I completely understand the fdic filing. I do not accept their characterization of things , which apparently you do. Just because the fdic asserts something doesn't make it true. JPM filed an interpleader action for the deposit in an adversary proceeding within the bankruptcy case on the theory that there is a dispute over the deposits even though up to that point the fdic never made claim to it. The holding company ignored the interpleader basically, and said there is no LEGITIMATE DISPUTE and refused to fall into JPM's strategy for the case and filed a completely different action,,, the turnover action. The fdic is now trying to say that the district court action filed against the fdic by the holding company is the initial proceeding. But if there is any claim filed therein for the deposit, it was really filed only by the holding company to ensure that it would not inadvertently waive its claim. I believe weil was of the opinion that with regard to any holding company assets weil could have also gone after the fdic via an adversary turnover action within bankruptcy. They filed the district court action because the fdic told them they had to and it guarantees that the holding company's claims would not be waived due to the limitation period. The fdic in my view is saying we can wrongfully take the holding company's property without any statutory authority and deprive the holding company of its rights in bankruptcy since they tried to protect their claims by filing in the district court. I say the bankruptcy court, is going to be very territorial, and say hogwash, the fdic did wrong, and I decide.
P.S. a petition is a complaint and a complaint is a petition. When the petition for bankruptcy was filed all claims against the estate, all assets of the estate are within the bankruptcy's jurisdiction in regard to holding company assets. All the holding company is doing is claiming an asset which either was theirs as of the date of bankruptcy or was not. The fdic receivership happened a day before, but we are not talking about a receivership asset. Jurisdictional issues always trump "procedural" issues. This is kind of like a case on appeal where the premise of the lower court is that it had jurisdiction to rule, but the appellate court finds the trial court didn't have jurisdiction, so can't decide anything on appeal other than to tell the lower court it didn't have jurisdiction.
