Here's a summation of what I read:
Disallowing claims from former employees regarding severance packages.Disallowing claims from former employees regarding bonuses. - Page 34 Third, certain of the claims objected to
herein assert liability pursuant to
retention bonus agreements or Change in
Control agreements (together, “Employee
Agreements
”) between the claimant and WMB,
not
WMI (the “Employee Claims
”). Because
neither Debtor is a party to
the respective Employee Agreement,
the Debtors have no liability
with respect thereto. Accordingly, the Employ
ee Claims should be disallowed and expunged in
their entirety.
Disallowing pension claims. Page 33 Second, certain of the claims objected
to herein seek a recovery on
account of asserted pension plan benefits and/
or distributions pursuan
t to the WaMu Pension
Plan (the “Plan
”). Pursuant to the Plan, all Plan assets
are held in a separate, segregated trust
(the “Plan Trust
”), which is administered by the WaMu
Pension Plan Administration Committee.
Because, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, all bene
fits are paid from the Plan Trust, the claims
filed against the Debtors on account of alle
ged Plan benefits (the “Pension Claims
”) are
improper. All beneficiaries of th
e Plan must look only to the Plan
Trust and the assets therein for
satisfaction of their benefits claims, as no clai
ms arise on account of pension claims against the
general assets of WMI.
Disallowing litigation claims - page 33 WM
I was initially named as a defendant in the
underlying litigation, but has since been dismissed from such litigation. In both such
circumstances, neither Debtor will incur any liab
ility with respect to the underlying litigation.
Accordingly, the Litigation Claims should be
disallowed and expunged in their entirety.
Disallowing miscellaenous claims - page 35 Fourth, the remaining claims objected
to herein are miscellaneous claims
that improperly seek a recovery against the Debtors
rather than the party re
sponsible therefor (the
“Miscellaneous Claims
,” and together with the Litigation
claims, the Employee Claims, and the
Pension Claims, the “Sixth Omnibus Objection Claims
”). Because the Debtors are not the
proper entity against which the Miscellaneous Cl
aims should be asserte
d, the Debtors object to
their allowance and respectfully request that
the Miscellaneous Clai
ms be disallowed and
expunged in their entirety.
WMILT (the debtors)- basically asserts it is not liable to fulfill agreements that certain claimants (former employees) have made with WMB/Providian. WMI (WMILT) is not WMB. Claimants assert that due to a CIC (change in control) event (with the seizure and sale of WMI assets to JPMC), WMILT assumed liabilities of said employee agreements.
There's also disallowing claims by claimants that received equity as payment for their services. Equity having no claim against a debtor by having interest. Claimants probably assert WMILT is liable to see their claims fulfilled (violates priority rule) because they were "paid" with shares in stock.
Disallowing claims by claimants regarding Providian employee contracts/bonuses. WMILT asserts it was not a party to Providian/employee contracts/agreements.
Disallowing these claims means a higher chance we get money for escrow. The former employees will get the shaft for their services but more potential funds for escrow. I don't see how disallowing these claims are bad (except for the claimants)
AI
