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.
how you can delete the results of a voting in 2012? magic?
with the result of the voting U can produce escrows - same way they did in 2012 - and this is real life
Escrows r a result of the voting, and the voting never can be cancelled.
Escrows r no shares
talk BS 20 times still keep BS 20 times
so what was first?
escrows -> Voting
voting -> escrows
in second case U always can reproduce escrows - just so simple
April 13 to April 15. is Songkran festival here in Thailand.. check out on Google
Happy Songkran, Happy Thai new year
Start the "Blame Games" .. Bad Bad FDIC
just one question: what was first?
1) escrow shares?
2) voting with the results of voting ends in escrows
the can produce new 'escrow' shares every time they want - you can't cancel the voting results
Lodas &Pick
Statler and Waldorf in da house? ask for a friend
Somewhat funny - in German chat there is the same kind of "person" who always uses the identical "arguments" - or rather :
Desperately uses
Did you guys collude ?
What came first? The POR7 vote or the ESCROWS?
and:
who gets existing assets? The ones who voted for the POR7 or the ESCROWS?
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT June 1, 2007
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1401898/000127727707000481/exh41to8kpsawamu07_he4.pdf
Christiana Bank Pooling ans Servicing Agreement
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1401898/000127727707000481/exh41to8kpsawamu07_he4.pdf
Yes, both were closed
but between 2008 and 2019 all the files regarded only the second case!
There are 2 CH11 - Cases !
There are 2 CH11 cases filed on Washington Mutual, the first case is number 08-12228, the second case is number 08-12229.
This way only makes sense if the assets in the first case should be protected from the negotiations of the 2nd case.
If you now look at all procedural documents, they (almost!) always refer only to the second proceeding, even the POR7 exclusively concerns case 08-12229!
Almost - because if you now look at the document
http://www.kccllc.net/document/0812229191220000000000001,
the case 08-12228 is also closed here.
From my point of view this means:
POR7 only for 08-12229, thereby also only 75/25 for all assets treated in this case -> Save Harbor at 100% to UQ's.
Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT WAMU
found by accident
and since i am not a native english speaker -
maybe interesting for you
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1401898/000127727707000481/exh41to8kpsawamu07_he4.pdf
or here:
https://de.scribd.com/document/567696692/WAMU-POOLING-AND-SERVICING-AGREEMENT?
to the write-offs
In 10/2021, my escrows were also charged off in a securities account.
I have written to the bank that I disagree that the judge has expressly determined that the ESCROWS are not booked out.
And I made it clear to the bank that in the case of a distribution to the escrow holders, which would not reach me because of the derecognition, I will make the bank liable for the damage caused to me.
And I have also made clear to them that I have another deposit (where the escrows are not booked out), then in the case of a distribution have sufficient funds to sue the bank - with the best lawyer in the country.
Connection between escrows and DTC registration
I had already written that I had my securities account with DB Portugal at that time.
The correct number of share distributions also arrived promptly on this account.
Then DB Portugal was sold to //ABANCA Spain, the escrows were normally in my new securities account.
Only: The last distribution to COOP did not reach my securities account (although the ESCROWS were booked there).
After almost 6 months of eager discussion (had to explain the whole issue to them) my remaining shares were found - in a DB Portugal account that was still there.
This means:
It is completely irrelevant if/where the escrows are booked, the shares run the way
DTC->Euroclear/Clearstream -> Account
However, the mistake ABANCA made was that the reference of my account at Clearstream/Euroclear should have been changed.
So : All nice ... and nothing more for the piers
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams Announces Resignation
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams today sent the following letter to the President of the United States:
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After serving as the 21st Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) since June 2018, I intend to resign as Chairman effective February 4, 2022.
When I immigrated to this country 30 years ago, I did so with a firm belief in the American system of government. During my tenure at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the United States Senate, and the FDIC, I have developed a deep appreciation for these venerable institutions and their traditions. It has been a tremendous honor to serve this nation, and I did not take a single day for granted. Throughout my public service, I have been constantly reminded how blessed we are to live in the United States of America.
Serving the American people alongside the dedicated career professionals of the FDIC has been the highlight of my professional life. Throughout my tenure, the agency has focused on its fundamental mission to maintain and instill confidence in our banking system while at the same time promoting innovation, strengthening financial inclusion, improving transparency, and supporting community banks and minority depository institutions, including through the creation of the Mission Driven Bank Fund. Today, banks continue to maintain robust capital and liquidity levels to support lending and protect against potential losses.
The unexpected shock of COVID-19 tested the resilience of our financial system beginning in March 2020, and the FDIC took swift actions to maintain stability and provide flexibility for banks and consumers. The core of our financial system not only weathered the storm, but was a tangible source of strength for the American economy. The committed staff of the FDIC deserve great credit for these results, and they have my profound gratitude. I am humbled by their dedication to the FDIC’s mission and honored to have served with them.
Sincerely,
Jelena McWilliams
It ain't over till the ... lady sings
If I have offended someone with my remark, I ask for forgiveness.
After the positive end of the whole WAMU drama, the German speaking WAMU community is planning a big party at Lake Constance in the southwest of Germany.
And if Anna Netrebko should appear there and sing an aria - then the case would be closed.
And that's exactly how I meant it
New Questions to FDIC
Dear Mrs. Deaton,
first of all I would like to thank you for the detailed answers - but as it always happens in life: When you get answers to questions, new questions arise immediately. But before I come to my new questions, I would like to write something about two points:
1) Washington Mutual Case / Seizure of the WMB/Subs
Please understand that not only I do not agree with the official FDIC position on confiscation. If a liquid bank (money was on its way, liquidity always confirmed by OTS) as a subsidiary of a liquid holding company, for which at the time of seizure, instead of the 1.7 billion shares issued, there were suddenly 2.8 billion shares on the market (and this was considered a registration error by a certain lawyer), is seized and then sold for a price of 1.888 billion USD (more the price for processing than the total selling price, coupled with the corresponding black humor : 1888 million = year of foundation of the WMB 1889 minus 1 million, WAMU also being founded on 25th September) - who should this help? The shareholders of WAMU? The state? For me this action was (hastily) carried out solely because the recipient of the WMB was to be saved. There were several interested parties, but only JPM had well over ½ year to determine the values of the WMB (Project West), while the other interested parties had asked for time to examine the values.
In Germany they say "Das ist nicht dein Bier", "That’s not your beer" which means "Thats not your business", I know that this applies to me, but I guess you are glad that this applies to you as well.
Time will tell - Or as they say: It ain't over till the fat lady sings
2) Lawyers
You write that I should be happy to contact a lawyer who can then carry out the appropriate communication with you. I suspect that the certainly not quite correct questions I had asked you (for which I would like to apologize) led you to this advice. My experience with lawyers in Germany has been that I have spent a lot of money but have achieved very little. Finding a good lawyer is not so easy - you can see this in the Washington Mutual CH11:
There was Stephen Susman, who unfortunately passed away too early last month, who was certainly one of the good ones, and there was a lawyer who charged 25 hours for a working day (Stepen Hawking would certainly not have been surprised about that)
But now to my questions:
1) You write that I should turn to Washington Mutual, Inc. after all Do you have an address and contact person with eMail?
2) Assets
I found the following information about WMB assets on FDIC pages:
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/merger/2008/closebmerger.html
Assets acquired by JPMorgan Chase Bank 258,576,810 Reporting date 9/25/2008
Offices acquired 2,213
On the following website of the FDIC (deadline Q1 / 2013) I found the following remark:
https://www.fdic.gov/about/financial-reports/corporate/cfo-report-1stqtr-13/select_finl_data.html
Footnote: 2008 excludes Washington Mutual Bank with total assets of $299 billion and zero estimated losses to the DIF - Reporting date Q1/2013
On the following web page there is now the following statement:
https://research2.fdic.gov/bankfind/detail.html?bank=32633&name=Washington+Mutual+Bank&tabId=3&searchName=Washington+Mutual+Bank
Total Assets 307,021,614
Total deposits 188,260,793
Summarized this means: WMB/Sub Assets
6/30/2008 307,021,614
9/25/2008 258,576,810
3/31/2013 299,000,000
Now these numbers differ not insignificantly. Which of them is the right one?
On the other hand, the figures were given with an accuracy of up to 1000 USD.
I found a website that breaks down the WMB deposits according to individual branches
https://www7.fdic.gov/sod/sodInstBranchRpt.asp?rCert=32633&baritem=1&ryear=2008
Here, the exact same number of branches as well as the total number of deposits will be displayed, as in the first document mentioned above (Number of Branches) and as the known numbers (Deposits).
I have to assume that the FDIC also has a detailed list of assets available - how else would you get the number 258,576,810 - to the nearest 1000 USD!
In the end, a consolidated balance sheet is also just a list of individual accounting items.
Therefore, I would certainly not be the only one interested in knowing exactly which assets are behind the number 258,576,810 in detail, as this is the only way to control how these differences of about 40 billion are generated.
So my request is: Please provide this list of assets in similar detail as the list of branches and their deposits and give me the corresponding URL.
With kind regards
Answer by FDIC to my questions:
Please note that the information provided in this response does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. I recommend you consult a licensed attorney if you want legal advice regarding the questions you have raised.
Before I answer your questions, the first thing to understand is that Washington Mutual Bank was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (a federal agency that no longer exists) on September 25, 2008 and the FDIC was appointed Receiver of the bank that same day. Washington Mutual, Inc. was the holding company for the bank. Washington Mutual, Inc., and the interests of equity, debt holders or other creditors of Washington Mutual, Inc., are not included in the closure or receivership of the bank. Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection on September 26, 2008. Please contact Washington Mutual, Inc. directly for information about this bankruptcy proceeding. Please note that the closing of Washington Mutual Bank and the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc. are separate legal proceedings.
More information about the status of the receivership of Washington Mutual Bank can be found online at: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/wamu.html
Regarding your questions, responses are below in underlined text :
1. Basic distribution of roles
As I understand the American law in the CH11 case, there are the following basic points:
1. There are legal regulations for a CH11 case.
YES, the regulations are commonly known as the Bankruptcy Code (see 11 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq regarding Chapter 11).
2. The FDIC is both the supervising and the executing agency.
The FDIC continues to act as the Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank; it is not a supervisor.
3. The bankruptcy court is the legally supervising as well as the legally deciding body.
YES, but only for the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc., not the FDIC as Receiver.
4. The bankruptcy court must follow the legal regulations, the FDIC must follow both the legal regulations and the court orders.
The bankruptcy court must decide in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. The FDIC, as Receiver, must follow applicable law in its receivership activities. The FDIC, as Receiver, is under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court only if the trustee or creditors raise claims that are properly adjudicated in the bankruptcy court.
Is this rough description correct? YES/NO (if No, what is different?) Please see above.
2. In 2008 Washington Mutual Bank was finally sold to JPM by the FDIC.
Is this sale already 100% completed YES/NO at this time? (If NO, what else has to happen?)
The sale is mostly complete, the terms of the sale are described in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated September 25, 2008 between the FDIC, as Receiver, and JPM. You can read this agreement by accessing the FDIC website provided above. The agreement terminated after six years, but some provisions are still in effect.
3. In 2008, the press / JPM announced that the sales price for the WMB was 1.889 billion USD.
Can you confirm this amount as the selling price? YES/NO (If NO, what sales price was defined?)
The winning bid made by JPM to enter into the Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the FDIC, as Receiver, was for $1.888 billion, and that amount is listed in Article VII of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement.
4. Since the selling price is determined by the book value of the assets transferred to JPM according to the legal guidelines as well as the PAA:
Can you give me a URL where this list of the determination of the book value can be traced?
No, the sales price was the amount of the winning bid by JPM.
5. If the selling price is exactly the stated amount of USD 1.889 billion, no further distributions would be made to the former owners of WMB (ESCROW holders), the legal requirement of the bankruptcy court that the Last Distribution must take place by 23 July 2020 would be satisfied.
Is that correct? YES/NO (If No, please provide further information)
If the FDIC, as Receiver, of Washington Mutual Bank has excess assets from the liquidation of the bank, distributions can be made to certain parties in accordance with the priorities established in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11)(A). The FDIC, as Receiver, anticipates that it will make a final distribution at a later date. It is unlikely that the Receiver will have sufficient funds to distribute to holders of receivership certificates issued to subordinate note holders or equity holders of the bank.
Questions regarding distributions in the bankruptcy proceedings for Washington Mutual, Inc. should be sent directly to the company.
6. The purchase price of USD 1.889 billion was published by JPM / Presse very soon after the acquisition of WMB. However, this would contradict the legal regulation that the sales price must correspond to the book value, as at that time no well-founded and exact statement of the book values was available.
Can you confirm that the published sales price of USD 1.889 billion is the real sales price? YES/NO (If no, please provide further information)
As mentioned above, the price was JPM’s winning bid, and the FDIC, as Receiver, found that bid to be acceptable given its requirements under federal law.
7. If the real sales price is not the published sales price, there must be further distributions to the former owners of WMB (WAMUQ-Escrows).
However, this would contradict the court requirement that the Last Distribution should have been made by July 23, 2020.
Do you agree with me here? YES/NO (If no, please provide further information)
No, the sales price for the bank has nothing to do with the bankruptcy proceedings of Washington Mutual, Inc.
8. Since all these points mentioned above cannot work on their own, I see here only one variant that fulfills all points:
There is another institution ( I call it New WM Holding ) whose owner is defined by the shares of the WAMUQ- ESCROWs and which has received/will receive the real book value.
Since you, as the executive body, are dealing with this New WMH and you transfer the book values paid/received by JPM to it:
Does this general institution exist? YES/NO
If YES - Where is it managed?
Perhaps you are referring to Washington Mutual, Inc., which did own Washington Mutual Bank before it was closed. Questions regarding the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc. should be sent directly to the company. The FDIC, as Receiver, could make distributions of excess assets as described above to Question #5, but distributions to equity holders of the bank are unlikely.
Although we might be able to answer additional questions you may have, I again recommend you consult a licensed attorney if you are in need of legal advice.
Sincerely,
Patricia A Deaton
Resolutions and Closings Manager
DRR Customer Service
Lets have one more try
Dear Sirs,
First, I'd like to introduce myself: I am a German citizen living in Thailand. I am owner of WAMPQ-Escrows as well as WAMUQ-Escrows, I have been following the CH11 procedure for over 11 years and now, after all this time, I have some questions for you. As a graduate computer scientist, I have learned to think logically, i.e. YES/NO, but also IF ... THEN ... ELSE... From this background I have now collected some questions here with the request to answer them briefly.
1)Basic distribution of roles
As I understand the American law in the CH11 case, there are the following basic points:
a.There are legal regulations for a CH11 case.
b.The FDIC is both the supervising and the executing agency.
c.The bankruptcy court is the legally supervising as well as the legally deciding body.
d.The bankruptcy court must follow the legal regulations, the FDIC must follow both the legal regulations and the court orders
Is this rough description correct? YES/NO (if No, what is different?)
2)In 2008 Washington Mutual Bank was finally sold to JPM by the FDIC.
Is this sale already 100% completed YES/NO at this time? (If NO, what else has to happen?)
3)In 2008, the press / JPM announced that the sales price for the WMB was 1.889 billion USD.
Can you confirm this amount as the selling price? YES/NO (If NO, what sales price was defined?)
4)Since the selling price is determined by the book value of the assets transferred to JPM according to the legal guidelines as well as the PAA:
Can you give me a URL where this list of the determination of the book value can be traced?
5)If the selling price is exactly the stated amount of USD 1.889 billion, no further distributions would be made to the former owners of WMB (ESCROW holders), the legal requirement of the bankruptcy court that the Last Distribution must take place by 23 July 2020 would be satisfied.
Is that correct? YES/NO (If No, please provide further information)
6)The purchase price of USD 1.889 billion was published by JPM / Presse very soon after the acquisition of WMB. However, this would contradict the legal regulation that the sales price must correspond to the book value, as at that time no well-founded and exact statement of the book values was available.
Can you confirm that the published sales price of USD 1.889 billion is the real sales price? YES/NO (If no, please provide further information)
7)If the real sales price is not the published sales price, there must be further distributions to the former owners of WMB (WAMUQ-Escrows).
However, this would contradict the court requirement that the Last Distribution should have been made by July 23, 2020.
Do you agree with me here? YES/NO (If no, please provide further information)
8)Since all these points mentioned above cannot work on their own, I see here only one variant that fulfills all points:
There is another institution ( I call it New WM Holding ) whose owner is defined by the shares of the WAMUQ- ESCROWs and which has received/will receive the real book value.
Since you, as the executive body, are dealing with this New WMH and you transfer the book values paid/received by JPM to it:
Does this general institution exist? YES/NO
If YES - Where is it managed?
Since I assume that the FDIC has an obligation to provide information not only to US citizens but also to all institutions/persons affected by this CH11 case, I would ask you to answer my questions promptly. Furthermore, I regard my questions as general questions that cannot be subject to confidentiality.
I hope that you and your colleagues are doing well at the moment and that the additional burden is not too great.
With kind regards