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.
Agreed!
Happy New Year to one and all.
Thanks for the compliment. As you know, I post information as soon as I get it.
I am as anxious as any to find out what's happening.
Ostensibly, we are waiting for an announcement that the FDIC completed the transfer of the Court Award to JPMC.
I frankly don't see that happening, since the payment may be hushed precisely because we are watching. There is no compelling reason for the FDIC to publicly announce this transfer.
We may need to go to the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain this information.
It is most frustrating that the information has not been released, particularly, since Judge Block specifically instructed his Clerk to follow-up on compliance by the FDIC, and, to expedite the execution of same.
In the meantime, a lawsuit was filed and retracted, so there should be no impediment to executing the Order.
Sorry I can't be of further help.
If anyone can prove that payments were made by JPM, in private/secret settlement of LTW claims, it may very well be the "smoking gun" that will force JPM to pay all other LTWs.
Perhaps we should contact the US Court's Clerk, who was instructed to follow up on the payment. The DOJ has nothing to do with this payment , it comes from the FDIC. I don't think that the FDIC or JPMC will make a public announcement. Only the Clerk at Judge Block's Court will be able to confirm.
Last post this day (i have to get back to work).
reference 7297 and 7298 10/15/13
Continuing the investigation:
I refer you to a most excellent reply by intervenors to JPMC/DOJ objections. see Post 7227.
Following that there is a small summery of Court's decision @ 7287.
here another gem.
PS: I'll stop for now because I'm REACHING DAILY POSTING LIMIT.
philipmax Tuesday, 01/08/13 11:00:07 AM
Re: None
Post # of 7825
CivilWarGeneral just posted on WMIH Hub a very relevant motion made by TPS
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229110707000000000008.pdf
(Note:Sidedraft this is not a hyperlink, only you can achieve such technical miracles)
Basically this brief summarized the decision of the Supreme Court in limiting the abilities of various courts to render moot related suits that are grounded in malfeasance and other illegal acts of the parties.
It challenges the BK court's authority to take full authority for the disposition of the WMB WMI BKy where it steps on other courts jurisdiction. As we all know this is very important both to Bushes appeal and to our case in US Federal Claims court.
Also relevant was the AMICO decision that finds JPMC and FDIC colluded to take over WMB.
It also addressed the conundrum of having to sign the "exculpation clause" in order to get crumbs of settlement monies..
IT is now very clear that Judge Walrath overstepped her authority by shear bluster of her Seat. It's time to overturn her decision!
here's another. sometimes you'll have to go to reference spool.
linda1 Saturday, 12/22/12 01:06:13 PM
Re: sidedraft post# 7150
Post # of 7824
Thanks very much. As noted in Ben's " Opposition " on Page 69 of Judge Walrath's Order approving
the POR it states as follows:
" ................. nothing is intended to release nor shall it have the effect of releasing ( a ) ....................
................... ( b ) any Releasee ( as defined in the Global Settlement Agreement ) or any Person,
including, without limitation, the United States of America, from any claims and causes of action
asserted or that could be asserted in either the American Savings Litigation or the Anchor Litigation, .......
I hope you fellow board watchers don't mind that I dredge some old postings here for possible action. Here's another one. I'll probably follow up with some more, if I can find them. Over the years we have had a marvelous group of Posters with very intelligent and informative information. It's a shame that we forget who and what was posted.
Post # 7131 11/29/2012
New Court papers filed
11/26/12 LA law firm of Engsrom,Lipscomb and Lack filed in US Court of Federal Claims (CFC) case No. 95-CV-oo39 Judge Block Presiding.
The Following:
Motion in Opposition of Summery Affirmance.
If you recall, LTWs took their case to the existing, ongoing (since 1995) CFC case to be included as Intervenors on behalf of the DIMEQ holders. Their original brief was rejected by Judge Block (rather harshly IMO), based on JPMC reply to their first request. This, extremely well written, response to JPMC is devastatingly clearly stated. If granted, this will give us DIMEQ holders a solid defense team that, I am sure, will well represent us before the Court.
PS. They want to by-pass the DE BK Court completely.
PPS If Sidedraft is still on board, would you kindly post the source to this Board (just as you have diligently done in the past), thanx
if everyone here refers to this chain, they may a good glimpse of could happen.
didn't go the first time. This from previous post by linda1.
linda1 Friday, 10/05/12 08:20:48 PM
Re: philipmax post# 7093
Post # of 7820
A TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM -
" Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces
a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts
the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing
the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. The classic example of this tort
occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party,
in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts
with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious
inducement of breach of contract. "
Adding just another post by linda` regarding ensuing battle.
Enclosed is a copy of previous notice regarding JPMC behavior towards legitimate claim holders.
Post # of 7819
ANICO vs FDIC
USCA Case # 10-5245
Document 1315055 06/24/11
corrected info
Basically says that ANICO (an Insurance co.)owner of WAMU bonds that were extinguished in BK can sue JPMC for recovery. The case was brought against FDIC under FIRRAH(sic) and ultimately was ruled to be against JPMC.
Let us all remember that DIMEQ LTW were given away to JPMC one day prior to BKY. JPMC knew what to take because they had placed spies within WAMU to assess the good assets that they were to take in the midnight raid of 0/25/08. DIMEQ was one of the easiest plums to pluck, along with those ANICO bonds (good as gold).
I'm sure someone is working on this.
Nothing is expected to happen until Nov. 10th or 15th, when the FDIC pays out Award to JPM. I suppose that there will be some public announcement. If so, JPM should lead by either acknowledging LTWs right yo 85% of net or it will pass without such notice. If no mention is made of the LTWs, a lawsuit for the funds will commence. The suit will be in Civil Court. I have no information as to who will institute such a suit, or where. I have a small stake compared to some heavy hitters.
Thanks Linda for the article. On page 3 heading "The Anchor Litigation..." clearly concludes that LTW were equity entitlement to "WMI" shares. The BK court was wrong in ascribing the LTWs to WMI, because, just prior to the Washington Mutual bankruptcy, the FDIC awarded the WMB, owner of the Anchor Lit., to JPMC. The article's author was not aware of this at the time she wrote the article. Her conclusion is correct, though, in so far as the LTWs represent a viable equity instruments, once the "trigger" payment is made to JPM. The tax ramification of accepting JPM shares instead of cash (no one even suggested it so far)will be a topping on the cake.
I am not familiar with Trademark filings, but, aren't there several categories of Trademarks - such as brand,product, name,etc? Nevertheless, I quoted the SEC filing. It would be interesting to do a follow-up on the so-called trademarked "LTW", especially in its diminished value at court.
Tour..., Look at attachment where I copied the LTW Agreement and bracketed the citation where Credit Swiss is the copy write owner of the term "Litigation Tracking Warrants" followed by their explanation of what they meant by that term. In addition, following the BK trial in Delaware, a former Dime Bank VP, who was there when the LTWs were issued, wrote to the Court confirming that the meaning of the LTW distribution was to transfer ownership of the Anchor proceeds to the LTWs from the Dime Bank without conditions.
thanks , sidefraft.
That , in a nutshell is our case - should we have to proceed. I would add RICO and FRAUDULENT TRANSFER to our money claim.
If anyone is interested, I also filed this on July 10, 2010
081222910071400000000in DE Bk Court.
(Sidedraft, I need help posting this. Thanks in advance)
This was 2010. We did not learn of the September 25th deal with the FDIC to transfer the Anchor litigation in WAMU Bank directly to JPM, until late 2012. We were deliberately misled by JPM, the BK Court, and all the insiders to believe that WMI held the Anchor litigation. The deception ended up costing $33M to WMI (the holding company) when in fact, it did not posses the Anchor, it was at JPM, as I was asserting in Court.
Dear ItsMyOpinion,
I do not not believe that your letters will be of any avail. On the contrary, your thoughts and arguments will be counter productive for any professional legal help that may want to undertake the ltw cause in that it gives JPM time to develop counter arguments. Naturally, you can can do as you please.
I attended BK Court with a submission that can be accessed on this I-hub Board post no. 2867. It had no impact.
Anyway, this is all I am going to add here at this time
Interesting article in NYTimes says the DOJ is going for criminal charges against banks breaking the law. Previous DOJ policy, until today, was to let banks get away with numerous recidivist acts of malfeasance. Too bad, our case puts DOJ squarely aligned with JPM, even though DOJ was defendant in the Anchor trial. A judiciously placed article about the DIMEQ/JPM caper in some media will be perfect at this time.
The real hysteria should start immediately after the FDIC releases the Award to JPMC. Only then, will the so-called "trigger" take place, allowing for lawsuits. What if JPM honors the LTW agreement? Why are we jumping around?
If one would make a case, the simple argument is that the Anchor litigation was transferred before the BK. All was done in secret and with collusion of FDIC officials.
THMJWhatshername, said so herself in the final ruling - "let the LTWs sue JPM for their share".
My understanding was that those who accepted the POS7 offer to tender their LTWs in exchange for WMIH (new shares) did so in a very final and non-recourse trade. The redemption was overwhelming, to the tune of 80% (at least, that is what was blogged here). The net effect was to reduce the outstanding LTWs from approx 113M to approx 22M (I don't posses any evidence other than this board's discussion).
Yesterdays' final ruling has no impact on the amount that the LTWs get - since the tax gross-up was to re-reimburse JPM. It was a very important ruling in that the distribution from FDIC can now proceed without another delay.
Again, my calculation works to ~$419M -less legal- ~$35M (estimated)= $384M -less -15% for JPM as lead plaintiff ~$59=leaves $325M to be divided into 22M LTW= ~$14.75/LTW.
There are some here, who tendered under EXTREME duress, who may claim that the 2012 tender was a fraudulent extortion. In that case, the divisor is 113M = $2.87/LTW.
The main concern is whether JPM will claim that ALL the LTWs are void and refuse to share any proceeds.
All numbers were rounded for quick calc. and are my opinions only.
Thanks, sidedraft. That was quick.
Attn: Sideraft, please post USCourt of Federal Claims No. 95-39C 08/31/2015
Greetings: DIMEQ holders. His Honorable Judge Lawrence J. Block issued his final ruling on the Award to be distributed by FDIC. The original Award of $419,645,910.51 has been increased by $118,969,673.71 to equal $538,615,548.62.
Alas, the tax "gross -up" ($118M) goes to JPMC alone and is not attributable to LTWs (IMHO).
We may have to litigate against JPMC as a class action. Stay
tuned.
Best of luck to all who held tough. 1995-2015.
Hi DRAK2000,
Just so everyone else knows, when and if, settlement funds Or JPM stock) are available, your brokerages will be notified, and the DIME LTW will show up in your account just as they were on July 12, 2012 (unless you opted in).
At that point in time, the LTW will be issued a new symbol and will again be traded until settlement is paid.
Until such time (mind you, JPM may sabotage this), you will not see anything at all.
Just a small thought on the Tax Gross-up.
I am quite confused by the delay and contorted reasoning in the calculations that were offered by JPMC. It was my understanding (I have owned these LTW since inception in 2000), that the Anchor litigators requested the Court to award them an additional sum, above the actual losses, that reflected the fact that, in prior periods to the FDIC decision to disallow Goodwill as Tier I Assets, Anchor reported taxable income and paid Income Tax on those earnings. Since the earning were later declared as phantom income, ANCHOR had to reverse the income and incurred a huge loss, resulting in the bank's ultimate failure.
Anchor wanted the Judge to calculate the losses that it suffered as a result of having made TAX payments prior to the reversal and thus, it not only suffered immediate losses, but also was deprived of the use of those funds in the interim.
What in HELL does JPMC calculation have to do with the LTW value on 9/25/2008? And how does it come to calculate ITS loss based on a 35% Federal + 9% NY State tax on its presumed income tax rate for 2016/7? FACT: JPM has not paid INCOME TAX since 2008. It paid Billions in Legal and Billions in sanctions, but not one cent in income tax. But all that is pure BS.
The convoluted calculation escapes my understanding.
Here is what the calculation should have been IMHO. The Court determined that the assessed damages were $419M, Anchor's tax rate at the time was 35% Fed + 9% NYS, so, $419 x 35%= $146.7 and 9%x $419 = $37.7. the Tax Gross-up should be ... Total losses = $419M + $184.4 = $603.4. A number, coincidentally, equaling the original claim made at this Court.
I would expect an answer on Mon the 20th.
For what it's worth, JPM's top lawyer Stephen Cutler, is moving to Corporate and is being replaced by Stacey Friedman from Sullivan Cromwell. Cutler, as some here may recall, is known for his bluster and intransigence. Perhaps LTWs will fare better with Friedman.
I hope that a competent attorney can be found. One that is not intimidated by Jones,Day or Gotshall(sic),or Sullivan Cromwell that JPM uses. Also, JPM probably sewed-up every large and well connected firm so that we have to find a lone wolf, intrepid maverick, who is willing to risk his future on us pions.
Thoughts for the Fourth, with a fifth at my side.
As you all know I've been very distracted since the Block ruling. I last posted that we have a few more hurdles to overcome before we can see Payday.
The hurdles were:
JPM
FDIC
WMIH
Old LTWs.
FDIC is caught here, and I don't see any wiggle room for them to squirm through. I hope that their disgusting lawyer that presented himself at THMJW Court is retired by now. I am going with a given that after a 20 year struggle, and 41 Winstar cases lost, the FDIC will just have to close the books with payment on #42, and the last open case.
Old LTWs, unfortunately, signed away their rights once and for all. The release given to WMI at BK was final and binding with a $.03 consideration given for each LTW surrendered. No tears here for those who surrendered, as a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush, AND, you have done pretty well with an 11X return on you surrendered LTWs.
WMIH, a successor firm to WMI, never listed DIMEQs or LTW as an acquired asset on their books. Looks like the LTWs surrendered to the BK WMI were extinguished.
Leaving only the 900 LB Guerrilla, JPM as an obstacle to the finish line.
Have a great 4th.
dsstlye1, this is what JPM filed with the Court. It is pretty damning and denies all assertions by LTW to any and all Awards.
But, I believe, that the filing is wrong,primarily because the BK Court knowingly kept the information that JPM was in possession of the Anchor litigation and not WMI,which was the subject of the BK trial. JPM stood silently by while lawyers were fighting over an asset that was not part of the BK. Therefore, any and all pronouncement made by the BK court are moot as it relates to LTWs.
There were secret meetings held between JPM, Hedge Funds, Judge Walrath, the FDIC, and WMI during the course of the trial which permitted the hedge funds to dump the LTW just before the ruling.
The conflict of interest and the fraudulent effort to disown the DIMEQ holders is still open.
In acknowledgement of defects in the final POR7, THJMW issued an order that permits the LTW to sue JPM when the so called "trigger" i.e. payment is made to JPM by the FDIC.
So, yes, you cold-showered the weekend thrill, and there will have to be additional lawsuits to clarify the issue.
even better!
Thank you for your invaluable input. Now we're getting someplace.
EH22 has the 8k to prove 14.7% outstanding DIMEQs. That's the best number to go away with on this weekend.
However, both JOconner and dsstyle1 have the US Court of claims statement indicating 25-30% are still outstanding.
Generally, the 8k is more reliable since it came from a CPA and the Court numbers were given by lawyers. I like Judge Block, so I'll stay conservative with my estimates.
We now have sensible estimates of the remaining LTWs.
The next hurdles are:
Potential JPM grab-all interference.
WMIH run for the loot.
The usual FDIC stall machinations.
Disgruntled exchangers with seller's remorse.
pjl1, your DIMEQs are still there. Either WMIH, or JPM, or THMW, instructed the SEC to de-list and suppress DIMEQ holdings as at March 2012.
No one can steal these LTWs, they are just hidden in our accounts. When the FDIC releases the funds (still nit-picking final Award), the SEC will instruct the brokerages to re-list the shares.
You can go to your 03/31/2012 brokerage statement to see your holdings before they eliminated them from your account.
I believe that all that was done to prevent an off-off pink sheets transactions in these ever increasing valuable securities.
Good luck.
Nice catch. I didn't see this. I just accepted that 75% did not accept. Now you show us that 75% accepted. I'll withhold my conclusion until someone smarter gets involved.
Pretty draconian and all inclusive protection for the theft that was about to take place.
Excellent!
outstanding DIMEQ = 112,900,000
The charts combined WMI common with DIMEQ. The DIMEQ was allocated 8.77% of votes. I can't continue from there as the totals are combined. There is utter confusion and misstatement,in keeping with the incompetence of this whole WMI BK story.