Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thank you very much for the help. I will do as advised. Btw I already contacted the SIPC to report the issues.
Thanks for the input. Would you know how I can ask the clearing house to retrieve them from Schawb.
According to Schwab my 500,00 common cusips, 200 preferred cusips and 500 k cusips were liquidated by order of my former employer plan administrator and are now in what they call "junk account" and they have no way to reverse the removal from that account to an IRA.
Do you know of any security attorney that can assist me with this issue. Thank you.
I have a situation with my escrow shares which have been at Charles Schwab since they were issued in a PCRA retirement 401(k) account.
The retirement plan administrator decided to transfer the 401(k) plan of the company to Fidelity and all my escrow shares are gone. According to Fidelity they had no value and will not be transferred to Fidelity.
Has anyone encountered a similar situation and what to do to make sure I will be paid when a distribution eventually occur since my escrow shares are no longer with a brokerage firm?
Thank you in advance for any information.
Brilliant! Thank you for putting it in a way so that I can finally understand this process.
Just for the sake of truth, that Jay’s narration of the hearing.
In regards to your interpretation, that is not how I read it since there are more aspects of the event than I can factor in a message board narrative such as body language and voice tone.
The judge himself was not sure of the impact of this case to former WAMU shareholders like me, that being the reason why he asked someone for help with my question.
DB’s attorney, Robin Henry, turning towards me, stated that “that she was not aware of any assets available to return to WAMU shareholders” so then, became clear to me that she was not making distinction between WMB assets in the FDIC receivership and assets of WMI the holding company and, I believe that was the reason why she mention that I “should consult with the FDIC”. At that point I decided not to pursue with my questions and asked the judge permission to get back to my seat.
My feeling about the statements from Robin Henry, that she was not making distinction between the bank and the holding company, was confirmed when, as we headed to the parking lot, I approached the DB attorney who sat to the right (he did not talk during the hearing) with the same question and he told me “I am not familiar with the WAMU case”.
I have answered the first part of your question regarding the repeatedly mention of mom and pop investor by the judge.
Since I had to head back to the office after the hearing, I did not have the time to summarize my own narrative of what happened in the courtroom. Meanwhile I have asked WMIHSafe website on Facebook to publish the narration of Jay, the other shareholder present yesterday who introduced himself to me and with whom I the chance to briefly chat afterwards.
It contains all that I intended to ask the court permission to report on this board. Enjoy the reading and any questions regarding his dissertation please direct to the WMIHSafe page on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------
Recap from Jaysenese about yesterday hearing
OK, I'm home, so let me see if I can provide a little 'nuance'.
1. As I mentioned earlier, all the attorneys were there early (before 8:45). Almost all of the attorneys were there by themselves, sat quietly, and talked to no one the entire time.
2. To summarize what the judge is asking for: He understands that notices were sent to DTC, but he has no evidence that DTC forwarded the notices to banks or brokerages, or that those people forwarded them to the beneficial owners. The blonde attorney did a kind-of poor job of explaining why she had nothing further to offer. She said she thinks of DTC as 'Federal Express' in that you give them something and expect them to deliver it - you do not follow up the next day to be sure that FedEx actually delivered it. The judge said he doesn't need notifications from "200" banks that they received information or forwarded it to beneficiaries, but he wants confirmation that DTC sent the information to the banks.
3. At the beginning remarks, and again at the end, the blonde attorney said that they would remove the language in the settlement agreement involving releases. That seemed to appease the judge. (I guess, in theory, a beneficiary could envision suing if he wasn't happy with what he got, although we all knew how that would turn out.)
4. The other Deutsch Bank cases (not WAMU) also required a response about whether or not the pro rata distribution they had laid out was correct. Apparently someone had written a letter to the court to complain. That person was actually on the phone into the court, and he withdrew his objection, so that was over quickly.
5. I gotta tell you, I think it was a good thing that Fernandes and myself were there. The judge seemed happy to see 'beneficiaries' in the room, and he made it a point to ask us if we wanted to speak, and to hear what we had to say. As I said earlier, I thought that Fernandes made his appearance a little too personal (he talked about losing money in his 401K, etc), and the judge made a point of correcting him and making sure he understood that the rulings today did not have a direct impact on former WAMU shareholders. Fernandes said something about wanting to know what the assets involved were, and the judge made a point of stopping him and then saying something like "That's a good question. Can you answer him?" to the Boies attorneys. That's when Robin Henry from Boies said he would have to talk to the FDIC, but that she was not aware of any assets available to return to WAMU shareholders.
As for me, when I spoke and said I saw the initial information on the DB case on the FDIC website for the WAMU Receivership, the blonde attorney was staring at me and nodding and smiling. I guess that was the right thing to say. The judge asked me how, though, did I know about THIS particular hearing today, and had that information been posted onto the FDIC website as well. I told him I kept up with message boards like Fernandes does, and that I did not know if the FDIC website had information on the hearing.
The attorney for PIMCO said that they had received the notification from DTC about the hearing. The judge asked if PIMCO had forwarded that information to their individual customers. I believe the attorney said that they did not, that they didn't have to.
6. The biggest positive for me was when the judge mentioned "hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries" (that's a direct quote). To my mind, if he was just rambling then there would have been some surprised reaction from the attorneys, like looking at one another and wondering what he was talking about. But no one reacted at all, they just looked straight ahead and took notes or listened quietly.
7. I get the feeling that there's a big secret that everyone in the room, including the judge, was in on, other than myself and Fernandes.
Again yes, he said "mom and pop shareholders" and I would not read too much into the "mom and pop shareholders" statement as a disclosure by the court that escrow markers are getting payment. I interpreted his language as a concern that the ultimate beneficiaries of those trusts, whomever they might be, get notified.
That is correct, his own words stated repeatedly. The same argument, his expressed concern regarding the DTC notification to mom and pop shareholders discussed with DB attorneys, was again asked by the judge to the attorneys of BlackRock and PIMCO. The judge also asked the BlackRock and PIMCO attorneys from where they learn about the hearing and one of them said from DTC website.
Not quite, I am just leaving the hearing and the judge in fairness and concern for the mom and pop investor wants from DB proof DTC notification that the holders of interest of those trust have been properly notified.
That and another issue related to series B security held his ruling continued to July 27th.
He gave me the chance to speak and I did so, will report on the details of my statements and opinion of the DB attorney after consulting with court if those can be made public.
Seating waiting for the start.
That is correct. It is 5:53am in California and I am getting ready to head to Santa Ana, a 30 min drive, to attend the hearing. There will be other shareholders present and we will keep the board posted.
Have a great day everyone.
Yes, I will attend the hearing. I have requested time off a couple of weeks ago and hopefully will be the first to report a life changing event to the board.
Have a good day everyone.
Thank you for the information. I will be there and will report all available information of the hearing to the board.
Just confirmed with the court, the hearing for the case number 30-2016-00892014 is open to the public.
Taking time off to attend on June 16th 2017 and will keep the board informed.
Again, as affirmed before, I am local and willing to be present on June 16th 2017 if public is allowed to the hearing. I will call the court to find out and will inform the board.
I am an investor (WMIH and escrow) and follower of the message board.
I live in LA and work in Orange County (just off the 405) close to Irvine, please send me address of the court and I will try to be present (no compensation needed) on June 16th and report back to the message board.