Ref: Couple of questions for you.
In post #498826 you made the comment
WMIIC's role was two fold:
1) Provide / Solidify assets "MBS" as bankruptcy remote. By way of "WMB" (Originator) to WMIIC (Depositor) to Trust. In effect a TWO TIER protection. Totally taking WMB out of any risk of substantive consolidation.
2) WMIIC being the depositor would also be the provider of credit enhancement. Having what is referred to as residual interest. Holders of subordinate certificates & overcollaterized loans.
Are you making an assumption in your comments above?
Comment:
Yes, assumption. My Point / Big Picture - no matter who is the depositor - Material "Force and Effect" of two tier structures.
Ref: In all of the trusts listed in the DB lawsuit as well as numerous other trusts I have seen WMB or a sub of WMB has been the originator & depositor.
If WMI or WMIIC was neither the originator or depositor for the trusts how does that benefit the estate of WMI/WMIIC?
Comment:
Safe Harbor Assets are removed from the estate. Thus. Trustee / Creditors of WMB have no claim to them. WMI is the parent they do.
Example:
Principal Subsidiaries
• Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a federal savings association, all of the common stock of which is held by New American Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and all of the preferred stock of which is held by Washington Mutual, Inc. New American Capital, Inc. is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Washington Mutual Bank, a Washington state chartered stock savings bank, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Washington Mutual Bank fsb, a federal savings bank, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
• Long Beach Mortgage Company, a Delaware corporation, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc.
Ref: Also, On a previous post #498722 you said:
2) WMI abandoned it's stock as worthless on record with the Estate. The Estate in turn diverted all future benefits back to WMI. A clever astute move by WMI.
Where are you seeing that WMI is receiving any future benefit from WMB with regard to the trusts or are you making an assumption?
Comment:
No assumption. First 1) WMI is the parent and rightful benefit to any / all future value of it's wholly owned subsidiaries. If you have any experience in PSA you will see that they are set up to ensure the "Retained Assets" are in fact retained within the SPE # 1 / SPE/Trust # 2.
I want to make this abundantly clear, sharing from my experience, generally the Parent's bank account is where the funds are first received from PSA accounts when the "Accounts Removable Provision" is triggered. Then the Parent has control and funnels whatever money's it deems necessary back to it's subsidiaries. The Parent's control part is the "Operative Word." As no expressed contract (s) are in force so as to direct the Parent as to distribution with funds received. This adds further protection to avoid substantive consolidation by the courts.
AI
