News Focus
News Focus
Followers 71
Posts 1568
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 05/05/2009

Re: None

Friday, 01/13/2012 12:47:22 PM

Friday, January 13, 2012 12:47:22 PM

Post# of 8307
Since everyone's beloved Art couldn't accomplish the task of making it clear to Judge WalTF that it was impossible for WMI to claim to be the owner of the litigation proceeds (upon which she based her decision), I'm probably going to just go ahead and appeal her erroneous decision as a matter of principle, amongst numerous other reasons.

WMB was seized and long gone before WMI filed for BK. It is impossible for WMI to own the litigation because to have standing to be a party to a suit based on FIRREA, you must be a bank, not a holding company.

So as a practical matter, Judge WalTF lacked jurisdiction to try to re-write history with a 363 sale based on the false theory that WMI owned the litigation as of the day of BK filing. Not true. WMB owned the litigation. WMI may have controlled the litigation up to the point of the seizure, but that is moot once WMB was seized.


Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today