sidedraft So sorry.

I just spent hours reading that file. Total gibberish to me.

Except for the 3% rejects, I can't pin any Numerator or Denominator for DIMEQ.

Also, mysterious dates in columns on last pages. I can't even read the date.

Hi Sidedraft,

I believe you posted same last month. At first I was excited that only 3% of DIMEQ holders failed to tender. However, upon re-reading the draft I discovered that, when the tenders were counted, 3% of tendered DIMEQs examined for submission, were disqualified for technical reasons (unsigned, wrong named filer, etc.).

This, unfortunately, is of no use in trying to determine percentage of total DIMEQs tendered in relation to the amount outstanding. Though, it turns out, those 3% who were rejected may now qualify for a windfall.

Naturally, if someone has a different take on this it would be helpful to the board.

In general, anyone out there who has a question, mis-understanding, a different point of view, or any input to our Board's content that may help all of us better comprehend the issues at hand should feel free to contribute.

If only 10% of DIMEQs are outstanding, than it's a holiday for us. For me, it will be a wish come true. I dare not bank on it until proven. Good luck to all who persevered.

Of course,you realize, if true, that you can multiply your DIMEQ holdings by $38.60!!!!!!!!!WOW!

Hi ds style1,

I believe that I did a rough calculation last week.

I took the $538M number thrown out by JPM and subtracted $38 as legal costs to Jones Day, who ably ushered this case for twenty years.

I then allocated 15% to JPM, as a successor in this responsibility to WAMU, for marshaling this thru the Courts .

$538M-$38M=$500
$500Mx15%= $75M. Than $500M-$75M=$425M

So, the net is ~$425 Million. This is guesstimate of what is on the table

Now, there were 112,900,000 DIMEQs, and, we don't know how many were cancelled with the exchange offer.

If none were exchanged, than each DIMEQ is worth $3.76.

We know that many were indeed tendered. How many?

If 40% tendered than each DIMEQ= $6.27

If 50% tendered than each DIMEQ = $7.50

If 80% (dream on) tendered than DIMEQ= $18.90

We won't know until JPM and WMIH release the numbers (let's hope they are audited numbers).

I hope this answers you inquiry.

PS. Other may have calculations that differ and are welcome to demonstrate their conclusions. I am guessing here.For best results, do your own DD.

Ray, All DIMEQ shares were "cancelled" per instructions from "above" JPM or Walrath.

As soon as the Award is released by the FDIC the securities will have to be relisted into your account. Don't worry, there will be a new symbol and all your DIMEQs will be transferred to that symbol. Just in case, though, you should keep the date from 2012 on hand to double check on your broker. Even if there will be lawsuits by JPM or others, your DIMEQs will be returned to you. It is now a security with value and cannot be confiscated from you without due process.

I also, have been busy trying to calculate the net Award to be distributed after FDIC pays up.

I am troubled with the JPM tax calculation.

There are two distinct tax items applicable to the Award.

Firslty: Judge Block's order to ADD a "Tax Gross-up" to the $419M awarded by him. JPM bases their calculation on the value of the DIMEQs at BK???!!! What does this have to do with anything the Judge ordered? Their numbers were never explained and were picked up from the sky.

My understanding was that Anchor booked certain profits on the FDIC induced merger and paid income taxes on such. The Judge wants that tax returned to the Award. JPM should have gone to the Anchor 1995 return and calculated from there.

Secondly; There is an understanding that JPM will reduce the net Award by its tax liability. I have never seen such calculations in other trials. The Award, is damages that Anchor suffered and taxes are usually paid by the ultimate recipient. But...lets say it's different here since JPM is collecting the Award. Problem, JPM has never paid a 37.5% tax rate on its income. The closest was 9.8% or so before the 2008 debacle, and nil since then.

My Opinion.
In the settlement agreement with Judge Walrath, JPM was very anxious that it not be sued for the farce that was perpetrated on the LTWs during the BK. Therefore, in the releases that had to be signed, those tendering their DIMEQ shares were sworn to permanently relinquish their claims and not hod JPM legally responsible for the acts that were committed in trial - the so called EXCULPATION CLAUSE - which forever protects JPM and WMHI from being sued on this issue. Consideration was paid ($.03) which makes it binding in law.

Harsh that it may sound, I personally believe that the sign-off is irreversible and is legal.

Some may want yo sue on the grounds of false conveyance and deliberate misinformation.

We don't have an exact information of how many DIMEQs were tendered. I NEVER entertained submitting to such draconian and cruel intimidation, and stubbornly held on to all my DIMEQs, even though there was better than a 50/50 chance that by not capitulating all was lost.

Agreed!

The case has been in Court for 20 years. Longest case was 25 years. So we'll wait.

Seriously, I'm betting end of 2015. Unless...derivative suits by/for JPM, by/for exchanged ltws, by/for WMIH etc..etc..etc 20 more years.

Additional thoughts to my earlier post.

As we recall, the thrust of the WMHI BK/LTW case was the false,yet upheld, claim that the LTWs were debt holders of WMHI. Under this guise, the Court permitted Arthur Steinberg to negotiate the above mentioned exchange. Since the purpose was, ostensibly, to extinguish a purported debt claim against Washington Mutual Holding Inc., Newco, could not register the tendered LTWs as acquired assets (i.e. claims against the FDIC), as this would not fit into the Court's conclusion. Therefore, I believe that WMIH (I inadvertently misspelled it on the earlier post) cannot possibly claim that it holds any LTW claims to the Award.

Interesting to see their side of the story.

I've been pondering the issue of whether the tendered LTWs were transferred to WMHI, and are still extent, or were they cancelled.
At the end of POS7, the LTW holders were given an option to exchange their LTWs for shares of newco renamed "WMHI". The exchange involved an exculpation clause and an agreement for finality of exchange.The exchange rate was 1 WMHI for 8.4 LTWs.
At the issue date WMHI was worth $.25, which was equivalent of $.03 for each LTW. WMHI today is worth $2.76, which means that each LTW tendered is worth eleven times the 2012 valuation. A most excellent return by any measure. It is equivalent to $.33 on the original LTW.

However, nowhere in the exchange agreement was a stipulation that WMHI would retain these LTW in its treasury for redemption upon a positive Court ruling in US Claim Court (Judge Block). Nor, have I seen this item listed in WMHI's Balance Sheet as Receivables. This may cloud any claim that WMHI may have on the pending proceeds from the FDIC. Neither, can JPM claim the proceeds as their due is fixed at 15% of the Award.

Since the tendered LTW were extinguished, it appears that those still holding them are the only true claimants to the net proceeds.

I am sure that another lawsuit is about to commence.

Disclaimer: This speculation is my own opinion and not legal advice.

Hi everyone. Thanx again to Sidedraft for downloading this stuff.

We are are approaching a pivotal point in the settlement process.
We all remember Judge Walrath citing the right of LTWs to sue JPM at the trigger point, i.e.,when the FDIC payment is made.

I would hope that JPM would do the right thing and simply distribute 85% of the net proceeds to the LTWs. We have to wait on this as FDIC has interjected a 30 day delay.

Anyway, looks like we are splitting hairs here on "tax adjustment"
numbers. The decision for plaintiffs (us) is in. The final number around $500M (Net of legal). 85%=$425M

Those who turned in their LTWs may be just bystanders here. Or..litigants due to fraudulent mis-information at trial.

Those who held on, might get to split the $425M.

So far, so good. Now, does WMHI claim that the cancelled LTWs are its property? If so, we divide by 113M LTWs outstanding.
which will equal about $3.75 per LTW.

But, what if the LTWs redeemed for WMHI stock were cancelled, than, the remaining LTW Holders get to split the Award.

The rumors are that 60% of LTWs redeemed after the POS7 leaving 45m LTWs or ~$10.00 per LTW.

DISCLAIMER: This is my best guess at this point and is pure speculation on my part. Use your own DD to determine your status.

Thanks.Finally,someone to tell it like it was.

Agreed, Barefoot. Also, the tendered shares have done very well here at WMIH. The original trade-in give each DIMEQ traded, a fivefold return since 2012. Exceptional by any standard!

Now, too, they could argue, that they were duped into forfeiting their DIMEQ shares since the 7th Amended POS was an outright sham.
BK DEL had no business trying the legitimacy of the LTW in relation to WHI since it was know to the parties ,during the trial, that JPM already owned the rights that WAMU had prior to BK.

Iown both WMHI and DIMEQ, and Escrow. Just been at sideline for the past 5 years. I find this Boards format very tedious to maneuver about. Also, the front page should indicate who is responding to whom. Instead we have to navigate up/down to discover relevancy.

Pop, you are right - up to a point. JPM was the point man for the litigation against the FDIC FOR THE BENEFIT OF DIME SHAREHOLDERS (now DIMEQ). NEVER, NEVER ,NEVER, were they to get more than 15% of Award. Judge Block didn't have to specify this time because there was never a dispute about who is the ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES - The DIMEQ.

The basic understanding for the LITIGATION was, that it needed a shepherd to guide it through the maze of Courts. Dime was first, than WAMU and now JPM. Neither DIME nor WAMU demanded that they be the sole recipients. They specifically stipulated a 15% fee for the service. End of debate.

Jones Day were the Attorneys right from the start to the end. Perhaps they should be speaking up for the beneficiaries.

Danny, as a DIMEQ holder (1999), I say it goes to LTW holders (DIMEQ).

JPM may have a different agenda. It may argue that Walrath has effectively snuffed out the LTW thru BK. Therefore, all the proceeds go to JPM

WMIH may argue that 54 million DIMEQs were tendered to it in exchage for WMIH shares and, therefore, IT is the successor to the former rights of DIMEQ.

AS per Anchor ruling, 15% of gross go to JPM (successor to WAMU Bank). The Law firm of JONES DAY gets $30+/- for ushering this beast since 1995. The net 85% goes to whoever inherited the Anchor Award rights. By all rights it belongs to the remaining DIMEQ holders who never acceded to Walrath's dictum and kept their rights according to the 7th Amended POS.

It was an OPTION that some took advantage of. If one OPTED OUT they retained ownership of the LTWs.

I think you are jumping the gun.

The case before Judge Block was a continuation of the the original ANCHOR LITIGATION a/k Anchor vs. FDIC, brought in 1995, when, the FDIC coerced Anchor Savings Bank to merge with a another failing institution. At the time, Anchor was reluctant to purchase that institution because the costs incurred would adversely affect Anchor's Balance Sheet, causing it to miss the Capital Ratios that FDIC required of all banks. The FDIC then GUARANTEED that it would accept "Goodwill" (a poor asset category) to bolster the ratio and protect Anchor from failing. But, shortly thereafter,Congress passed the FIRRHA (sic) Act, which prohibited banks from cooking their books with questionable Assets such as "Goodwill". Anchor was broken and was quickly sold to Dime Savings Bank precisely because it had once accepted the FDIC guarantee. It sued the FDIC for forcing the it to merge with the failing bank. This same scenario happened to 41 other banks throughout the Country. Collectively called the WINDSOR cases, all but this one were settled to the full satisfaction of the STOCKHOLDERS.

Lawyer for the FDIC were particularly harsh with the DIME takeover and stubbornly refused to settle. Judge Block had the case. In early 2008, (Dime was sold to WAMU) he gave a resounding decision in favor of Anchor/DIME (which by that time had transferred the Litigation directly to the Shareholders thru the DIME LTW spin-off). Although called the "Anchor Litigation" , it really belonged to DIMEQ holders.

The FDIC appealed that decision, and in July the Appellate Court ruled for Dime. Judge Block then requested that the parties settle additional money issues, and, while waiting for this to happen, WAMU failed.

The FDIC then claimed that the Anchor case was moot by force of the Bankruptcy that was conducted in DE.

The current decision states that the FDIC is wrong. Luckily for LTW owners, it surfaces that BK did not extinguish their claim, because the FDIC itself was instrumental in passing the Anchor Litigation (intact) to JPM HOURS BEFORE the Bankruptcy of WAMU.


The next step, after June 19th, is when the FDIC pays the Settlement to JPM. It is likely that JPM will claim that the LTWs were obliterated by DEL BK case. I STRONGLY DISAGREE! Stay tuned

BlueeFoxx, I failed to mention how grateful I am for your excellent ability to locate and link the original source material. I am sure everyone on this Board is indebted to you for you excellent documentation. Thanks.

Hi MasterBlastr, you are correct. If one has not closed his/her account after 8/21/2012, they can easily recover their DIMEQ position as at write-off date.

If you are on-line go to "statements" look for the year "2012". If not delineated by month, enter "custom". Enter "08/01/2012 to 08/31/2012". You should be able to see you position just prior to nullification.

Alternatively, go to "history" enter specific date 8/1/12-8/31/12 and you will see the exact date of elimination.

failing the above, call your broker.

Blue, quoting from your excerpt of Judge Walrath's decision
" and, provided, further, that the LTW Holders shall be entitled to any and all distributions pursuant to the Seventh Amended Plan
relating to the Allowed LTW Claims; and, provided, further, that the foregoing release shall not preclude
the LTW Holders from participating in any settlement recoveries payable by third parties (other than the
claims and causes of action in the Dime Warrants Action being settled hereunder) to equity security
holders of WMI. "

She clearly did not preclude LTWs from seeking damages from third parties -i.e the notorious FDIC.

Remember, at the BK trial, one of the objections raised by the defendant, WMI, was that the LTWs were not entitled to recoveries because the "TRIGGER" mechanism - that is - the receipt of settlement monies from FDIC has not activated their (the LTWs) participation in any proceeds from the BK estate of WMI. Until JPM receives the adjudicated proceeds from FDIC, the LTWs are not in play. Those who tendered under the 7th Amended POS, surrendered their rights to WMHI. One had the option of opting out of the settlement. Does WMHI now hold those DIMEQ in treasury? Did WMHI upon reorganization cancelled those Warrants?
I can not determine at this time.

Dr rugby, thanks for the quote. I consider myself pretty well acquainted with the English language. Yet, although, I carefully read Judge Block's decision, I must confess, it eludes my comprehension.
Yes, I get the point that the Anchor litigation survived the BK intact thru the prior transfer to JPM by the FDIC. But, this is where I lose the good Judge; if, as he decided, the Anchor Litigation survived the 2008 turmoil
intact, (he earlier referred to it as one of the Windsor cases), then, surely the LTWs play an important role in splitting the Award monies with JPM. Yet, the LTWs are never mentioned in his decision.
Even in Mary Walrath's final decree, (quoted on elsewhere on this Board),she acknowledges that, the "release" that she refers to, applies only to those electing to exchange their DIMEQ shares for WMHI stock (at a ratio of 8.4 DIMEQ for each WMHI). She was very clear to add that those NOT TENDERING their DIMEQ are free to seek equity from JPM. I understood even then, that JPM would not give up without a trial.
Let us all remember that Walrath's Court allowed the LTWs to be the subject of WMI's BK trial, even though, she very well knew that, at the time, JPM owned the Anchor Litigation outright, and that she therefore was holding a completely SHAM Court. She had no jurisdiction in dispensing with the rights of the LTWs. They were/are NOT assets belonging to the WAMU/WMI Estate.

Steinberg was the DIMEQ Attorney at WMI BK

Hi cubs, It's been a while.

There is great trepidation that JPM will squash us like they did in DE. As far as I can determine, Judge Block was very clear that FDIC passed rights to LTW directly to JPM prior to BK. That was the point of the trial. JPM was suing FDIC on behalf of the LTWs, in return for 15% override on the Award. JPM is now duty bound to comply with the terms of the original Anchor litigation. Without the LTWs JPM had no standing at Court. JPM represented us for a share of the AWARD. There could be no doubt about this.

I can't be more clear when I state that DIME BANK,later, WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK and, still later, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK were successive litigant on behalf of the LTWs. Once Dime Bank distributed the LTWs to its shareholders, the net proceeds have to go to those shareholders. The LTWs were NOT part of the BK of WMI. The LTWs litigation passed, unscathed, to JPMC prior to BK Filing of WMI.


Will JPM try to retain the entire proceeds? SURE!

Is it theirs to keep? NO!

Will there be litigation on this subject? PROBABLY!


Maybe litigation will open, once and for all, the case of blatant fraud against JPM, its Attorneys, and the Hedge Funds that were given heads up on Walrath's upcoming decision so that they could scam the rest of us. Perhaps America will finally realize that there is a vile criminal element running this country. Just check you newspapers for a a daily dose of guilty plea by our friends at JPM. If we litigate, and win, there is a possibility of triple damages for LTW holders.

Let's wait and see.

Hope I answered you question.

I don't think that WMIH holders will be affected in any way by this decision, as the money is coming from FDIC directly to JPMC and, eventually, dribbles down to DIMEQ.

The WMI successor company is totally divorced from this activity. WAMUQ WAMUQP , etc. will have to wait for the so-called "waterfall" to splash them with its grace.

Blaster, it looks those who kept their DIMEQ (now no longer listed anywhere) will reap approximately, 6.50-6.75 per unit.

Judge Block gave Gov't and JPMC lawyers until June 19 to come up with final numbers on tax gross-up.

Just in. I found a calculation that I did at the time of the exchange, in 2012, that surmised the tenders DIMEQ at 54 million LTWs tendered to WMI.

~113million-54 million= ~59 million DIMEQ still available for redemption in cash, or even, JPM stock, if JPM plays by the book.
Stock trumps cash since it could be a tax deferred transfer. We'll have to see how it plays out.

If calculation was right, looks like $6.60/LTW

Yes Tradeinman, you have a very valid point. I, for one, never entertained tendering even one LTW to the crooks who rammed the case thru the DE BK Court.

Nevertheless, there are holders out there who were terrorized into signing up for the tender. Agreed, they received some value for their shares, I believe it was 45 cents of WMIH for every 8 shares of DIMEQ. Since WMIH is now $3.00, they have done ok in the exchange, something like 4x their initial payout.

Still, many might claim that since the case was fraudulent - WMI BK Court had no standing in deciding the disposition of LTW since they were already assigned to JPMC before the BK, and, the Court was aware of this duplicity- they may consider the transfer as "false conveyance with intent to deceive".

I would prefer they lose their argument, but they may make the case just the same. And, of course, we all know what "may" can mean.

Correction: 3% of ballots submitted in the 2012 xchage offer by WMI to LTW holders were rejected for technical reasons. It is still a mystery as to the number or percentage of LTW tendered at that time.

not sure I fully understand this posting....but it looks like only 3% of LTWs rejected the xchange offer. This may set up a weird spin on the award mechanism of Judge Block.

If counsel can prevail on some court that the xchange offered at the conclusion of the WMI BK case, was indeed FRAUDULENT, namely, that the facts were deliberately omitted in order to induce LTWs to xchange their interest for WMHI or lose everything (at least that's how I remember the offer at the time - remember the notorious EXCULPATION clause). Anyway, those who xchanged may have a good case for reversal.

Several issues still unresolved:

1)How many DIMEQ LTW units are still not exchanged for WMIH?

I have read someplace that the number xchaged could be as high as 80% +/- or ~90 million, leaving ~30 million outstanding. Also read some estimate that only 25% xchanged, thus leaving ~85 million LTWs outstanding. Taking a medium of ~57 million outstanding, could be a good GUESSTIMATE. Then again...maybe...I'm completely wrong on all of the above.

2) What if WMIH claims that the acquired LTW are still uncancelled and in inventory?
That leaves us back ~112,900,000 LTWs still outstanding.

3) JPMC could still interlope our due, thus necessitating another ugly (costly) court battle?

If 57 mill is divided into $380 mil = $6.66/LTW

The final Award with tax gross-up may be even greater.

All of above is my own preliminary numbers and are just MHO.

We have more to go, so stay away from Las Vegas for a spell.

Judge Lawrence Block, of US Court of Claims, Awards $419Mill+ to DIMEQ LTW holders previously wiped out by DE BK Court. Some of you have traded your LTWs for WMIH stock @ $.03 per LTW. YOU WERE ROBBED. Consult Class action lawyers for redress.

Correct on confiscation of the 1/3. You still own them, but they are presently invisible.They were simply declared "null and void" without due process. I was outraged at the time and was informed that the Court can so order it. But...that was Kangaroo Court, Delaware,USA - Owned and controlled by the Big Boyz.Kind of makes you rethink all stocks that you own, they should be checked for State of Incorporation, found on front of the Annual 10K. It's like checking ingredients on food labeling. Buyer beware.

Hi Sidedraft, Hope all is well with you. It has been a
long time passing. This is status of my LTW at brokers. On August 21, 2012,thru the good offices of Chancellery Court, DE, all references to DIMEQ were deleted from all accounts under my name. If you want to access your exact position on that date, go to Statements on your account and put "custom date" then enter 08/01/2012-08/31/2012. If it doesn't come up, try "history" for those dates. If no results, call broker.

Hope you didn't trade them in for 3% of WMIH stock ($3.00 today).

I'll be in northern CA end of June.
I think after this is FOR-SURE in the bank we should all get together to celebrate. Somewhere in the Good-OL'-USA!!

SIDEDRAFT. Where are you? I need you to post the Block decision here.

Anyway, Judge Lawrence Block issued the long awaited decision. As his usual style, it was brilliantly written and annotated with citations galore. He went step by step to describe each facet of this case and killed most of the JPMC/FDIC (defendants) arguments.

Bottom line. DIMEQ is entitled to $419 Million compensation PLUS $63 Million in tax adjustment (to be hashed out soon). Legal fees are approx $30 Million and JPM 15% $72 Million. Leaving approximately $380 Million for LTW holders.

Still to be illuminated is the matter of the tendered LTW of 2012, are they cancelled? Yeah! Were they stolen under misrepresentation at BK? Or are they the property of WMHI?

Outstanding LTW holder could reap $8-10 /ltw.

DIMEQ LTW holders (not tendered) WIN BIG TIME!

Waiting for someone to post decision. It's a huge win, after all these years. Another 6 mos. to pay-off.

If you still hold DIMEQ units, you may go to the liquor store to purchase the champagne. CONGRATS!

Attention all DIMEQ LTI holders. Judge Block has issued his final ruling on JPMC Vs DIMEQ.