AI
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:09:18 PM
...reasonable prudence is all that is required.
It is simple.
1. WMI had pre-seizure claims (for services, inter-company goods, etc., all laid out in the D.C. Court Action) against WMB.
2. WMI "abandoned WMB," which is in receivership (fiduciary, regulatory control of the FDIC-R and it's guarantor -C). WMI's pre-seizure claims against WMB was the objective of this language.
These are not claims against the FDIC, rather, the "FDIC "as receiver for WMI," i.e., fiduciary, regulatory control.
Again, not the FDIC's actions in seizure (it didn't, the OTS did). The FDIC as it administers (regulates) claims against WMB.
HUGE DIFFERENCE.
If not, the FDIC-R or FDIC-C would never have released and the WMILT would certainly be aggressively pursuing them. Would they not?
Recent COOP News
FEATURED POET and Luxshare Tech Expand Product Offerings for Artificial Intelligence Networks • Aug 1, 2024 9:28 AM
Management Discusses Financial Filings of Global Arena Holding Inc., for 10-K 2023 and 10-Q, 1st Quarter 2024 • GAHC • Aug 1, 2024 9:14 AM
VAYK Announces LOI to Acquire $1 Million Home Service Company to Support Airbnb Business • VAYK • Aug 1, 2024 9:00 AM
Duane Forrester Joins INDEXR as SVP of Search • MONI • Jul 31, 2024 11:46 AM
Lingerie Fighting Championships Help Fulfill Death-Bed Promise With First Major Motion Picture • BOTY • Jul 31, 2024 9:00 AM
Kona Gold Beverage Significantly Reduces Debt from Multiple Holders • KGKG • Jul 31, 2024 9:00 AM
