I wonder then - in light of the conflicts - if JPM would be willing to hand back the Anchor litigation to WMI if approached by the Debtor?
Contractually and ideally the LTW Holders should be paid from the Litigation Proceeds and not the PIERS' Recovery.
And I wonder . . . in light of the conflicts . . . if JPMC would be willing to hand back WMB, WMBfsb, Anchor, and everything else (including the kitchen sink) . . . if they were to be approached by the attorney for the Debtor (which, coincidentally, also represents JPMC on a number of cases).
Contractually and ideally, everybody should go back to square one, we all get a do-over, and we can pretend that September 25, 2008 never happened (or that it shouldn't have happened) . . .
In light of the conflicts, of course . . . and given the "totality of the circumstances." (full credit to Cha-Cha)
But, you'd probably have to ask JPMC REALLY, REALLY nice (in order for them to agree to take back their $1.88 Billion dollars, and to give us back everything that belonged to WaMu), and then WaMu could get out of bankruptcy, get rid of that "Q" on their ticker, and go back to being WM.
Again, in light of the conflicts.
Ps: Those PIERS must really have their hooks into you. You sound like you SO want to believe that everything will be all right, just as soon as you get to the other side of Candyland Mountain.
Please tell me that you didn't bet the rent money and the utility bills money on your H purchase.
Pps: Ideally, the Debtor should take JPMC out for a nice, expensive dinner, then go to a show, and then slip them some Roofies, and then get them to sign over all of the goods back to us . . . again, in light of the conflicts.
Ppps: you needn't worry yourself about the Dime Ltw Holders being paid from the PIERS' recovery, as the Senior Bonds will be taking care of that problem for you (due to the contractual subordination agreement that exists between the PIERS and Sr. Debt).
AI
