InvestorsHub Logo

stoxjock

09/01/17 11:52 PM

#486304 RE: sometimes_right #486303


Exactly... I think you are right this time, Sometimes_right!

newflow

09/02/17 12:54 AM

#486305 RE: sometimes_right #486303

In response to WMI claims filed against receivership,FDIC responded in a court motion saying the below.

"...........................
..............................................................
Equity claims are paid in accordance with 12 U.S.C.sec.1821(d)(11)"

They did not mention that they wanted releases?.

And i do not think WMI released FDIC yet,read the NOL motion filed around March 18th 2012.
This is the way to satisfy former non released equity as well,JIMHO.

bond-007

09/02/17 5:39 AM

#486311 RE: sometimes_right #486303

I think you're a hundred percent right that's the whole purpose of releasing is being part of the settlement. The parties that did not release where free file there own individual lawsuits and I would venture to say at this particular time the statute of limitations has run out baring filing such a lawsuit. Not to mention if you don't have any escrow markers then you get nothing. That's how they're gauging who gets what is based upon your releases and based upon how many escrow shares you have that's the whole purpose of the escrow shares. It's just nonsense to think that non-release parties are going to get anything they are absolutely not.

newflow

09/02/17 12:42 PM

#486326 RE: sometimes_right #486303

FDIC WAS NEVER RELEASED AS PER GSA

IT NEEDS TO SATISFY ALL THE OBLIGATIONS AS FILED IN THE CASE

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120316000000000016