Replies to post #8141 on Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[ItsMyOption]

Marty009, IMO it is better to not send a copy or form letter. Judges do not like to see the same letter many times. We only need two objection to force a june 2nd hearing.

I am sure counsel for the Ohio group will do a good job proving that Judge Walrath must deny that objection.

Marty,I did make a list of us IHUB LTW holders and listed my e-mail, but did not get anything from you. Did you not opt-in or sign that release?

It is my opinion that all those LTW that did not sign that release have a very good change of payment before end of summer. JPM will not want to litigate this in front of a jury.

[linda1]

Marty - here is a letter.


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE



Honorable Judge Mary Walrath
824 North Market Street
3rd Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801


RE: CASE NO. 08-12229 - DOCKET NO. 12237



OBJECTION OF (Your Name) TO THE MOTION
OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
CONFIRMING THE SEVENTH AMENDED
JOINT PLAN OF AFFILIATED DEBTORS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE


Dear Honorable Judge Mary Walrath:



I, (Your Name) am a Dime LTW ("LTW") Holder

who did not "opt in" to the Stipulation and

Agreement signed by WMI and Counsel

representing all LTW Holders. I have a valid

lien against and interest in 85 % net of the

Anchor Litigation Award - which was

promised/given to the LTW Holders upon

the issuance of the LTWs.


On May 18, 2015 the US Court of Federal

Claims awarded the Anchor Savings

Bank Litigation and $419,645,910.91 to JPMC.

An additional Tax Gross-Up of

$118,969,673.71 was awarded on Aug 31, 2015 -

for a total of $538,615,584.62.


In the Opinion and Order of the US Court of

Federal Claims for the Anchor

Savings Bank Litigation - dated Aug 31, 2015 -

it states on Page 6 that the LTWs

are " ownership interests in the Anchor Litigation...."

and " were actively traded on the NASDAQ market

on the day JPM acquired them. "


" As plaintiff points out, these ownership interests
in the Anchor litigation were actively traded on the
NASDAQ market on the day that JPMC acquired them. "



The US Court of Federal Claims' Opinions never

do state or agree that the Anchor Savings Bank

Litigation was transferred to JPMC by way of the

363 Sale/GSA. In its May 18, 2015 Opinion and

Order - Page 16, 2 (a) - it states as follows:


" For the reasons explained below, the court holds
that the P&A Agreement clearly and unambiguously
conveyed the Anchor judgment to JPMC. "


WMI's claim that it owned the Anchor Savings Bank

Litigation while in bankruptcy was erroneous. The

PAA was signed by the FDIC and JPMC on

Sept 25, 2008 - WMI's date of bankruptcy was

Sept 26, 2008. The Bankruptcy Court was therefore

not the correct jurisdiction in which to adjudicate

the Claims of the LTW Holders.


In addition, in the Feb 23, 2012 Order approving

WMI's POR, it states - on PG 69, Para. 29 - as follows:


" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Global

Settlement Agreement or the Plan to the contrary,

nothing is intended to release, nor shall it have the

effect of releasing (a).........the JPMC Releasees

(as defined in the Global Settlement Agreement)..

.........and (b) any Releasee (as defined in the Global

Settlement Agreement) or any Person, including,

without limitation, the United States of America,

from any claims and causes of action asserted

or that could be asserted in..............the Anchor

Litigation............" and " .........nothing in the Global

Settlement Agreement, the Plan, or this Order

shall waive, release, acquit or discharge........the

rights and obligations of JPMC.........pursuant to

the Purchase and Assumption Agreement........"



JPMC is erroneously seeking to limit the rights

of the LTW Holders to file a Lawsuit/Claims

against JPMC to the jurisdiction of the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware - for the

purpose of eradicating a Lawsuit by LTW Holders

against JPMC in the S. Ohio District Court -

Case No. 2:16-cv-00281.


For the foregoing reasons set out in my Objection

I respectfully request that the Court deny JPMC's Motion.


Respectfully,



(Your Name)___________ Date: May 17, 2016


(Your Address)
(xxxxxxxxxxxx)
(xxxxxxxxxxxx)
(Phone No.)



CC:

Adam G. Landis (I.D. 3407)
Matthew B. McGuire (I.D. 4366)
LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP
919 Market Street Suite 1800
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

- and -

Robert A. Sacks
Brent J. McIntosh
Brian D. Glueckstein
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.



NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
Austin Tighe
3600 Capital of Texas Highway
Suite B350
Austin, Texas 78746
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the S. Ohio Case