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.
The firm of Engstrom Lipscomb, LA. Lead Counsel is Paul A. Traina.
Alarming news!
Zanida Samuels, who tried to act as an intervenor on our behalf at Federal Claims Court(Block)d ANCHOR LITIGATION case No 13-5005, has just resigned the case. We are not represented by independent counsel. We should still be represented by the reprehensible teams from JPM (As per LTW Agreement), but who knows? They will probably drop the ball in cahoots with the FDIC.
As it stands, we may lose to Statute of Limitation provision.
SEEKING REPRESENTATION will not be easy as the Samuels team was one of the best (If anyone here read their brief), and they were kicked out.
Thanks for the clarification. Large G. I am still confused by the constant reference to "escrow" shares on this Board. Are these references related to the yet undistributed (converted) pfd shares ? I was rather alarmed by the intro. page to this Board where the stated exchange rate for the old WAMUK is .495 WMIH, and the old WAMUP is 19.8 WMIH. This gave me the impression that the exchange took place already.
Hi there Large,
I used to be big follower of WAMU BK and held positions in common and pfd. I have not kept up with this board for some time and I am confused at the value of the "escrow pfd" shares. My common was converted to WMIH, but I still have WamuQ's and P's. I never signed the release for these because of the exculpation clause. I just looked at the top of this board where conversion ratio for the Q's is .03 of WMIH. If true than I don't see value. It seems that the pfd are worth less than the common? can you straighten me out on this? Did I forfeit any of my claims by refusing to opt in? my apologies in advance if this is redundant
Hi Marty009,
I believe Dec 12th is a milestone date foe DIMEQ holders. It may be the make-or-break decision we have been waiting for.
Yes, marty (or since we already know each other, 009)
Now it behooves our attorneys to sue for FRAUD with the possibility of treble damages. ABSOLUTELY!
marty,
This IS the smoking gun. This is exactly what I claimed throughout the trial. We were denied access to the contents of the PA. Walrath and JPM knew that the trial was a sham and squandered $300M of WMHI cash in the process.
This is not new. Although, it is fascinating that the WSJ would publish it.
Nov 1,2013, WSJ posts the JPM/FDIC P&A agreement Sept 25, 2008, one day before WMH declared bankrupt. Page 18 Items 4.12 and 4.13, probably dealing with LTW, was omitted from report. In another Federal case the Purchase and Assumption clearly assigned rights to Anchor Litigation proceeds to JPM.
Here's the bad news Sidedraft.
Walrath is going to live out her life in luxury and happiness. Just for the hell of it to spite us all. Shame on her. Shame on the people of Delaware. Shame on the judiciary.
The CAL group are great.
I was impressed that the CAL attorney was able to quote from the "secret deal" between FDIC and JPM, where, the FDIC unilaterally and irrevocably gave away all of the LTW rights to JPM.
The fact that it was "secret".
That FDIC had no standing in law to transfer these assets.
The extent of collusion between these two parties.
The bold-faced lying that accompanied the entire trial: when JPM knew that it owned Anchor and that LTW were "worthless" per agreement, AND, that Walrath was privy to the whole scheme.
All these factors, just boils my blood and destroys my faith in the judicial process.
Hi Marty009,That's right.
All kidding aside, we are done in this Court of Appeals. The case is remanded to Judge Block for determination of damages. He has already ruled that we are dead meat based on extinguished rights of LTWarrants by Walrath's declaration.
Because Block can't use the Cal. arguments to reverse himself, by virtue of this Court's decision (their motion to intervene denied), he will not be in position to reverse himself,unless...he himself recognizes the error of his decision.
In any case JPM will be awarded the Grand Prize. Next, we will have to go to another court and sue these bastards. A bonus may come our way as this can be a suit for wrongful conversion (sic) and may entitle us to triple damages. But, I am putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Bushes Appeal to BK Court may force Block to reconsider. So he may want to wait for that to be completed before handing out a ruling.
So, yes, this may be the end of the Federal Claims Court journey. and the beginning of a civil case (let's ask for a jury).
Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer and I may just be puffing smoke. This is only my take on the situation. If anyone knows better, speak up.
PS I hate this new iHub layout.
Hi Sidedraft,
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I always trust you to "get to the source" and bring it on board. Hurthino has stolen the thunder. Mia Culpa.
Apologies for the "four years" comment. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was also jaded and cynical, as I have learned to mistrust the legal system, particularly, through my involvement in THIS case.
Your question as to who is leading this challenge through the courts. You have hit on my pet peeve for the duration of this matter in the courts.
Since there is a high degree of suspicion that the FDIC and JPM are colluding here to disenfranchise us, I am extremely leery of the next steps. Jones & Day, the lead reps against FDIC for 18 years(they did a marvelous job at that),is highly conflicted, as it has been a long time lead counsel to JPM. As long as WAMU was in charge of shepherding the Anchor case, there was no conflict, but, as soon as JPM took over WAMU the waters became very, very, very, murky.
I believe that the California group should have made a big point of this point ...but... here it is. We have a conflicted Attorney representing the self-dealing JPM, with an extremely vindictive (against the LTWs) FDIC. I smell big trouble ahead.
PS I hate the new layout here at Ihub.
US Court of Appeals 2013-5005 Anchor October 10, 2013
This is a summation of oral arguments before a three judge panel of US Court of Appeals to allow the California Attorneys to intercede on behalf of the LTW owners. JPM argued that this was not the correct venue for the argument. The panel concurred.
Now, the interesting part. We all suffered the agony of the Dimeq Ltws vs. JPM/WMHI in BK court. The case cost WMHI over $300 Million. Judge Walrath decided that the LTWs were worthless warrants that expired on bankruptcy. Most of us were there for the entire performance.
It comes about that the FDIC and JPM allocated the Anchor litigation to JPM just hours before WMHI was declared bankrupt. Not just that, but in allocating the case to JPM they inserted terminology that gave JPM total and uncompromised ownership of the litigation free of all claims against it.
We were not privy to any of this. Thus the sham trial proceeded into Walrath train-wreck decision.
The Appellate Court was able to extract an admission from JPM that the LTWs are not excluded from suing JPM when judge Block
reaches the final $ determination for damages awarded to Anchor. That, our claim against JPM is valid and not expired by the POS agreement. Thus, our case was left open to seek equity from JPM.
Even JPM's attorneys expressed anxiety to reach a conclusion
to this case after 19 years of litigation.
Conclusion o my part: 4 more years.
PS I hate the new layout here at IHUB.
ITS ALIVE!!!!!!!We have a CASE!!!!!!!!!!!
There were oral arguments at Federal Court of Appeals on 10/10/13.
Thanks Clay for the video. I took several courses in charting. Don't understand a hoot about this voodoo science. I am always intrigued by the positive attitude of the instructors though. Not poo-pooing it, but it's amazing to me, that all I see in charts is past performance, and all they see is future guidelines.
Nevertheless,IMHO, FNMA is going to be worth $50-70 in the next few years. I don't need charts to show me that.
It's very simple....FNMA IS A FREEGING MONEY MACHINE. No one can ignore, both its profitability AND its value to our society. The creators of FNMA were geniuses. You cannot dismantle it because of its intrinsic value to the greater society. So, all the bs about its demise is pure nonsense.
In the meantime, enjoy the pundits and the chartists and just buy, buy, buy the heck out of this stock.
They will never be off the hook. If no one claims the award it goes to the State unclaimed funds account for later generations to find it.
It's great that the government is suing these TBTF institutions and getting, what seems like, huge settlements. Basically these guys are paying about 3 cents on a dollar of stolen peoples money. The victims never see the money, though. The stockholders who kept their shares until the roof fell on them will never recoup their money. The current shareholders are the ones paying the fines. and... finally.. FnF, who underwrote the whole mess do not get a penny from the settlement. IT GOES DIRECTLY TO TREASURY. FNMA should at least get credit against their gov't loans for these settlement!
Great!
Let's follow due process and not gangsterism. The problems were the fault of everyone in the financial control of the nations' money,including the very same people who engineered the takeovers.
The fact that Treasury had to "rescue" the whole banking system with dictatorial decisions as to who dies (LEH, BS, WM) and who survives(C, JPM, GS) is a matter that will haunt this nation for many years to come. No one in the industry or government has been convicted, so maybe the whole financial meltdown was a scam, engineered carefully over years, to steal these assets.
Basically,we have not established that the Treasury was acting in a lawful way by confiscating private property. We have to litigate the whole process. That is why AIG's lawsuit in Federal Court against Treasury is making them wet their pants.
Thanks for your reply. I would not feel comfortable as a US citizen to know that my Gov't can just walk all over stockholders' rights established over 250 years. If any of this was to take place in the next few years, I would immediately sell every goddamn security and consider leaving this country all together.
This breach would be so outrageous as to override all that we believe in the free capitalistic system.
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!
Again, Treasury may own all of us, but there must be a judicial system to control unbridled government confiscation.
The proposals are just that "proposals"
Assuming(?) that this land is governed by law, the Courts would have to look at the companies by-laws for takeover. NO ONE, NOT EVEN Uncle Sam, can just walk in and steal a company - even if they put up $187B - without shareholder approval.
FnF were not insolvent, so any allusions to BK law is not appropriate.
What insane hubris has gotten into the Treasury that they can just willy-nilly nullify 250 years of constitutional law?
The PPS can't be whipsawed by irresponsible proposals, no matter where they come from.
But...remember that is only assuming......and we all know what that means.
malebaboon, Thanks for excerpting the essence. It was much too much for me to read and digest.
Bottom line>>>
"The Treasury has the Warrant (that means - OPTION) to purchase 79.9% of the common stock"
Does this mean that they DID NOT actually buy the common stock but only optioned it?
This sounds like music to my ears.
CAN THIS BE TRUE?
You just have to trudge thru the mud. Step-by-step.
We'll all get there if we just BUY on weakness (almost there now). HOLD for months and years (not 32 seconds like I read on this board)
This has to be litigated, and that's a process that usually takes 5-8 YEARS.
Both the political and the financial environment have to be in synch for this to explode.
For those who like to weave thru the short term trends, there is ample opportunity. It's not my game because I've tried it and I stink at it. So I'll stay Veeerrryy lonnnnnggg.
I am not sure that the treasury actually "lent" money ($187B)to these GSEs. All that was required was for the Treasury to "say" that it would stand by these entities. There was no need to infuse capital into these entities, they were solvent throughout.
In the meantime, FnF were consistently issuing new mtge backed bond during these 5 years of stress.
Would they have been able to do so (at reduced near zero rate) if they were insolvent? Another words, would the market have permitted them to issue near zero interest bond if they were teetering?
The only money that they took from Treasury was the 10% dividend that Treasury demanded. So Treasury "lent" the GSEs the money to pay itself the 10%.
When FnF proved that they could pay the div. independently of Treasury, the rules were changed and Treasury "confiscated" 100% of FnF earning.
This whole story is an Alice in Wonderland, tops y-turvey of equitable Laws, and smacks of medieval confiscation of private property.
It's OUTRAGEOUS!
nice post.
also, like to add that the GSE debt was taken out of the National Debt, whose sudden explosion with rising oil imports and trade imbalance, was spooking the market in the early 1970's.
I cannot see a scenario where the GSEs are eliminated without due process. In any case, stockholders will have to be compensated for any stock taken from their equity; including the 79.8% sequestered under conservartoship. The entire capital system of the free world will collapse if this is not done.
I know of a close friend who borrowed $15,000 from the MOB. in over a year he has repaid $33,000.00 to the MOB and still owes them the original $15K.
Our government works in a similar fashion. Witness the disgrace that is the FNMA and FMCC with paybacks to the treasury. And not just the paybacks, but also all the recouped losses that the banks were forced to regurgitate go directly to the treasury instead of the GSEs.
Next time your kid comes home with civics homework, kick him in ass and tell him to stay at home.
Hi MonesHind
I take it that you have dismal expectations from our legislators. ME TOO!
However....
When a company goes BANKRUPT there is a good chance that the investors lose their money because of risk taken.
F&F have proven that they are viable. Even under the restrictive rules that have been placed retroactively, they are extremely profitable. They therefore have a NET BOOK VALUE. As all investors know, net book value(EQUITY) is the remainder after all liabilities are paid. This belongs to the investors regardless of whatever method is used to measure owners' rights.
Other than under a socialist, communist, or dictatorial system,
EQUITY belongs to owners (shareholders). No way around this.
There is ample precedent to demonstrate this. Even entities that were legitimately confiscated by our Gov't (i.e. GAF, BAYER etc.) were returned to their rightful owners.
With all that is said by politicians, who, by-the-way, are as guilty as is management in fostering the climate of profligate risk taking as a policy for these GSEs - they cannot negate the Constitution of the USA.
Fanny Mae is close to celebrating its 80th year of outstanding and irreplaceable service to the banking and home buying population. No one in his right mind can deny that it provides a unique and valuable service to society. The fiduciary lapse of the first decade of the second millennium should not detract from its ultimate value to shareholders and society at large..
Having said that, these institutions should have been kept within the bowels of Government ownership. The fact that crafty politician spun these units to the public in order to trick us into believing that the National debt was less than it was, cannot now be turned against the investors who became owners at the IPO in 1972. The stockholders hold ownership rights that were sold to them by the Gov't.. Any twisting of this simple fact is fraudulent and confiscatory. There is no way for Uncle Sam to sequester property rights without due compensation. PERIOD.
Well said by a better man than me.
I'm not completely jaded. I actually vote in each and every election (even for our local sanitation chief, who runs unopposed). It's just that I become cynical when I see that our elected officials propose and pass laws that they know nothing about. That there are vested interests that write and push agendas that fulfill their political/religious/financial self aggrandizement; and are usually anti-social, anti-competitive, and wasteful to the general public. This is done year, after year, after year, to the point that the public is irrelevant except to be taxed at higher and higher rates to feed these hyenas.
cash47873, I read your posts and enjoy your input. Unfortunately, I have ZERO faith in my congressman. It doesn't matter what party they represent, I feel that they are paid puppets of big dollar donors and therefore part of the real problem with our "democracy". So, no chance of me contacting any of them. The notion that they represent us is for naive fools in grade school.
So the money goes to FHFA! What happened to FnF losses from these fraudsters? Why isn't the money going to FnF and they, in turn, repay the gov't with the proceeds to reduce their outstanding loans that were taken specifically to cover these losses in the first place? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!!!!!!!!
No argument there. But are they MORAL? It's just great if one is smart and gets inside information. Does he behave as a true FIDUCIARY? Or a greedy selfish schmuck?
nice long article but not informative, nothing new.
Thanks bmp152.
I am trying to follow the money trail.
Agreed that normally the MBS (Mtge backed securities) end up in some pension plan.
Here's the problem as I see it:
1- the pension plans want LEH and GS to refund the money under fraud provisions.
2-GS goes back to FnF and demand coverage.
3- F&F go to the banks and question the legality at the point of origination.
4- Fed steps in and buys the MBS from banks.
5- Banks make good to pension funds and all is forgiven.
Now, FnF were the original guarantors.
6- Eventually Fed will want its money back from FnF as the insurers of the pile of S#$t sitting on Fed's books.
I am still baffled as to how QE3 helped FnF.
Having said all that. Let's understand that although the mtge fiasco nearly dumped the US into another Great Depression, the actual default rate as compared to the entire mtge market was under 7% vs. 25% for the Great Depression. 5 yrs later most of the damage was absorbed by the system so that FnF can easily work the problem thru and continue to generate huge profits.
bmp152, Great observation. I too have been giving this QE3 a jaded view. The only difference, as I see it, is that the $85B goes directly to the banks to extricate them from illiquid positions.By purchasing the garbage on their books at par, the Fed is hoping that the banks will release this "reserve for loss" provision on the balance sheet. This maneuver generate immediate profit to the BANKS and should stimulate lending (should not would). How are FNF affected here depends whether the FED keeps these mtgs on its own books or discounts them again for FNF benefit. Otherwise I don't see the FNF play in the QE3. Please clarify. Thanks in advance.
Interesting lawsuit by AIG's Hank Greenberg now in Federal Claims Court seeking recompense for stolen shares of AIG by Treasury and Fed.
His arguments are applicable to our situation.
I went to FNMA hub board. They talk too much. They list 1000 or more entries per day. Most are useless.
On a more troubling front. Today the FHFA announced that there are accounting difficulties with the write-offs. The implication from Bloomberg article are that F&F will be compelled to write off so much of their mortgages that they will wipe out common stock equity. Scary prospect, considering that the accounting rules are arbitrary and easily manipulated by political expediency.
I never commented before on QE3, but, by the wording, I get a feeling that the FED is slowly absorbing the toxic mortgages from the banks to free up their (the banks') capital. At some point the FED will turn to F&F and "stick the garbage on F&F's front door.
Based on this story, F&F can be extinguished by excessive loan loss provisions which will obliterate stockholder's equity.
And since this scenario can be pulled out of a hat by de facto declaration by either Fanny or Freddy, based on accounting sleigh of hand, it is the scariest news so far in this saga.