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.
Thank you
Guido 2
Doc 007
and dr f
for your prompt responses. This company was and is a pillar of the financial community. What a disgrace to have had it degraded by avaricious politicians and insiders.
PS I used to post regularly on this blog but stopped several years ago when it became apparent that this saga was 'neverending'.
I recall that the price of FNMA was in the range of $72 prior to the financial implosion of 2008. Does anyone have the same recollection? I know that in the months preceding the Lehman debuckle FNMA was under pressure so the range that I am looking for is around the early part of 2007.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Trying to settle a bet. Does anyone know the high/low price range for FNMA prior to JUNE 2018?
Looks like they are about to close out the Trust
$6Million pot 4.7Million Shares. Approx $1.25 payout depending on how many subscribe.
DayT...I agree with what you say, but, I don't care about the "ha" remark at the end. To start, I am not a day trader, so your motivation to buy and sell are different than mine. Most important here is the foundation of institutionalized 'stock based capital formation'. In other words, the economy is based on the ability of industry to raise capital thru pooled investments by strangers who have placed implicit 'trust' in the marketplace to give value to a specific enterprise. This 'trust' is the crux of the capitalist form of the economy. Destroy the 'trust' and you destroy the whole economic basis. When you see outright government thuggery as witnessed in the F&F affair, there is no room to scuff. It is a deadly serious matter and could possibly destroy 'all trust' in the marketplace. Extinguish the stockholders of F&F and you may cause an unstoppable crash in all stocks.
Never 'hoyd' of it
Thanks for your input. In the past, there was way too much optimism on this Board anticipating a short conservatorship period and way too much Polly-annish wishful thinking. That is why I left in the first place. A good dose of skepticism will benefit the investor a lot better. As to the Article that I posted, time will tell whether it was fabricated or scooped. I have great trepidation as well regarding the Courts, Judge Sweeny, not withstanding. I have seen slam-dunk predictions go down the drain more often that hair.
This article is from Investor's Unite an FNMA advocacy group headed by Tim Pagliara. I hope it helps.
Investors Unite <info@investorsunite.org>
Did the Obama Administration Use Fannie and Freddie Funds to Bail Out Obamacare?
March 10, 2017
The Net Worth Sweep is wrong for many reasons but a recent exposé published by InfoWars raises the jaw-dropping prospect that the Obama Administration illegally siphoned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits to pay for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Congress chose not to fund.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, InfoWars Washington Bureau Chief, published stories this week that draw on documents posted on FannieFreddieSecrets.org as well as previously undisclosed documents that put the Obama Administration's plan to "wind down" Fannie and Freddie in an even more unfavorable light. Corsi chronicles Oval Office meetings and internal communications that reinforce what has long been apparent to anyone who has followed Fannie and Freddie's captivity in the government-induced conservatorship: The Obama Administration fully understood – even embraced – the fact that dismantling Fannie and Freddie would have negative consequences for working Americans who dreamed of owning their own home. Points Corsi's analysis stresses include the following:
– The government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) were not in the dire financial condition initially assumed by policymakers when the Housing and Economic Recovery Act was enacted in 2008.
– As early as 2010, ideological determination to turn over the GSEs' mortgage securitization function to the private sector (dominated by large banks) drove policy, even as officials readily acknowledged this could mean higher borrowing costs – and therefore less accessible homeownership.
– The sudden implementation of the Net Worth Sweep in August 2012 occurred as the Administration and Congress were at odds about the national debt and spending priorities.
– When investors sued the government for going beyond its authority under HERA and engaged in the unconstitutional taking of private property, the government pushed back hard. In one lawsuit, the government embarked on an unprecedented quest to wall off thousands of documents related to the Sweep.
These revelations are unsettling enough but Corsi then raises an intriguing and equally disturbing possibility: The Administration jettisoned any pretense about caring about affordable homeownership in order keep Fannie and Freddie's profits available for getting around restrictions on spending on the Affordable Care Act, known more commonly as Obamacare.
His analysis starts with a decision on May 12, 2016 by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). Judge Collyer ruled that Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund the law's subsidy payments to insurers under Section 1402. Congress explicitly declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.
Without that money to subsidize lower-income peoples' purchase of health insurance as Obamacare anticipated, insurers would be forced to charge people with higher incomes sharply higher rates. "Obamacare was dead in the water if the Obama administration could not find a way to circumvent the District Court's decision U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to fund Section 1402 despite the fact Congress had refused to do so," Corsi comments.
He posits that Administration officials turned to proceeds from the Net Worth Sweep, writing, "Miraculously, the Freddie and Fannie 'pot of gold' turned out to be almost exactly the amount the Obama administration needed to meet the anticipated insurance company subsidies required to keep Section 1402 in business."
Pot of gold is an apt metaphor. As documents released in the course of shareholder litigation have revealed, Administration officials knew by the spring of 2012 that Fannie and Freddie were poised to start showing significant profits, allowing the companies to not only pay back the $187.5 billion in taxpayer funds provided in HERA to keep them from collapsing but also to yield potentially tens of billions of dollars on top of that. As one official put it, the future looked like a "golden era" for GSE profits. Indeed, by the end of 2013 alone, with Fannie's profits of $82.4 billion and Freddie's totaling $47.6 billion, the companies were well on their way. Corsi points out the coincidence that these figures add up to $130 billion – the very amount needed to fund Section 1402 in the ACA – which ended up in court not long thereafter. (Indeed, in a report issued in March 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost for providing Section 1402 subsidies over the next ten years (2016-2026) was estimated to be $130 billion.)
Corsi goes a step further to establish a connection between tapping the GSE's revenues for Obamacare. He looks at a Congressional Budget Office publication "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025" and questions why items considered as part of "mandatory U.S. government spending" include "transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Why would profitable companies in a conservatorship be considered an outlay?
A little more digging led to his discovery that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "outlays," projected at $74 billion in 2014 and $26 billion for 2015, were actually "negative dollar amounts." That is, this was money the GSEs were providing Treasury, not the other way around. And how was the money used? To pay continued subsidies to insurers, as specified by ACA Section 1402, Corsi concludes.
He then points out a footnote that "lets the cat out of the bag." The Obama Administration considered payments from Freddie and Fannie "to be outside of the federal government for budgetary purposes," recording cash payments from Freddie and Fannie to the Treasury as "federal receipts." For CBO's part, money is money, whether it is called tax revenues or "federal receipts," and it ends up in the same stream filling the government's general fund coffers.
If Corsi's analysis holds up, it leads to several inescapable conclusions. One is that the Obama Administration considered Fannie and Freddie profits to be money generated by companies with stock still held by private individual and institutional shareholders – distinct from revenue raised from taxation. Thus, the rights of shareholders were not obliterated by the conservatorship or the Net Worth Sweep – and are still relevant as they press their cases in court. Two, in its budget maneuverings to prop up the ACA, the Obama Administration cavalierly put aside a key Democratic constituency – affordable housing advocates and minority groups as well as well as all working families aspiring to homeownership. Third, if "receipts" from Fannie and Freddie end up in government coffers and therefore need a Congressional appropriation to be spent, then it will be clear that the Administration used a budget sleight of hand to try to keep the ACA alive, in violation of the law.
The ongoing battle over documents in shareholder litigation arising the Net Worth Sweep has left ample room for suspicion and intrigue so Corsi's suggestion that the Obama Administration subverted affordable housing and home ownership priorities to get around Congressional intent and the law, while disturbing, is not shocking.
Once again, what is needed is a full accounting of the Net Worth Sweep. This will enable policymakers to move forward finally with true GSE reform that helps working families attain the American Dream and protects taxpayers, restores the rights of shareholders and ends the shameful saga of a conservatorship run amok.
To find more Investors Unite blogs click here.
About Investors Unite: Formed by Tennessee activist investor and CapWealth Advisors Chairman and CEO, Tim Pagliara, Investors Unite (www.investorsunite.org) is a coalition of private investors from all walks of life, committed to the preservation of shareholder rights for all invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The coalition works to educate shareholders and lawmakers on the importance of adopting GSE reform that fully respects the legal rights of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders and offers full restitution on investments.
P.O. Box 2591
Brentwood, TN 37024
I am sourcing "Investors Unite" web sight for the article. Please stand by
New here. I hope that you all have seen the report that the so called 'dividends' have not gone to Treasury, but rather directly to ACA (obamacare) since Congress never funded the program. Therefore, $255 Billion paid by F&F were stolen. Since I've been away for a while, I presume that this item was fully vetted here.
There is a new crink in the NWS (the Sweep) since a way was found to loot these GSEs and the new Marshal in town may want to keep doing so for other causes.
Hi rekcusdo
I understand your position. I just read several posts that you followed up with. So, I gather that you are an Attorney, and if you are not one, you certainly have the talent to be one. I have wrestled with court decisions that utterly confound all sense of logic and, even Law. Certainly the Lambert decision in the FNMA case is one of them.
I am pleased that you chose the term 'may' as the subject of discussion. Yes, of course you have it right, but, the term has been withered by sloppy Courts and it therefore should never be used in Contract. We can't just throw words that have dubious, double meaning into contracts and hope that the Appellate system will get it right..eventually.
Anyway this is too short a place to discuss. Nevertheless, I enjoy your discussion points.
all of it. It darned near ruined this Nation.
Whip, I've been on 'top of it' since 2008. I thought I had it right at .39 cents. Have been chucking cash at this crap shoot ever since. I bought at all prices up to the 2012 run-up. So, yes I'm on top of this.
PS I am new to this Board, but have been lurking for years.
Salute to you navycmdr,
Love your description of possible outcome. Sorry to have to put cold water on it. I am long FANNIES and suffering deep anxiety attacks. Why? Because truth, Justice, Logic, fair play, Rule of Law etc., don't apply when government and industry collude to perpetrate thuggery and racketeering.
I have long ago, turned cynical and jaded at our legal system. Although Mnuchin is presumed to be on the side of shareholders, he has a checkered record of malfeasance with both shareholders and property owners. I hope he pulls for us.
As far as the Courts go, the terms of the 'NWS' and the 'Conservatonship' are concerned. The legal jargon and mambo-jumbo is so convoluted and littered with clauses or phrases that give the Judges wide latitude to extinguish equity. Phrases such as 'may' could' 'shall' 'at discretion of' pollute the meaning of the contracts and open them for reverse logic decisions.
In conclusion, Fannies are a 'YUGE' gamble. One that is fraught with many, many pitfalls. It's not a slam dunk. Not for weak stomachs either
Hi EH22,
I usually find these Court Docks. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to download into IHub. Thankfully, Sidedraft picks up on this and does his magic.
Court order d/d 6/6/2016
Recently Linda uploaded the exact words from the LTW, which, I believe, excluded the Tax Gross-up. Therefore, working with the Award itself $419,645,910.91-15% ($62,946,886.84)=$356,699,024.27. That is what is going to be divided.
Still to be decided, is it 16.035%(per Linda) of the original 112,975,597 LTWs, or to be divided by the whole LTW issued in 2000?
The first calculation will give you the dividend of $356,699,024.27/18,103,515(Linda)=$19.7033/LTW
or the second choice
$356,699,024.24/112,975,597=$3.1573/LTW
Please see our discussion as to what you think is the correct sum.
Hi Its, As a group of approx 100 (those following ihub), we can formulate a letter to be sent to our congressmen at each respective jurisdiction. The letter could summarize the gist of our dilemma in getting the cooperation of FDIC and JPM to comply with the rule of law.
Second, if anyone here knows a journalist who is willing to publicize this story (sage), it could be beneficial to the (the journalists) as it key in to the current anti-establishment atmosphere in the political arena.
Thirdly, each and every LTW owner should send an INVOICE to JPM for his/her respective claim. (you can state that you are claiming part of the 20+/-Million LTW that did not op-in and are still outstanding.)
any other suggestions?......
Hi Its, Your is suggestion is good. However...
There is a major problem with using ihub as our focal point. First and foremost is that JPM is reading this as we write.
Unless we somehow find a secure way of communicating our strategy, we will be sabotaged by the other interested parties who oppose us.
KUDOS!!! I got to hand it to you Sidedrft, you are the best of the best. I knew it was there but I had no way of transmitting it. You amaze me every time!
"Either the the old estate holds the DIMEQ's or they still belong to those that OPTED IN.
JPIG is not in the equation as they did not give the WMIH shares to those that OPTED IN the ESTATE did."
NO! The tendered DIMEQs DO NOT BELONG to the OPTED-IN. Those who opted-in had their shares redeemed for NEWCO stock, nee WMIH. This is clear.
Why is JPM in the picture? It was the ultimate recipient of the AWARD. This was so because IT owned the Anchor case all along. It was in possession of the claim as successor to WMB which was NOT PART of the BK. Regardless of who owned the rights to collect the Anchor Award, the DIMEQ owners hold 85% of that Award. Therefore, when it became clear that JPM was the true successor, the DIMEQ held a claim against JPM for net 85%. Any other company or entity that was inserted into this picture is extraneous. The BK Court gave those, who optioned to take its offer, a chance to jump ship, by making a final, and irrevocable, offer to exchange the DIMEQs for WMIH shares. The whole episode was a ruse in order to disgorge the Award assets from as many LTWs that the gangsters at BK Court could con.
JPM IS IN the equation, in that they were the ones representing the Bankrupt Washington Mutual Holding Corp (who, at the time, was known to them (JPM et al) that it had no interest claim to the Award) in Delaware BK Court. It was JPM's attorneys who drafted the Opt-in documents and who were the defendants in the BK case.
I don't understand why those who opted-in are so upset. 4 years ago you traded your near worthless DIMEQs for value of $.03 in the post BK company WMIH. These new shares are now worth the equivalent of $.28 on your old DIMEQs, nearly 10x your money. You did pretty well, but,you signed away your rights to any future payoff.
I am not so sure that holding on was as wise a move, since we haven't gotten a penny back,yet. We still might have to wait to eternity to collect penny one.
Thanks.This is not the first time that you corrected wmih for me. The problem with the transfer of funds is this. Jpmc was always standing to get the payout. Never the wmilt or wmih. Why were the ltws given wmih stock in exchange for dimeqs? The proper exchange should have been jpmc shares?
The transfer letter was signed with jpm, the money was transferred to jpm, why would the payout be in wmhi? I have problems with the entire transaction. The trial was a sham since the ltw property was owned by jpmc all along.
I stand corrected. Jpmc and the FDIC agreed to reduce the tax gross up only by $25m.
Just to clarify, JPMC and the FDIC agreed to a settlement of $513,645,584.62. This includes the tax gross-up and deducts $25M to save litigation expense. FINAL payout by FDIC.
OK, so far. Somehow I was led to believe that the Tax Gross-up is not ours. Not sure how that came to be.
The ltws are entitled to 85% of proceeds after legal. I argue that legal was satisfied at BK court and they should not be able to double-dip. I also would argue that Tax Gross-up is part of Award, especially when JPM argued so in Court.
On the basis of the above, my calculation should run so..
$513,645,584.62 times 15% = $77,056,837
Deducted from Award sum =$436,598,750
divide above into 112,900,000 ltws = $3.86
Of course, there is another way to calculate.
Take the Award before the tax gross-up, deduct $30M legal multiply by 85% and...
$419,645,911-$30,000,000= $389,645,911 x 85%=$331,199,020
/ 112,900,000= $2.93356
Since we don't know for sure if the tax gross-up is part of it ,or the legal costs are charged to this, we can't get a precise value for the ltws, but ball park is $3.00+/-.
To clarify what I meant. Those who opted-in, exchanged their LTWs for WMHI stock. That was final, just like exchanging your stock in any company. They are out of the picture entirely. The LTWs that were exchanged, were not cancelled, they became the property of JPMC, and, together with those that did not opt-in are deserving to split the proceeds of the Award (altogether, 113M LTWs).
JPMC knew all along that the DIMEQs were a valuable asset that was going to be redeemed. It was the smoke-and-mirrors at BK that JPMC and its cohorts (just about all the litigants on both sides, including the judge) that distracted and confused the LTWs owners into thinking that their chance of getting compensated for their holding was zero. They did so, by deluding the LTWs into thinking that the LTWs were worthless as part of the bankrupt bank holding company (W.M.Holding Inc.). JPMC knew at the time, that they owned the Bank (W.M B.),where the real and uncancelled claim rested. JPMC locked-in their winnings by forcing those who tendered their LTWs to sign an exculpation clause guaranteeing that they can't come back to reclaim their shares as a result of its participation in this duplicitous chicanery, and, to ensure against derivative lawsuits. They managed to fool 83% of the LTW owners.
So, as it stands, JPMC gets 83% of the net proceeds, and the opt-out crowd should get the remainder 17%.
The Net Award without tax was $419,645,910.91. We don't have to subtract Anchor lawyer's fee because they were more than amply paid by the duplicity that they played in the entire affair, thus getting a huge paycheck at Walltherat's Court.
there are approximately 113,000,000 Ltw's. (I still have not read the Exculpation notice on whether the LTWs were cancelled or not).
Leaving approx $3.713 per LTW.
Assuming....................
Here's a problem brought to my attention.
The 83% who opted-in, received shares of WMIH for their interest in the Award. In the transaction that took place, WMIH "bought" their interest in the Award, thus, it now stands as a substitute for claims of the tendered LTWs.
Interestingly, no one took notice (at least on this Board) that the good judge walrath gave the bankrupt WMI a chance to confiscate an asset that it was never, ever entitled to. This was done with Nazi-like deception.
The upshot of this transfer was that 83% of the DIMEQ's claims were transferred to an entity that was out of the loop to make a claim to the Award.
It was the solvent WMB, gifted by the FDIC to JPMC, who was the owner of the Award on our behalf. What happened at Chancellery was a fraudulent transfer under misleading and false premises.
It therefore appears that the original 113M LTWs are still out there, and the truncated number that we worked with is invalid.
The above analysis is still somewhat flawed. The reason is that those who signed the opt-in clause with its draconian EXCULPATION clause , signed it with JPM. So does JPM own the LTWs, even though WMIH shares were exchanged? Something is fishy here.
The current LTW owners can only hope that the exchanged LTW were extinguished. I think the whole process was meant to disenfranchise the LTW owners from the get go.
It's a simple calculation. Based on Linda's numbers, you just divide $356.7M into 18,103,515 outstanding LTWs to get a glimpse (nominally $19.70/ltw). On the other hand, this was just her inference from observation of the released data, she may be right, or, she may be wrong, it's a good guess though. Realistically, the LTWs that opted-in may want to get a piece of this, then there are lawyers who may want a piece of this. On the good side, RICO, Fraud, Deception charges that could be brought to bear might increase the Award greatly. In sum, it's too soon to put a down payment on that 350 foot yacht that you had your eyes on.
there may have been some horse trading between FDIC and JPM. After all they are cozied up at all times. Naturally when JPM came to Judge Block with an outlandish calculation, that somehow implied that the price of the DIMEQs just before a certain date was the base jumping point for calculating the "Tax Gross-up". The FDIC objected to this random number and sued to have it calculated on a more rational basis. JPM, who at that time (Dec 2015), replaced its litigation director with a new mandate to reduce its outrageous legal bills, probably thought better to deal than to fight over small matters such as the Tax Gross-up.
Bottom line...the dispute had nothing to do with the basic Award that the LTWs are entitled to. Our $356,699,024.27 is there waiting for us.
$356,699,024.27 is what is left over from JPMC's recovery. I want to ask this...
Jones Day was the legal firm that guided the Anchor Litigation, thru and, until, WMB's Bankruptcy. They even shepherded this to a victory at US Court of Appeals. Then, they joined Weil-Gottshal in gutting down the LTWs at Delaware. Yet, it was understood all along, that J.D. was slated to receive ~$35M for this effort. Did they get full satisfaction when they doubled-crossed the LTW's , and are therefore,no longer "players " in the ultimate outcome?
Please note: JD may yet be sued for conflict of interest in joining JPM to undo the legitimate claims of the LTW's.
hi, investophil,
I would prefer to settle amicably w/our friends JPMC.
In case they show us their teeth, we may have to resort to some other venue. JPM can draw this thing through the courts for anther ten years. Should we win in that venue, the award could be triple, yet...there is a chance that JPMC, itself will collapse long before that time comes.
Of the $538,615,584.62 paid to JPM only $419,645,910.91 was attributable to to the DIME award. Of this amount, JPM is entitled to 15% or $62,946,886.64, leaving the DIMEQ holders with an outstanding claim of $356,699,024.27.
Cheers for those who DID NOT submit to the bankruptcy decree.
JPM ain't going to give it to us. We are going to have to sue.
It would be nice if someone can give a "definitive" number of DIMEQ's who are still outstanding. I saw somewhere on this board that anywhere from 19-29% are still out there.
I wish us all,good luck on collecting.
In light of the FDIC notification, we have just 2 yrs to commence a case against JPMC. We no longer have any dealings with the FDIC as they have discharged their obligation in the Anchor case.
ATTENTION! FDIC RESPONDED.
here is the direct response from the FDIC just posted to my account.
March 23, 2016
Ref. No: SCC2016K-001083-0
Re: Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. US
Dear Mr. Max:
Thank you for contacting the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC's mission is to ensure the stability of, and public confidence in, the nation's financial system. To achieve this goal, the FDIC has insured deposits and promoted safe and sound banking practices since 1933.
We have reviewed your correspondence regarding Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. US, United States Court of Federal Claims case no. 1:95-cv-00039-LB. In your correspondence, you request to know if JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association collected damages from the FDIC in the amount of $538,615,584.65. We have researched your inquiry and contacted the FDIC Legal Division for a response. Our office was subsequently notified that after the trial court issued its order, an appeal of the case was filed. During the appeal, the parties settled the case and that amount has been paid.(bold underline by me)
We hope this is helpful to you. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve our customer service to the public, we would appreciate it if you would complete a short questionnaire on the level of service you received from this office. The questionnaire form can be accessed at: http://www2.fdic.gov/starsmail/customer.html.
Sincerely,
Consumer Response Center
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection
1100 Walnut Street, Box #11
Kansas City, MO 64106
Fax number 703-812-1020
Consumer Response Center 800-378-9581
Hi Its,
I'm trying to get the facts. Will contact you when/if successful.
Hy It's,
I am hopeful for a full settlement. I don't presume to interfere with anyone out there who is pursuing this matter, as it may tip the scale and/or ruin the suit's integrity.
Once we can ascertain that the FDIC paid JPMC, a lawsuit can commence. To ascertain FDIC's compliance, we must seek Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data from the FDIC to prove that the Award was paid out. It is easier said than done...but persistence will get results.
Anyone willing to undertake this mission?
My suspicion is, that any large holder who privately settled with JPMC,will certainly not want (or be contractually prohibited) to publicize it to any one of us. Any suggestion that they will share this information with us is out of the question.
If, however, one of us discovers that JPMC double-crossed the rest of the holders by back dealing a private deal, it could be very embarrassing and incriminating to JPMC.
The only possibility that I can foresee is a class action by us, the few remaining holders of the DIMEQs, who have not tendered their rights.
The first step is to locate the money transfer. If it took place we are obliged to act.
The lawsuit that I refer to, is the last one that the DOJ brought contesting the "Tax Adjustment" to the Award that was submitted by JPMC. I relied on this board to be informed that both DOJ and JPMC agreed to rescind the Suit. Unless I misunderstood, this was the only impediment to the ultimate distribution by the FDIC.
Somehow, January 4th, stands out in my mind as some deadline. Well, it came and went and I have heard nothing.
If there was a payoff, JPMC can stall the announcement until 2017 when it releases the 2016 financial data. Nevertheless, my point in the blog was that if the payment took place, or we have an inkling that it took place already, we should investigate it. By law, we have up to 2 years to sue JPMC/FDIC from the moment we confirm that such transfer took place.
Frankly, my patience are wearing thin with the constant delays and obstructions taking place. Of the 110 Winstar lawsuits filed in 1995, this is the only one that is not settled. Others have receive much more generous payouts in much less time.