The reason JPM is seeking an enforcement of
the findings of facts...from the bankruptcy court
is because it is arguing in the Ohio proceedings
that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate
the claims of the LTWs.
JPM is stating that only the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court has jurisdiction and is basing that position
on Judge Walrath's own words -
On May 10, 2016, JPMorgan filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings in this case pending resolution of the
Motion for Enforcement of the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming the
Seventh Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors
Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, which JPMorgan filed on
May 10, 2016 in In re Washington Mutual, Inc.,
Case No. 08-12229 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del.) (the
“Motion for Enforcement”). Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by multiple orders of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, which retained
“exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out
of, and relating to” Washington Mutual, Inc.’s
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. See In re Washington
Mutual, Inc., No. 08-12229 (MFW), 2012 WL
1563880, ¶ 83 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2012).
JPMorgan should not be required to defend, and
engage in discovery, with respect to claims barred
by another court’s orders.
We need to include in our Objections any statements
by Judge Walrath - such as in the Order approving
the POR - that says the LTWs can pursue claims
against JPM.
