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.
Good reading info that shows how rushed and not well thought out this deal was. Like i said before this proves nothing but it does open the door for more questions to be asked about this WMB/FDIC/JPM farce.
If even a small part of those loans/value is repatriated to WMILT, why would you want people to NOT pay their loans. That would actually be counterproductive for Escrow holders "if" such an event took place.
I base this on the ever evolving answer that JPM gives with regard to what they bought and what they can actually prove they own. From CWG's post it can be inferred that they can't prove anything as far as legal documents go.
It's a ploy companies use to legally hide assets they dont want shown in the bankruptcy or else they wouldn't actually be bankrupt. K-mart had billions worth in real estate that if sold at it's actual value could have saved equity but because of an outdated accounting method it was undervalued .
It was only after the case ended and equity cancelled that the current owner (who saw this value early)was able to gain from the true value of the real-estate and capitalised on it's sale to reorganise K-mart.
It may have been that this is what AAOC may have ultimately been after and thus wanted equity eliminated so they could gain the remnants of WMI for their reorganised and PRIVATE WMIH.
All IMHO of course!!!!
Makes sense because when Justin Nelson kept mentioning the $32 Billion value of the estate during confirmation, he was quickly and sternly rebuked by the judge.
She would have done that since the value/assets was not under the purview or admissible in the bankruptcy case. Just speculating here.
Apparently you didn't get the context of my posts. I will now post what the relevant parts were....
Post#1: "there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu"
Post#2: "PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC"
Post#3: My previous posts don't prove anything but what they do is contradict some things that are thought to be absolute.
Yes..... S. Waisome lost her case but what was the basis of her losing her case??? It is for this same reason that so many of these attempted foreclosures by JPM are being contested nationwide. There is ambiguity with regard to the true ownership of these acquired loans/mortgages.
It's not that I don't agree with your posts. It's just that I don't agree with 100% of your opinions.
My previous posts don't prove anything but what they do is contradict some things that are thought to be absolute.
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
I guess JPM didn't purchase "EVERYTHING" after all....
"Confirming, under oath and in print what we already suspected: there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu and was picked up by JPM after WaMu’s failure. The 330 page deposition was taken by counsel for the homeowner on May 9, 2012 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717."
Curious that posters on a message board know exactly what JPM bought, yet actual JPM employees who are supposed to know don't have a CLUE!!!!
I've noticed a new trend emerging on the board by some....Bashing Escrows or pumping WMB Bonds. In some cases both!!!!
Why do all the work yourself when they could just use cases already won against the same defendants by other parties? The evidence is already there and on record.
What amazes me the most is that the perps actually thought this "rotting corpse"(WMI takedown) would stay buried forever.
HUH? The WMI litigation trust filed the lawsuit. The main beneficiary of the trust are Escrows!!!!
Just one small step in the right direction!!!!!!!!. Thanks utvolsfan13
Do we know who were the entities that held the Cayman TPS (REITS), did they receive any shares in WMIH and how much? I cant recall this info.
Thanks
Im not sure. The debtors were trying to have the claim subordinated and gave reasons for same.
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120103000000000017
"The Committee seeks to alter or amend that portion of the Court’s Opinion and Order in which the Court ruled that the Debtors have not stated a basis for subordination of the Claim. The Committee requests entry of an order finding that WAAC and WMMSC were the issuers of the Certificates, and that because WAAC and WMMSC were affiliates of the Debtors under section 101(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, section 510(b) applies to subordinate the Claim." (from post #406663 by LG)
Has it ever been established who are the holder/s of the $4 billion in TPS(REITS I believe) that are lumped with preferred escrow equity???
I believe his point is that the "claim" if subordinated by the court will result in those monies coming back to the waterfall and thus escrows. I think?!?!
Since I restarted posting on this board I've concentrated my efforts solely on our Escrow share markers. The reasons for this are....it's one of the two topics that is allowed on this board and it's also the most controversial of the two. Escrow Shares are IMO the only "unknown" entity and potentially the most lucrative to holders of both. It is this potential that peeks my interest and incites me to post, thus adding to the verbal "barrages" between both camps on this issue.
I am fully convinced that the Money Moguls, in the form of the Hedgies (KKR etc) that are affiliated with WMIH would NEVER allow that $6 Billion worth of NOLS to not be monetized by sheltering WMIH's future profits from taxes. This is what these guys live for, so the question is not "IF" an acquisition will be made but more appropriately "WHEN". It is for this very reason I am completely at peace when it comes WMIH and am not preoccupied with the current pps free-fall.
With this said, I come to the question of... Other than retail, who are the other major shareholders that hold large positions in WMIH??? I am curious to know how they acquired these positions, whether it was by accepting the POR/granting releases or purchase on the open market. Also, did TPS holders receive any shares in WMIH or were they only included in the WMILT preferred share structure???
TIA and have a good weekend gents.
The effective date of the GSA simply put was the date on which the provisions of a plan of reorganization became effective and binding on the parties. The fact is and I am unaware that any major changes were effected after the 7TH AMMENDED PLAN was confirmed on the 23RD FEBRUARY, 2012 by Judge Walrath in the bankruptcy court.
So are you saying that in that period between "confirmation", the abandonment of WMB stock where certain rights were clearly asserted by WMI and the "effective date" that WMI claims as a creditor of WMB against the FDIC-R were extinguished???(a non released party in the "confirmed" and "effected" GSA)
This period before the plan is "effective" is basically a window to allow for back burner issues to be resolved because if major alterations were made then we would have seen a POR V.8, 9 etc etc and the confirmation process would have to be repeated.
IMHO
Funny how the CHARADE buster quoted this paragraph....
"and (ii) established that, upon such abandonment, WMI and its chapter 11 estate shall automatically be deemed to have permanently surrendered and relinquished all of their right, title and interest to the WMB Stock, including any recovery rights and/or litigation claims with respect thereto"
but curiously stopped there. it goes on to say...
";provided however, that such abandonment shall not constitute a withdrawal or release of any claims asserted by WMI as a creditor of WMB against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") in its capacity as receiver for WMB or in its corporate capacity, on account of WMI's status as a creditor, and does not constitute a withdrawal or release of any rights under the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement dated as of February 7, 2011".
The document then gives NOTICE to all readers that it was instead the 7th amended (not 2nd as stated previously) plan that was confirmed on the 23rd of February, 2012 (The GSA).
The document then continues to state categorically after these previous pronouncements that WMI and its chapter 11 estate agrees to abandon its interest in the WMB STOCK and relinquishes all rights, title and interest in the WMB STOCK, including any recovery rights and or litigation claims thereto;(ie with respect to the WMB STOCK ONLY!!!!)
What statement follows this concession by WMI as per this agreement???
provided, however, for the avoidance of doubt, WMI and its chapter 11 estate do not hereby withdraw or release any claims asserted by WMI as a creditor of WMB against FDIC, in its capacity as receiver for WMB or in its corporate capacity, on account of WMI's status as a creditor, and do not withdraw or release any rights under the Global Settlement Agreement...
DATED AND SIGNED: MARCH 16th 2012!!!
WITH THAT SAID...CAN ANYONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS DOCUMENT PURPORTS TO SHOW ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT IT CLEARLY STATES???
Read AZCowboy's post #406254 regarding filings for the abandonment of WMB stock. The top link, filing #9901 dated 03/16/2012, first paragraph says it all in black and white. They never withdrew or released their claims as a creditor of WMB against the FDIC.
I'm sorry, I will be sure to include IMHO after all my posts from now on. Since I'm not a lawyer in this case my posts are just that....my opinion, due to the lack of concrete information with regard to certain issues.
Happy now???
Thanks for the info. I will look into it when my time permits but it does look a very interesting theory.
At seizure WMI had approximately $28.4 Billion in outstanding bonds. Some were sold below par (eg 6 billion worth of Senior Debt by Paulson & Co) but another entity would have purchased it so it's still there and some has been paid off in the settlement agreement.
I do not have the means or the time to get the exact figure as it stands today but I assure you it's very substantial. This debt didn't just disappear, it's still a burden that has to be dealt with.
In my original post "From links in post #405969. VERY INTERESTING READING I DIDN'T MAKE UP!!!", I was trying to make one simple point. There are those who utilize "DOCUMENTATION" as the sole basis to support their opinions that Escrow's are worthless.
I am merely demonstrating that the entities that should possess the undisputable evidence of ownership of assets "DONT" and apparently have even less of a clue as to what they do in fact actually own!!!!!
This is not my opinion but "documented" facts.
No that would be WMMRC. The reinsurance unit of WMI.
Never heard that one but with all the convoluted deals that took place here. Who knows for sure really?
"In 2009, Deutsche Bank, as trustee of roughly $92 billion of notional WaMu mortgage securitizations, sued the FDIC alleging that the securities had breached representation and warrant provisions and should be repurchased from the trust."
The original suit is for 10 Billion but it's been suggested by experts it could be settled for anywhere between $1.5 to $3 Billion. Now the question arises whether JPM will be responsible for these payments to Deutsche as "owner" or "servicer" of the MBS being contested.
The bond debt is approximately 25 Billion. Whether they get paid in full??? Your guess is as good as mine. Those answers lie solely with the FDIC cause apparently only they have the "keys" to unlock this maze of deception.
If/when this day should come congrats to all but until then i'm not losing any sleep over it.
Actually my biggest concern is that the mortgage assets will be liquidated for just enough to cover the Bond debt and settle the Deutsche Bank litigation by the FDIC. This is approximately $35 Billion.
This is the Million $$ question but unfortunately it's also one of the unknown "variables" I referred to in my last post.
Well the most obvious answer is that the biggest asset(the mortgage loans) we thought JPM purchased outright may not have been sold to them for that pittance after all. If this proves to be true there should be reconciliation of these assets to the estate.
This would mean a return for Escrow shares but there are still too many variables to be considered before any definitive statement as to how much this could be. The facts are before us...even JPM doesn't have a clue as to what they bought and the court's are ruling based on these said facts.
From links in post #405969. VERY INTERESTING READING I DIDN'T MAKE UP!!!....
"Confirming, under oath and in print what we already suspected: there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu and was picked up by JPM after WaMu’s failure. The 330 page deposition was taken by counsel for the homeowner on May 9, 2012 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717."
"The WaMu mortgage loans were “off balance sheet” at the time of WaMu’s failure, and thus JPM could not have purchased something which was not on WaMu’s balance sheet. Nardi has testified that there is no schedule of particular mortgage loans which were purchased from the FDIC as Receiver for WaMu. Yet, after the alleged “acquisition” of whatever was sold to JPM by the FDIC, JPM directed the homeowners with WaMu originated loans to make payments to JPM. Although JPM admitted that it was only acting in the capacity of a “servicer”, JPM has never advised who they are the “servicer” for other than to amorphously state that they are the servicer for an “investor”."
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
WHAT A FARCE !
Interesting !!!!!
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
WHAT A FARCE !
Even more Interesting !!!!!
"PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed."
WHAT A FARCE !
What ever happened to all the subs and their assets owned exclusively by WMI after the seizure??? Did they just go "POOF" into thin air? The posted company structure in the P&AA proves that they did exist.
These types of deals are only for the select few. Unless you're Super Rich or extremely well connected you(we) don't qualify. Soooo sorry! :(
Unless someone has researched this case more than Kirsten Grind has I highly doubt ANYONE could convince me of otherwise. As I have said ad nauseam, the only people who know what's to come in this case are those who were present during negotiations. Not posters on an internet board!!!