current
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.
Hey Fred it looks like most attorneys have all withdrawn. What do you make of this now?
With all these Libor filings with attorneys withdrawing, the end must be only days away.
412609/20/2024ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD granting (4123) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The Court hereby: 1) PERMITS attorneys Richard M. Heimann, Steven E. Fineman, Eric B. Fastiff, Brendan P. Glackin, Michael J. Miarmi, and Andrew R. Kaufman to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions; 2) DIRECTS the Clerk to amend the docket and other court records to reflect the withdrawal of these attorneys as counsel of record; and 3)DIRECTS the Clerk to remove these attorneys from all electronic and other service lists for these proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB; granting (375) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06412-NRB; granting (370) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06411-NRB; granting (366) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06409-NRB; granting (398) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:13-cv-07005-NRB; granting (336) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:14-cv-03094-NRB. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 9/20/24) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.
...
Libor must be days away from being finished with a multitude of attorneys withdrawing
412609/20/2024ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
granting (4123) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The Court hereby: 1) PERMITS attorneys Richard M. Heimann, Steven E. Fineman, Eric B. Fastiff, Brendan P. Glackin, Michael J. Miarmi, and Andrew R. Kaufman to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions; 2) DIRECTS the Clerk to amend the docket and other court records to reflect the withdrawal of these attorneys as counsel of record; and 3)DIRECTS the Clerk to remove these attorneys from all electronic and other service lists for these proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-md-02262-NRB; granting (375) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06412-NRB; granting (370) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06411-NRB; granting (366) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:11-cv-06409-NRB; granting (398) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:13-cv-07005-NRB; granting (336) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brendan Patrick Glackin; Richard Martin Heimann; Andrew R Kaufman; Michael Joseph Miarmi; Eric B. Fastiff and Steven E. Fineman terminated in case 1:14-cv-03094-NRB. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 9/20/24) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB et al.
…
KK, just so you know, there are those that work with others behind the scenes.
…
Exactly correct! Beneficial Recipient of a (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust
RD, wow, now that sounds great and superb recap. I would love you to be exactly correct! Filings and time passing will show us the way forward.
…
NDT, thanks for your response but sorry I do not share the optimism on this one but would love to be wrong!
..,
RD, what looks promising from the outline as this to me looks like a typical FDIC layout…no…
let me know your thoughts why this may be different and/or promising to what we are expecting
…
FDIC DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE WaMu P & A
PLEASE LOOK UP MEANING of Initial Payment
WaMu Purchase Assumption Agreement
WaMu Purchase Assumption Agreement-SOME NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON THE MEANING OF INITIAL PAYMENT
Maybe there should be further research by the ZERO MONIES RETURNING GROUP but first, they need to understand what the term, "INITIAL PAYMENT" means
The end of the WaMu saga will NOT OFFICIALLY end UNTIL the "R" or Receivership has finally been resolved/terminated and closed with FDIC being released.
https://www.fdic.gov/foia/files/washington_mutual_p_and_a.pdf
***PDF Page 20***
ARTICLE VII
BID; INITIAL PAYMENT
$1,888,000,000.00 for The Assuming Ban has submitted to the Receiver a positive bid of
Assets purchased and Liabilities Assumed hereunder (the "Bid Amount"). On the Payment Date, the Assuming Ban will pay to the Corporation, or the Corporation will pay to the Assuming Ban, as the case may be, the Initial Payment, together with interest on such amount (if the Payment Date is not the day following the day of Ban Closing) from and including the day following Ban Closing to and including the day preceding the Payment Date at the Settlement Interest Rate.
...
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POST VERY SLOWLY AND LET IT SINK IN!
This is very close to the infamous Smoking Gun we have been looking for all these years.
Thank you Newflow! So, combining into one post for clarity and easy reading.
In other words, the book-entry records are the definitive source for determining the legal holders of the beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust. The person or entity recorded in that system as holding a particular Liquidating Trust Interest will be treated as the owner of the record for that interest under all relevant U.S. federal and state laws governing such matters
Page 7 "EVIDENCED BY BOOK ENTRY"
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951812000099/mm03-1212_8ke101.htm
SO NO NEED OF ISSUING LTIs. THOSE ENTRY SOURCES WERE BALLOTS AND W-9 SUBMITTED BY FORMER SHAREHOLDERS WHO SIGNED RELEASES.
For U.S. federal and state legal purposes, whoever is listed as the owner of a Liquidating Trust Interest in the electronic book-entry recordkeeping system maintained by the Liquidating Trust will be considered the official legal holder of that interest.
In other words, the book-entry records are the definitive source for determining the legal holders of the beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust. The person or entity recorded in that system as holding a particular Liquidating Trust Interest will be treated as the owner of the record for that interest under all relevant U.S. federal and state laws governing such matters
—————————————-
So, the difference is one set of investors received LTIs and one set of investors are in the Book-Entry system.
Now the big difference is those investors who received LTIs were those investors who were receiving monies in the active BK cases and those investors who WILL RECEIVE Beneficial Interests in the assets protected and in SAFE HARBOR so
1) Investors who received LTIs equal active bk cases
2) Investors who will receive monies outside of BK cases equal Safe Harbor/BK Remote BK-protected assets
3) The final distributions will happen once the FDIC R is officially released and/or when the final resolve for the WaMu Receivership happens
...
RD, thanks again. Is this the big one we are looking for or more small potatoes? I am too busy check. Thanks
RD, thank you for keeping everything you are doing to keep us informed.
How ever this plays out in details, I am sure there will be partial corrects and partial wrong but at any rate, I see at the very least a confirmation of something returning before yearend 2024.
…
I would like to think so but in my view it could be very close and or simultaneous to a few actions such as a market collapse.
I think the Big Money Players would not gamble on a certain party winning the election that would impose horrendous taxes.
So, to me, they must be working behind the scenes to get an agreement with potential taxable distributions by 12/31/2024 at the latest. Non taxable pieces to distribution could wait into the next year if needed to be this way.
…
I think you are on the correct path discussing a market crash but it will be far larger than ten to fifteen percent in my view.
At the latest, the markets will crash in a huge way before mid January but could be in progress now. I believe the largest part of the crash will happen before the scheduled election which I maintain will be delayed due to unrest, grid attacks and outages.
…
Tie In 65B DB/FDIC/JPM Settlement & Akim Gump Court Transscript More Facts Arise
Some Investors Need To Take Note of What Was Said in The COURT TRANSCRIPT
The legal group Akin and Gump are discussing the scope of what the Examiner can examine and what he cannot examine. We also have in there the part (b) of what is to be retained, and that is because in negotiations that we had with all of the settling parties, with the equity committee last week, with the FDIC, we did talk a great deal about the concept of the retained assets.
Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to know much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them. They will still be there; they can be carried through. But I understand that the equity committee is very interested in having a neutral third party do an investigation of those retained assets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This settlement is based on the 65 billion face amount of MBS. The Calif Judge was very concerned about all investors (including the “Moms and Pops” as the Judge coined it) being notified properly. i]
• If one believes we do not have money coming back from a 65 billion tranche of MBS, then it would be hard to believe we would have any coming back from theses MBS trusts period – Pure nonsense – IMHO
• We have shown and proved that JPM only got Servicing Rights and more – See Below
______________________________________________
WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., as Securitizer, is filing this Form ABS-15G in respect of all mortgage-backed securities representing interests in pools of residential mortgage loans for which it acted as depositor and which are outstanding during the reporting period. On September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMCB”) acquired the banking operations of Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). It is JPMCB’s position that certain of the repurchase obligations of Washington Mutual Bank remain with the FDIC receivership. Assets are reported herein in accordance with Rule 15Ga-1 regardless of the validity of the demand or defenses thereto, and nothing in this report shall constitute, or be deemed, a waiver of any rights, defenses, powers or privileges of any party relating to these assets.
http://whalewisdom.com/filer/wamu-asset-acceptance-corp
See FOOT NOTE ONE - Following Link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1317069/000092963815000128/wamu-67348_abs15g.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951810000371/settlement_agr.htm
Exhibit Z
Loan Servicing. From and after the Effective Date, JPMC shall (a) cause such of its Affiliates to continue to service the loans identified on Exhibit “Z” hereto (the “Loans”) pursuant to the servicing agreements identified on Exhibit “AA” hereto (the “Servicing Agreements”), (b) cause such of its Affiliates to remit to WMI all checks and/or payments received in connection with those loans in its possession and (c) promptly (i) remit to WMI all servicing advances that JPMC is holding with respect to such loans and (ii) provide WMI an accounting with respect to each of the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing,[/color] any dispute that may arise relating to the servicing of such loans during the period from and after the Effective Date shall be brought pursuant to such servicing agreements and this Agreement is not intended to create any additional rights, obligations or remedies. The Parties acknowledge and agree that (y) the Loans are the only loans that are or will be, from and after the Effective Date, serviced by the JPMC Entities (or their Affiliates) for the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates or their successors in interest) and that the Service Agreements are the only servicing agreements between the JPMC Entities (or their Affiliates) and the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates) and (z) with the exception of the obligations set forth in this Section 2.19, the JPMC Entities (and their Affiliates) shall have no further obligations or liability to any of the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates) with respect to or in any way related to the servicing of any loans for the WMI Entities (or their Affiliates).
Notice that it says WMI and NOT WMB so WMI is STILL ALIVE as we posited?
Also notice that most of the loans are single family residential loans?
And let's see what is noted in the P&A between FDIC as RECEIVER of assets from WMB and JPM. Closing date 25th of September 2014.
Let's zoom in on Schedule 3.2 (it is called PURCHASE PRICE OF ASSETS by the way, to avoid any misinterpretation):
(a) cash and receivables from depository Book Value
institutions, including cash items in the
process of collection, plus
interest thereon:
(b) securities (exclusive of the capital stock of Market Value
Acquired Subsidiaries), plus interest
thereon:
(c) federal funds sold and repurchase Book Value
agreements, if any, including interest
thereon:
(d) Loans: Book Value
(e) Other Real Estate: Book Value
(f) credit card business, if any, including all Book Value
outstanding extensions of credit:
(g) Safe Deposit Boxes and related business,
safekeeping business and trust business, if Book Value
any:
(h) Records and other documents: Book Value
(i) capital stock of any Acquired Subsidiares: Book Value
(j) amounts owed to the Failed Ban by any Book Value
Acquired Subsidiar:
(k) assets securing Deposits of public money, Book Value
to the extent not otherwise purchased
hereunder:
(1) Overdrafts of customers: Book Value
(m) rights, if any, with respect to Qualified Market Value
Financial Contracts.
(n) rights of the Failed Ban to provide Book Value
mortgage servicing for others and to have
mortgage servicing provided to the Failed
Bank by others and related contracts.
(0) Ban Premises: Book Value
(p) Furniture and Equipment: Book Value
(q) Fixtures: Book Value
If you read all this, isn't it very obvious that the off balance figures on the JPM 10k were made public in 2014 and the closing of P&A in 2014 are related? Not the mention the 38 billion of loans which have not been repaid or liquidated returning to the FDIC receivership?
Isn't it very obvious that JPM as stated in the GSA was pure servicer for Single Family Residential loans (a.k.a. mortgages) and that checks and payment are to be remitted to WMI?
Also interesting tidbit from the P&A:
(f) Servicing. The Assuming Bank shall administer and manage any Asset subject to purchase by the Receiver in accordance with usual and prudent banking standards and business
practices until such time as such Asset is purchased by the Receiver.
There we have the kicker right there. According to JPM's own 10k, it is clear that from 2008-2013 there were no purchased assets. In 2014, with the closing of P&A, these assets were ultimately purchased for Book Value.
Hence the off-balance figures we saw on the R-203 document. Assets were finally purchased, and merged into JPM. That's why in 2014 we don't see any former WMB-subsidiary on the JPM Subsidiary List anymore.
And:
All transfers with
respect to Asset or assets under this Section 3.6 shall be made as provided in Section 9.6. The
Assuming Bank shall transfer all such Asset or assets and Related Liabilities to the Receiver
without recourse, and shall indemnify the Receiver against any and all claims of any Person
claiming by, through or under the Assuming Ban with respect to any such Asset or asset, as
provided in Section 12.4.
…
HEY JAY BRAY – WHERE ARE THE DETAILS PROMISED FOR YEARS ON MONETIZING XOME AS WELL AS INFO PROMISED FOR (VIC) VERY IMPORTANT CUSTOMER?
1) COOP has been hiding the name of this VIC and should come clean ASAP as well as coming clean with the monetization of XOME which I believe all may be connected
2) Similar to number one, why has COOP CEO Bray spoken many times about monetizing XOME but nothing happened in the last year or two...Bray just minimally discussed monetization of XOME but previous to this discussed heavily
3) COOP has been constantly undervalued since its inception and I believe for good reason which of course involves the Big Money Players
4) I believe this VIC will be divulged very soon which may involve those investors who signed timely releases and now own the former WaMu Estate
5) I believe a DST will play a vital role as those investors who signed timely releases by 3/2012 will be BENEFICIAL RECIPIENTS of a DST which may control the ownership of XOME and maybe our VIC
6) There are always some who see what is going to happen before it is publicly announced so these investors may sense dilution which could happen BUT these investors do NOT understand the value COOP may receive in exchange for potential preferred and common shares issuance for ownership of assets
7) I see a potential COOP 8K FILING that MAY answer many questions including potential distribution to those investors who signed timely releases by March of the year 2012
...
FDIC DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE WaMu P & A
PLEASE LOOK UP MEANING of Initial Payment
WaMu Purchase Assumption Agreement
WaMu Purchase Assumption Agreement-SOME NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON THE MEANING OF INITIAL PAYMENT
Maybe there should be further research by the ZERO MONIES RETURNING GROUP but first, they need to understand what the term, "INITIAL PAYMENT" means
The end of the WaMu saga will NOT OFFICIALLY end UNTIL the "R" or Receivership has finally been resolved/terminated and closed with FDIC being released.
https://www.fdic.gov/foia/files/washington_mutual_p_and_a.pdf
***PDF Page 20***
ARTICLE VII
BID; INITIAL PAYMENT
$1,888,000,000.00 for The Assuming Ban has submitted to the Receiver a positive bid of
Assets purchased and Liabilities Assumed hereunder (the "Bid Amount"). On the Payment Date, the Assuming Ban will pay to the Corporation, or the Corporation will pay to the Assuming Ban, as the case may be, the Initial Payment, together with interest on such amount (if the Payment Date is not the day following the day of Ban Closing) from and including the day following Ban Closing to and including the day preceding the Payment Date at the Settlement Interest Rate.
...
Solvency Certificate To Facilitate NSM Merger - NOTICE WORD-SMITHING TO OBFUSUCATE BILLIONS IN ASSET DISCLOSURE
NOW THINK HOW MANY MORE BILLIONS ARE LEGALLY HIDDEN
WaMu Holy Grail - Akim Gump Discuss Assets in Court
Restricted Subsidiaries PLUS Footnote 39 ALSO PROVES KOSTUROS IS A DST TRUSTEE
The Following Proves Legally Hidden Monies/Assets- BK Closure 12/21/2019 Then Cases Terminated 1/23/2020 As One Bucket of Potential Returns
1) I see distributions from (DSTs) Delaware Statutory Trusts where Kosturos is the God-like Trustee (see below) possibly routed through DTC/Clearstream then to your Broker as one of the potential buckets
We have been shown that a Delaware WMI DST opened in Amended POR 7 signed by the court on 2/23/2012. We also know that one cannot open a DST without assets/cash, so that is a concrete fact. There is no doubt in my view those investors who signed timely releases by March of the year 2012 will be Beneficial Recipients of a WMI DST or other DST since they own the former WaMU Estate.
As set forth in the Confirmation Order, the members of the Trust Advisory Board hereby designate William C. Kosturos in connection with the applicable provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.
Notice the highlighted pieces below in the confidential filing
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312518045989/d539539dex105.htm
CONFIDENTIAL ANNEX C-I
Form of Solvency Certificate
Reference is made to Credit Agreement, dated as of [•] (the “Credit Agreement”), among [•] (the “Borrower”), the lending institutions from time to time parties thereto (the “Lenders”), and [•], as Administrative Agent.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Agreement. This certificate is furnished pursuant to Section [•] of the Credit Agreement.
Solely in my capacity as a financial executive officer of WMIH and not individually (and without personal liability), I hereby certify, that as of the date hereof, after giving effect to the consummation of the transactions in connection with the Bridge Facility:
1. The sum of the liabilities (including contingent liabilities) of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, does not exceed the present fair saleable value of the present assets of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis.
2. The fair value of the property of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, is greater than the total amount of liabilities (including contingent liabilities) of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis.
3. The capital of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, is not unreasonably small in relation to their business as contemplated on the date hereof.
4. WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, have not incurred and do not intend to incur, or believe that they will incur, debts including current obligations beyond their ability to pay such debts as they become due (whether at maturity or otherwise).
For purposes of this Certificate, the amount of any contingent liability has been computed as the amount that, in light of all of the facts and circumstances existing as of the date hereof, represents the amount that would reasonably be expected to become an actual or matured liability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate as of the date first written above.
***The Infamous Footnote Number 39***
In light of Footnote 39:
"FINAL REPORT OF THE EXAMINER
JOSHUA R. HOCHBERG
Court Appointed Examiner
Footnote 39
Equity undertook a preliminary solvency analysis based on the limited information made available by the Debtors. Equity noted that a final analysis of solvency would require a detailed review of WMB?s loan portfolio, which is not available to Equity and was also not reviewed by the Debtors. The Examiner in this Report has an analysis of solvency, but he also did not conduct a review of the loan portfolio."
MORE THAN LIKELY, THE LOAN PORTFOLIO ASSETS ARE BK REMOTE, SAFE HARBOR PRIOTECTED
_______________________________________
Also One of My All-time Favorites – The WaMu “Holy Grail” – Your Honor, The Assets Will Still Be There – The EC Can Go After Them Later
2. Pages 70-72 of Transcript Link Below
We also have in there the part (b) of what is to be retained, and that is because in negotiations that we had with all of the settling parties, with the equity committee last week, with the FDIC, we did talk a great deal about the concept of the retained ASSETS.
Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to do much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them. They will still be there; they can be carried through. But I understand that the equity committee is very interested in having a neutral third party do an investigation of those retained assets.
...
This is very close to the infamous Smoking Gun we have been looking for all these years.
Thank you Newflow! So, combining into one post for clarity and easy reading. This is a VERY IMPORTANT find and thank you.
In other words, the book-entry records are the definitive source for determining the legal holders of the beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust. The person or entity recorded in that system as holding a particular Liquidating Trust Interest will be treated as the owner of record for that interest under all relevant U.S. federal and state laws governing such matters
Page 7 "EVIDENCED BY BOOK ENTRY"
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000090951812000099/mm03-1212_8ke101.htm
SO NO NEED OF ISSUING LTIs. IMO THOSE ENTRY SOURCES WERE BALLOTS AND W-9 SUBMITTED BY FORMER SHAREHOLDERS WHO SIGNED RELEASES.
For U.S. federal and state legal purposes, whoever is listed as the owner of a Liquidating Trust Interest in the electronic book-entry recordkeeping system maintained by the Liquidating Trust will be considered the official legal holder of that interest.
In other words, the book-entry records are the definitive source for determining the legal holders of the beneficial interests in the Liquidating Trust. The person or entity recorded in that system as holding a particular Liquidating Trust Interest will be treated as the owner of record for that interest under all relevant U.S. federal and state laws governing such matters
—————————————-
So, the difference is one set of investors received LTIs and one set of investors are in the Book-Entry system.
Now the big difference is those investors who received LTIs were those investors who were receiving monies in the active BK cases and those investors who WILL RECEIVE Beneficial Interests in the assets protected and in SAFE HARBOR so
1) Investors who received LTIs equal active bk cases
2) Investors who will receive monies outside of BK cases equal Safe Harbor/BK Remote BK-protected assets
...
Poster CBA09 on IHUB who was a subject matter expert and did this exact work of the FDIC when closing receivership told us in year 2017 THAT WE MAY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE WaMu Receivership is settled/resolved before we would see distributions.
Poster CBA09 suddenly disappeared after a few months of answering many detailed questions but left us with the following. EXCITING TIMES NOW ON THE HORIZON!!!
_________________________________________
Anyone Who Doubts Large Style Money Returning Needs To Read IHUB Post #490806
***Many thanks goes subject matter experienced poster CBA09s following posts***
Ref: So will they just magically make the Escrows worth something then?
Comment:
Shrewd professional investors here. Those initial & ensuing Hedge Funds did not invest and release on guess work. Rather a keen understanding of what assets and rights to assets that will prevail beyond the reaching powers of bankruptcy.
It seems many here are down to a glimmer of hope, from once having high hopes. I have been primarily silent. Why!?! No need to focus on the daily PPS. It is of no concern to me.
Do you believe these Hedge Funds & Institutional Investors are concerned with the the daily PPS? Of course not, they are inured to its daily movement and the postings on this Board.
Those who have their ticket punched, namely releases, take note that you are joined in the company of those in the know. Knowing the "Final Outcome."
Key here, I strongly contend, is outside the waterfall. So those assets shielded from the Trustee's reach as follows:
1) SPE / Trusts assets ( The parent is WMI )
2) Abandonment of Stock. ( As any future value goes to WMI and not included as an asset of the estate).
The following post by CBA09 (#490902) is also another great compelling, experienced view by a certified bank auditor such as him:
"Ref: Any idea as to timing? Are we looking at sometime before or after the end of 2018?
Comment:
I believe timing will be two fold:
1) That what happens within the finalization of receivership,
2) That what happens outside of the receivership, specific to Bankruptcy remote entities - SPE's. This, I strongly believe, is where the lion's share of recovery will come. Each SPE / Trust is governed by the expressed language of each PSA. There a many and most likely many have reached ripeness while others continue until to carry out payment compliance to investors / certificate holders.
These stand alone SPE's have many accounts that keep separate various types of revenue. I know from first hand experience the amount of retained assets within can be massive. Many Trusts have 6-7 tranches with 10's of Thousands of loans in each tranche.
When a given Trust's PSA has completed it's fulfillment to certificate holders a provision called "Accounts Removable" takes place. But before the actual removable is initiated a reconciliation of "Retained Assets" takes place. This is the vouching of reports to $ in the captive cash accounts along with any remaining over "Over Collateralized Pooled Receivables." Then a true-up, namely $ distribution is performed by the Master Servicer. Here, from my experience, the Holding Company (WMI) would be the receiver of these retained assets.
Now the question is when will this happen. Since this is outside of Bankruptcy it could have happened with each fulfillment of PSA. Then again it could be ( for completed "True-ups" ) in tandem with the finalization of Receivership. Then of course, as those that meet fulfillment a payout accordingly. "
**********SOLID POST FROM CBA09****************
Now To Me - The Following Tells The Entire Story Except When
GOOD REVIEW FROM CBA09***From a Certified Bank Auditor-Subject Matter Expert
CBA09
Sunday, 01/14/18 03:41:16 PM
Re: LuckyPanda post# 503177
0
Post # of 531409
Ref: CBA09, if safe harbor rules protect the assets to pre-bankruptcy ownership then its distribution should not apply to POR7. Does that mean escrow markers are moot? Will all Wamu shareholders receive a distribution including the non-releasing ones? Thanks in advance for your input. I have been wondering about this for some time.
Comment:
Liquidation of assets involves two distinct assets:
1) Property of the Bankruptcy Estate - (Por7 applies).
2) Non-Property of the Bankruptcy Estate - Safe Harbor Assets ( regular bankruptcy code procedures / priority apply).
While the above two are distinct in nature "ALL" residual interest will go to Escrow Markers. So, no, not moot. Escrow Markers are the legacy shareholders. Thereby, have final legal standing and in turn sole contractual rights / title in residual interest.
Ownership Chain -
WMI owns the assets of WMI and in turn has legal title to all the assets of it's subsidiaries. Shareholders of WMI have legal title to all the assets of WMI. All assets that end up in WMI thru it's subsidiaries are thereby assets that WMI shareholders have legal contractual rights.
Por7, thru its declarations, have addressed the distribution of liquidated Bankruptcy Estate Assets. All residual interest of estate assets will go to Escrow Markers per the 75 % / 25 % allocation.
Since our Safe Harbor Assets are outside the bankruptcy estate, those captured within SPE/Trusts will follow each respective Pooling & Service Agreement (PSA) provisions. Generally, it's Parent that receives cash flows of residuals. Note, SPE# 1 create the SPE# 2 /Trusts, SPE 1 are many times direct subsidiaries of the Parent. And, SPE # 1's have a great deal of involvement in the residual interest of SPE # 2 / Trusts.
In a solvent entity shareholders cannot force a distribution. A Corporation, thru it's board, has to declare a distribution of its profit before shareholders are to receive any distribution in the form of dividends.
PSA are compelling and indivisible - only one end stop - Escrow Markers.
The legal group Akin and Gump are discussing the scope of what the Examiner can examine and what he cannot examine. We also have in there the part (b) of what is to be retained, and that is because in negotiations that we had with all of the settling parties, with the equity committee last week, with the FDIC, we did talk a great deal about the concept of the retained assets.
Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to know much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them. They will still be there; they can be carried through. But I understand that the equity committee is very interested in having a neutral third party do an investigation of those retained assets.
***The following from Large Green***
***READ THESE WORDS CAREFULLY AND THINK REAL HARD ON WHAT THEY MEAN AT THIS STAGE***
*The Holy Grail*RETAINED ASSETS*YOUR HONOR*They Will Still Be There*
The legal group Akin and Gump are discussing the scope of what the Examiner can examine and what he cannot examine. We also have in there the part (b) of what is to be retained, and that is because in negotiations that we had with all of the settling parties, with the equity committee last week, with the FDIC, we did talk a great deal about the concept of the retained assets.
Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to know much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them. They will still be there; they can be carried through. But I understand that the equity committee is very interested in having a neutral third party do an investigation of those retained assets.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135773992
xxx
Effective with WMIH/COOP/WMILT 8K Filing on August 01, 2012 that shows us having preferred equity interests and common equity interests. Very easy to verify since I just gave you the date of the 8K filing
…
newflow, you ask the following.
_________________________________________
what did they mean by " SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS"?
_________________________________________
coming after something in time; following.
"the theory was developed subsequent to the earthquake of 1906
So to me in this particular case that involves 100s of billions in assets, asset distributions will follow at some point before or simultaneously to the release of the FDIC Receivership and/or the resolve of the Receivership
...
What up Fred. Tell us a story even though it is not midnight
Hey Fred when do distributions start? My guess before November like I said before.
…
Newflow, you said and ask the following. Thanks for the continued due diligence.
———————————————
Stakeholders were issued beneficial interests in the WMI Liquidating Trust in exchange for their unpaid claims against or equity
interests in the Debtors (“Liquidating Trust Interests” or “LTI’s”). The LTI’s are not transferable except by will, intestate succession, or
operation of law
-------------------------------------------
The following chart summarizes distributions to creditors and equity interest holders in both the Initial Distribution and as represented by the
transfer to the WMI Liquidating Trust
http://bankrupt.com/misc/washingtonmutual_febmor.pdf
--------------------------------------------
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
———————————————
Remember, why the PERPs tried so hard for a multitude of years to cancel and zero out equity in totality. This so they could be the very last in line AFTER the resolution and termination of the active bk cases out one year and more to avoid being contested successfully.
These were the handful of billionaires that would have owned 100% of the last in line assets that will show up after everything else is done.
Now guess what? Those of us who signed timely releases by 3/2012 will receive ALL SPOILS that were left and to be released on a timer when the time is right and we are very close to this timer allowing billions in assets to surface!
ALWAYS REMEMBER, SOME OF US ARE RIDING THE VERY COATTAILS OF THE BILLIONAIRES WHO FIXED THE TRANCHES TO BE THE LAST IN LINE TO SUCK IN BILLIONS IN SPOILS OR ASSETS!
…
Hey Fred, is this suit what you are looking for?
410408/27/2024MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: (657 in 1:11-cv-05450-NRB, 4103 in 1:11-md-02262-NRB) Letter requesting the Courts approval of attached letter agreement, filed by Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 8/27/24) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-md-02262-NRB, 1:11-cv-05450-NRB
…
HEY JAY BRAY – WHERE ARE THE DETAILS PROMISED FOR YEARS ON MONETIZING XOME AS WELL AS INFO PROMISED FOR (VIC) VERY IMPORTANT CUSTOMER?
1) COOP has been hiding the name of this VIC and should come clean ASAP as well as coming clean with the monetization of XOME which I believe all may be connected
2) Similar to number one, why has COOP CEO Bray spoken many times about monetizing XOME but nothing happened in the last year or two...Bray just minimally discussed monetization of XOME but previous to this discussed heavily
3) COOP has been constantly undervalued since its inception and I believe for good reason which of course involves the Big Money Players
4) I believe this VIC will be divulged very soon which may involve those investors who signed timely releases and now own the former WaMu Estate
5) I believe a DST will play a vital role as those investors who signed timely releases by 3/2012 will be BENEFICIAL RECIPIENTS of a DST which may control the ownership of XOME and maybe our VIC
6) There are always some who see what is going to happen before it is publicly announced so these investors may sense dilution which could happen BUT these investors do NOT understand the value COOP may receive in exchange for potential preferred and common shares issuance for ownership of assets
7) I see a potential COOP 8K FILING that MAY answer many questions including potential distribution to those investors who signed timely releases by March of the year 2012
...
Oberthal, yes, BBANBOB is exactly correct in that AZC has consistently changed his agenda on the most part what we have discussed years ago and currently.
Especially on issuing shares to pay for what those investors who signed timely releases own and that is the former WaMu Estate effective on the ED of 3/19/2012.
…
Ron, there are no PORs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and of course no POR 6 as these are ALL canceled by the court as was all preferred and common prospectuses as well as all associated documents on the ED of 3/19/2012
Now we reach Amended POR 7 that was approved by the court on 2/23/2012 and yes, some but no all of previous PORs may have been included in POR but legally you are absolutely wrong speaking about POR 6 which was denied by the court.
…
EXACTLY!
DO NOT OBFUSUCATE WMILT & A DST AS HAS BEEN DONE FOR YEARS - UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE & YOU WILL UNDERSTAND TIMELY SIGNED RELEASORS OWN THE FORMER ESTATE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE (OC) OWNERSHIP CHANGE ON 3/19/2012 SIGNED BY THE COURT AS PART OF AMENDED POR 7 WHETHER SAFE HARBOR PROTECTED OR NOT
1) WMILT opened by court order on 3/19/2012 - FINISHED OVER/DONE DISTRIBUTIONS ACCOMPLISHED
2) Delaware Statutory Trust (DST) Opened as part of Amended POR 7 Signed by the court on 2/23/2012 - ONGOING WITH BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS TO START AT SOME POINT RELATIVELY SOON in my view
As outlined in the Confirmation Order, the members of the Trust Advisory Board hereby designate William C. Kosturos in connection with the applicable provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.
3) The details we are looking for unfortunately lie in some of the over 800 sealed/redacted documents that will never see the light of day
___________________________________________
GEMINI:
Regarding the WaMu bankruptcy filings on 9/26/2008, what is the difference between (WMILT) Washington Mutual Liquidating Trust and a (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust which was opened, and the WMILT?
The Washington Mutual bankruptcy filings on 9/26/2008 involved two types of trusts:
Washington Mutual Liquidating Trust (WMILT): This trust was established to manage and liquidate the assets of Washington Mutual Bank. It was created to wind down the bank's operations and distribute the proceeds to creditors and other stakeholders according to the bankruptcy court's orders.
Delaware Statutory Trust (DST): This type of trust is a legal entity that holds specific assets and distributes income to investors. In the context of the WaMu bankruptcy, it is likely that one or more DSTs were created to hold certain assets of Washington Mutual Bank, such as mortgage-backed securities or other investments. A trustee would have managed these DSTs and would have had their own terms and conditions.
The key difference between the WMILT and the DSTs lies in their purpose and scope:
WMILT: Responsible for liquidating the entire bank and distributing proceeds to all stakeholders.
DSTs: Hold specific assets and distribute income to investors in those assets.
The DSTs may have been created as part of the bankruptcy process to facilitate the sale or disposition of certain assets or to provide a way for investors to participate in the recovery of value from those assets. The exact nature and terms of the DSTs would depend on the specific circumstances of their creation.
It is important to note that the information provided here is based on general understanding of bankruptcy procedures and trust structures. The specific details of the WMILT and any associated DSTs would be outlined in the bankruptcy court filings and related documents.
...
FDIC TRULY states HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in WaMu Assets - Yes, HUNDREDS of BILLIONS
https://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/cfo_report_3rdqtr_15/0915_cfo_report.pdf
***Bottom of page 7***
'Excludes WAMU with total assets of $299 billion and zero estimated losses to the DIF'
AZC, you letting Ron know he is wrong over the year 2012 MOR is kind of like YOU ignoring 8K filings discussing the distribution process as well as neglecting the court-signed filings (Amended POR 7 signed on 2/23/2012), (ED) Effective Date signed on 3/19/2012 via 8K and PRs advising those investors who signed timely releases by early March of the year 2012 then another 8K filing on 8/1/2012 clarifying message board chatter misinformation as discussed by poster, BBNANBOB,
Further, on the ED of 3/19/2012, those investors who signed timely releases NOW OWN the former the WaMu Estate whether that was considered in the active BK cases now officially closed and terminated on 1/23/2020 or SAFE HARBOR PROTECTED BK ASSETS which FDIC releases have not been released formalized yet due to the FDIC controlled WaMu Receivership still not resolved.
Further, 8K filings and PRs advised all former associated WaMu documents concerning the common and preferred (WAMUQ, WAMKQ, WAMPQ) prospectuses have been canceled on the ED of 3/192012 otherwise, there would be dual ownership for securities and this will never happen in Delaware.
Also, DO NOT FORGET that a DELAWARE DST will play a vital role in our eventual distributions as shown in AMENDED POR 7. One CANNOT open a Delaware DST without assets!
...
Solvency Certificate To Facilitate NSM Merger - NOTICE WORD-SMITHING TO OBFUSUCATE BILLIONS IN ASSET DISCLOSURE
NOW THINK HOW MANY MORE BILLIONS ARE LEGALLY HIDDEN
WaMu Holy Grail - Akim Gump Discuss Assets in Court
Restricted Subsidiaries PLUS Footnote 39 ALSO PROVES KOSTUROS IS A DST TRUSTEE
The Following Proves Legally Hidden Monies/Assets- BK Closure 12/21/2019 Then Cases Terminated 1/23/2020 As One Bucket of Potential Returns
1) I see distributions from (DSTs) Delaware Statutory Trusts where Kosturos is the God-like Trustee (see below) possibly routed through DTC/Clearstream then to your Broker as one of the potential buckets
We have been shown that a Delaware WMI DST opened in Amended POR 7 signed by the court on 2/23/2012. We also know that one cannot open a DST without assets/cash, so that is a concrete fact. There is no doubt in my view those investors who signed timely releases by March of the year 2012 will be Beneficial Recipients of a WMI DST or other DST since they own the former WaMU Estate.
As set forth in the Confirmation Order, the members of the Trust Advisory Board hereby designate William C. Kosturos in connection with the applicable provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.
Notice the highlighted pieces below in the confidential filing
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000119312518045989/d539539dex105.htm
CONFIDENTIAL ANNEX C-I
Form of Solvency Certificate
Reference is made to Credit Agreement, dated as of [•] (the “Credit Agreement”), among [•] (the “Borrower”), the lending institutions from time to time parties thereto (the “Lenders”), and [•], as Administrative Agent.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Agreement. This certificate is furnished pursuant to Section [•] of the Credit Agreement.
Solely in my capacity as a financial executive officer of WMIH and not individually (and without personal liability), I hereby certify, that as of the date hereof, after giving effect to the consummation of the transactions in connection with the Bridge Facility:
1. The sum of the liabilities (including contingent liabilities) of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, does not exceed the present fair saleable value of the present assets of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis.
2. The fair value of the property of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, is greater than the total amount of liabilities (including contingent liabilities) of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis.
3. The capital of WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, is not unreasonably small in relation to their business as contemplated on the date hereof.
4. WMIH and its restricted subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, have not incurred and do not intend to incur, or believe that they will incur, debts including current obligations beyond their ability to pay such debts as they become due (whether at maturity or otherwise).
For purposes of this Certificate, the amount of any contingent liability has been computed as the amount that, in light of all of the facts and circumstances existing as of the date hereof, represents the amount that would reasonably be expected to become an actual or matured liability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate as of the date first written above.
***The Infamous Footnote Number 39***
In light of Footnote 39:
"FINAL REPORT OF THE EXAMINER
JOSHUA R. HOCHBERG
Court Appointed Examiner
Footnote 39
Equity undertook a preliminary solvency analysis based on the limited information made available by the Debtors. Equity noted that a final analysis of solvency would require a detailed review of WMB?s loan portfolio, which is not available to Equity and was also not reviewed by the Debtors. The Examiner in this Report has an analysis of solvency, but he also did not conduct a review of the loan portfolio."
MORE THAN LIKELY, THE LOAN PORTFOLIO ASSETS ARE BK REMOTE, SAFE HARBOR PROTECTED
_______________________________________
Also One of My All-time Favorites – The WaMu “Holy Grail” – Your Honor, The Assets Will Still Be There – The EC Can Go After Them Later
2. Pages 70-72 of Transcript
We also have in there the part (b) of what is to be retained, and that is because in negotiations that we had with all of the settling parties, with the equity committee last week, with the FDIC, we did talk a great deal about the concept of the retained ASSETS.
Now, it's my position, Your Honor, that the examiner doesn't need to do much with the retained assets other than say the assets are retained and therefore the liquidating trust can go ahead and pursue them. They will still be there; they can be carried through. But I understand that the equity committee is very interested in having a neutral third party do an investigation of those retained assets.
...
Yes, agree monies coming between nine and eleven
I think all must be done before the scheduled election which will be delayed by two to three months due to blackouts, rioting throughout the US and other attacks
We will go to one day voting, water-marked ballots assisted by the Military and National Guard with voter ID due machines that will be and are compromised
The winner is obvious who will have at least 200M votes
…
I say we see monies no later than 10/31/2024 or before
Hey Fred, did you just have a wet dream and awakened in a frenzy?
…
COOP Shareowners Should File Suit Against CEO Bray & COOP
In order to get to the bottom of obfuscation, non-truths or facts of the following
1) Shareowners told XOME would be monetized for years and how it is worth between 700M and 2B
2) Shareowners told about (VIP) Very Important Client bringing 65B to the company however nothing but crickets since the multitude of discussions saying this would happen
I believe the aforementioned assets are the beneficial assets owned by those investors who signed timely releases by March of year 2012 that may be tied up in a DST
We may be able to get some clarity on our distributions if nothing more
..,
WHY DO MANY IGNORE THE (DST) DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST FACTS
____________________________________
set forth in the Confirmation Order, the members of the Trust Advisory Board hereby designate William C. Kosturos in connection with the applicable provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.
____________________________________
I have been posting (many ignore facts) that WMI became a WMI (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust which is reflected in Amended POR 7 signed by the court on 2/23/2012 which became effective on the (ED) Effective Date of March 19, 2012. Also, there was an (OC) Ownership Change on 3/19/2012, and those investors who signed timely releases by March 2012 own the former WaMu Estate. Of course, on 3/19/2012, all of the former preferred and common prospectuses were canceled along with ALL associated documents.
FROM GEMINI:
Did WMI become a WMI Delaware Statutory Trust after bankruptcy reorganization post 3/19/2012?
Yes, Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) did become a WMI Delaware Statutory Trust after its bankruptcy reorganization post 3/19/2012.
Here's a brief timeline of events:
September 25, 2008: Washington Mutual Bank (WM Bank), a subsidiary of WMI, was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
October 3, 2008: JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired WM Bank's assets and assumed its deposits.
September 26, 2008: WMI filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
March 19, 2012: WMI emerged from bankruptcy reorganization as a Delaware Statutory Trust.
As a Delaware Statutory Trust, WMI is a legal entity that holds assets for the benefit of its beneficiaries, who in this case are the former shareholders of WMI.
The Trust's primary purpose is to manage and distribute the proceeds from the sale of WM Bank's assets.
...
AZC, I have been posting (you ignore) that WMI became a WMI (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust which is reflected in Amended POR 7 signed by the court on 2/23/2012 which became effective on the (ED) Effective Date of March 19, 2012. Also, there was an (OC) Ownership Change on 3/19/2012, and those investors who signed timely releases by March 2012 own the former WaMu Estate. Of course, on 3/19/2012, all of the former preferred and common prospectuses were canceled along with ALL associated documents.
FROM GEMINI:
Did WMI become a WMI Delaware Statutory Trust after bankruptcy reorganization post 3/19/2012?
Yes, Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) did become a WMI Delaware Statutory Trust after its bankruptcy reorganization post 3/19/2012.
Here's a brief timeline of events:
September 25, 2008: Washington Mutual Bank (WM Bank), a subsidiary of WMI, was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
October 3, 2008: JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired WM Bank's assets and assumed its deposits.
November 20, 2008: WMI filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
March 19, 2012: WMI emerged from bankruptcy reorganization as a Delaware Statutory Trust.
As a Delaware Statutory Trust, WMI is a legal entity that holds assets for the benefit of its beneficiaries, who in this case are the former shareholders of WMI.
The Trust's primary purpose is to manage and distribute the proceeds from the sale of WM Bank's assets.
...
The WaMu P & A With the FDIC PLUS 299B WaMu Assets
https://www.fdic.gov/system/files/2024-07/washington_mutual_p_and_a.pdf
FDIC TRULY states HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in WaMu Assets - Yes, HUNDREDS of BILLIONS
https://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/cfo_report_3rdqtr_15/0915_cfo_report.pdf
***Bottom of page 7***
'Excludes WAMU with total assets of $299 billion and zero estimated losses to the DIF'
...
You are correct, otherwise, due to the (OC) Ownership Change on 3/19/2012 there would be dual ownership of the same asset classes and this would include the active bk cases now officially closed and Safe Harbor protected assets in my view.
...