News Focus
News Focus
icon url

jb92106

09/08/15 10:39 AM

#434652 RE: JusticeWillWin #434651

JWW,

Thanks for keeping the discussion focus on the important facts and findings...

~Jim
icon url

bkshadow

09/08/15 10:48 AM

#434653 RE: JusticeWillWin #434651

JusticeWillWin, the subrogated deposit claim...

...is what they do (as the FDIC-Corporate, the insurer or guarantor up to the FDIC limits) since they would have to honor such deposits they simultaneously make a CLAIM (a subrogated claim) for such amount of the insured deposits.

...I do not know, and have not looked at or inquired, as to when the CLAIM should or should not be removed; i.e., whether it remains until the receivership is closed for example.

...one would think, unless it is purely a procedural or administrative matter, that the FDIC-Corporate "no longer has any claim against the receivership" as you state that JPM assumed all $188B of the total deposit liabilities of WMB (including the $151B insured deposits).

...just a note, deposits are liabilities; JPM bought assets and assumed certain liabilities (the largest being the $188B in deposit liabilities).

...I guess if one looks at the bottom of the claims detail, it does show TOTAL DEPOSIT CLAIMS of $151,150,664 Less: Dividends Paid to Date of $151,150,664.

...so it looks like the Total Unpaid Deposit Claim is in fact $-0-.

icon url

Royal Dude

09/08/15 1:37 PM

#434679 RE: JusticeWillWin #434651

Sounds like everyone needs a refresher injection. I know this article is old, but POR agreements do not change.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Judge-approves-WaMu-apf-2844211818.html?x=0