You are so laughable expert of bk. Kmart and Wamu are total different Orange and Apple. Wamu asset 330 b and sold by crooks gov fdic to jpm 1.9 b until this day still have lawsuit going on even bk is finished still unknown which asset jpm bought and not . Read the real story below if you will that make you understand more how complex design by the crooks!
JPMorgan Looks To Shed WaMu Bondholders’ Suit
Law360, New York (May 05, 2015, 5:14 PM ET) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. doubled down Monday on efforts to toss a suit brought by insurer bondholders of defunct Washington Mutual NA, telling a D.C. federal judge that the faltering value of WaMu bonds could not directly be tied to discussions JPMorgan held with Moody’s prior to the bank’s collapse.
In response to the bondholders' attempt to hold onto the suit, JPMorgan says that by the time it sat down to discuss the financial state of WaMu — which it was already in negotiations to buy — with the credit rating agency, it was already known that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was looking to place the bank into receivership.
Though the suing bondholders claim that JPMorgan used that discussion to make it appear as if the financial condition of WaMu was more dire than it was, leading to its seizure by the FDIC and eventual sale to JPMorgan, JPMorgan says the plaintiffs’ timeline simply doesn’t make sense.
“[T]he first such disclosure plaintiffs allege to have occurred was on Sept. 19, just six days before WMB’s failure, and the first result plaintiffs allege to have arisen from such a disclosure was Moody’s downgrade of WaMu in the afternoon of Sept. 22 — after the FDIC had commenced its WMB bid process,” according to JPMorgan.
The bondholders, which include American National Insurance Co., American National Property & Casualty Co., Farm Family Casualty Insurance Co., Farm Family Life Insurance Co. and National Western Life Insurance Co., are currently battling to keep the suit alive after JPMorgan moved to dismiss in March.
They say the bank obtained an unlawful profit of at least $1.9 billion through a scheme to acquire WaMu without any obligations to bondholders. JPMorgan allegedly did so by pressuring the federal government to seize WaMu and then sell off the bank's most valuable assets to JPMorgan, without any accompanying liabilities, for a drastically undervalued price.
But JPMorgan says the bondholders’ real beef is with the FDIC after the government agency failed to live up to WaMu’s bond obligations following its seizure of the bank.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer agreed with JPMorgan in April 2010, dismissing the suit because bondholders' allegations were subject to the claims process set by the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which governs the FDIC's procedures for winding down failed institutions in its receivership. Therefore, the plaintiffs should have been confronting the FDIC, not JPMorgan, the judge said.
In June 2011, the D.C. Circuit reversed that decision and remanded the case, finding the allegations fell outside the scope of the claims process because they concerned actions taken by JPMorgan, not the FDIC.
JPMorgan continued to contend the bondholders' claims belonged to the FDIC, which had chosen to settle the dispute, and that the insurers' claims derived entirely from damages done to WaMu.
Judge Collyer pared the suit again in October 2012 by throwing out unjust enrichment and breach of confidentiality claims, noting that Washington law does not allow derivative suits that are contractual in nature. She left intact a claim for tortious interference over JPMorgan's alleged pressure on the federal government to sell WaMu, ruling that because the claim alleges a direct injury to the bondholders — a decrease in the value of the plaintiffs' WaMu bonds — it could stand.
Now, JPMorgan says, in its latest bid to do away with the suit, the bondholders have dropped those tortious interference claims almost entirely. Bondholders disagree, arguing that they would have never lost out on bond payments if JPMorgan hadn’t schemed to downgrade WaMu to begin with.
The bondholders are represented by the Law Offices of Gregory S. Smith and Andrew J. Mytelka, Joseph R. Russo Jr. and James M. Roquemore of Greer Herz & Adams LLP.
JPMorgan is represented by Brent J. McIntosh, Robert A. Sacks and M. David Possick of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
The case is American National Insurance Co. et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., case number 1:09-cv-01743, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
