued shares prior to Sep. 25th,2008 since after that date, they were seized and could not issue any more shares. The holders of these shares in class 22 (in this instance only) who also "released" were eligible ie pre and post holders. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure it out!

HUH??? If any assets return from JPM they will go to LTI's (converted escrows) not WMIH. WMIH theoretically will be the "tool" used to monetize any illiquid assets (not cash) for the benefit of LTI's for a fee/percentage of cash generated.

It is. For par Pq's are $1000 and Kq's $25

Was it SOP(standard operating procedure) for WAMU(Fsb) to hold onto all of the Mortgage Notes for loans it securitized and "sold" to investor trusts? If no.... unless we are privy to the specific agreements governing each trust, one cannot be sure why this was done in this case and not the others.

One scenario could be that the investment by the trust was not for 100% of the cash flows generated by the mortgages ie they only purchased part of the total interest in the mortgages with the rest retained by WAMU or some other entity. This is not out of the realm of possibility since WAMU was infamous for it's "CREATIVE" underwriting and securitization practices in those days.

When i wrote that post i was fully aware of the erring posters. My intent was to add my take to the "indemnity" discussion by illustrating how nothing that comes out of the mouths of these people can be trusted, especially when it comes to their explanations about the WAMU theft...portrayed as a SALE.

Lets be honest about this...those JPM indemnities were about JPM's greed. They paid $1.9 Billion for WMB assets and made a profit upon signing(negative goodwill purchase). Since then they have written down loans whose performance have fared better than predicted and made yet another killing. If one analyses their predicament with the WMB purchase it can be said they have made off "like bandits" persay.

Their issues with the Justice Dept. were mostly of their own making, not WMB's and their only substantial problem regarding this purchase is the Deutsche Bank litigation. Eventually this too will be settled(a $3-$6 Billion settlement has been suggested by some "experts") and would not be a cause for major concern for JPM. I ask you...Do you really believe Dimon(JPM) were really overly concerned about these lost indemnities??? I say "BOLLOCKS"!!!!!!!

If it's not then please inquire of them about as much of the redacted case info as is allowable. I and most here would love to gain some insight.

Think about it logically!!! Why would the debtors counsel broadcast that there are "BILLIONS" in assets to be returned to the estate when there are still substantial bankruptcy claims against it ??? (Marta, employee claims etc..)

If the honorable, well renowned and respected economist Dr. Sankarshan Acharya,...author of the optimal bank foreclosure rule, enacted by Congress in FDICIA-1991, former economist at the FED and current professor at UIC says WAMU was worth more than a couple hundred million dollars, I would tend to agree with his opinion over less qualified ones.

His submission to the court was detailed and more relevant than any info put forth so far by any of the parties involved in this case. He demonstrated with his research a clear attempt to deter the type of patronising behavior by the FDIC and other "entitled" institutions to the public, which they clearly demonstrated in the case of WAMU. I dare any doubter or sceptic to analyze his research on WAMU's true worth and co-relate his findings with the utterances from the lackeys that were and are still being paid by the former WMI estate. Do the math!!!

Nothing anybody posts on this board can be categorized as "for sure" as has been demonstrated for over 6 years now. I will continue to patiently await the final outcome!!!!!!!!!!!

Reaching out to TPG? As far as I know the board consensus is that they never released under the POR so they have no tangible interest in WMIH going forward but I could be wrong.

I agree there is no distinction regarding pre/post bankruptcy shares. I was highlighting the distinction between the two PR's regarding the specifics contained within.

Had the statement read...

"eligible claimants in Class 22 who held shares of common stock issued by WMI, prior to September 25, 2008"

A strategically placed "comma"(in red) after WMI could have altered the meaning of the statement entirely to indicate that only shares purchased before SEP. 25th,2008 were eligible but this was not the case.

No...it says those who had shares that WMI issued before Sep. 25th,2008 not who owned shares before that date. Also a strategically placed "comma" can also alter the meaning of a statement.


There's a big difference between

"eligible claimants in Class 22 who held shares of common stock issued by WMI prior to September 25, 2008"

and

"eligible claimants in Class 22 who held shares of common stock issued by WMI, prior to September 25, 2008"

2012
"eligible claimants in Class 22 who held shares of common stock issued by WMI prior to September 25, 2008, will receive 0.00076346 of a share of the Company’s new common stock for each share of WMI common stock they previously held."


2015
"certain Escrow CUSIPs issued to eligible former shareholders of WMI. Eligible former shareholders are those who timely submitted relevant documentation, including the release required under Section 41.6 of the Plan"

Can we see the distinction now???

There are no WMIH "escrow" shares, WMIH shares represent the equity of the newco. Escrows consist of old WMI / WAMU securities such as WAMPQ, WAMKQ, WAMUQ and TPS preferred shares. The amounts issued to brokerage accounts should look like this.....

WAMPQ - 2,906,421 million shares ($3 Billion value)
WAMKQ - 18,166,565 million shares ($500 Million value)
TPS - 3,729,658.260 million ($4 Billion value)
Wamuq - 1,194,340,178 billion shares

It would be worth $0.19, $1.90 and $19.00 approximately based on the figures you quoted with no additional paperwork since it would be automatic via your broker.

NO...Lets have an in depth discussion solely on WMIH activities tomorrow....enjoy reading all 5 posts for the day!!!

How time changes everything!!! The very ones who have derided and labelled escrows as worthless for so long are now calculating how much we may get back....LOL!
To think just a couple weeks ago the LT reported that there was no money to distribute since the trust was at it's minimum ie $25 Million.

It seems you didnt factor in the $4 Billion of TPS(Trust Preferred Securities). That would result in a $100 return for former WAMPQ, $2.50 to WAMKQ and $0.21 to WAMUQ per $1 Billion returned to the estate.

Ok folks...lets just for a minute forget the wannabe pseudo intellectualism and ego centric banter and consider this. After WAMU was seized, the main orchestrator did what??? She ran to congress "demanding" that the laws regarding Holding Companies be revised to allow greater control by the FDIC/Government!!!! Why may I ask rhetorically!!! It's because she realized a ticking time bomb was activated by her ILLEGAL actions and hopefully the "shockwave" will be the cash that deposits into our escrow accounts!
BWTFDIK....I'm posting this higher than a boeing 747!!!!!!!

Well i guess the one i filled out online in late 2014 should be my last till 2015 then. Will inquire about it. Thanks!!!

Not sure about the W9 but I have to file a W8BEN every year with Etrade to ensure my tax exempt status is current, as a foreign citizen trading in the US stock market.