Dudebug -
I don't understand why you keep saying that determining the legitimate value of the WMB assets that were taken and receiving compensation for those assets by the FDIC (or JPM) will not be decided in the BK court.
They are attempting to determine if those things claimed in the court filing (Washington DC) belong to WMI or to someone else (WMB). The court is not attempting to determine the value of WMB or its assets because the sale of WMB to JPM is a done deal, and it is not any of the court’s business what they are worth. Neither WMI, the BOD of WMI, the Creditors of WMI, the Bondholders of WMI, the Shareholders of WMI, nor anyone else has filed charges in a court similar to Washington DC (not a BK court) against the OTS, FDIC, or JPM to attempt to recover the WMB for WMI.
Judge Collyer from the FDIC case gave specific instructions for the parties to attempt to work out all of the litigation, if possible, in conjunction with the BK case. She did not see the point in running two court cases.
The court case in Washington DC is about things with various values (assets) that WMI claims belongs to WMI and to no one else. WMI is not claiming things that belong to WMB; they are claiming things that belong to the holding company of WMI. These two cases somewhat overlap because the assets of WMI are perhaps the most important part of the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and the presiding judge (Walrath) has the power to decide who is the rightful owner of the assets, and not judge Collyer. Collyer knows this and is giving the BK court plenty of room to make the right decision. Generally, if the draft POR is approved, the claims and the case in Washington DC will be withdrawn because ownership of the ‘assets’ in question will have been settled by the draft POR. This was the reason for the recent ‘stay’ on the case in Washington DC.
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is about reorganization. Part of the process of our BK is to determine the value of WMI on or after the date they filed for reorganization under Chapter 11, and not the value of WMI plus the WMB before WMB was seized. Part of the process of determining the value of WMI is to identify and recover assets that belong to WMI. This is why the two cases overlap. Neither court is attempting to question the sale of WMB to JPM or to identify assets that belong to WMB. They are deciding which assets belong to WMI. IMO EOM
