I don't understand why you keep saying that determining the legitimate value of the WMB assets that were taken and receiving compensation for those assets by the FDIC (or JPM) will not be decided in the BK court. Judge Collyer from the FDIC case gave specific instructions for the parties to attempt to work out all of the litigation, if possible, in conjunction with the BK case. She did not see the point in running two court cases.
Count III Taking of Plaintiffs' Property Without Just Compensation
Count IV Conversion of Plaintiffs' Property
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to grant the following I. An order declaring Plaintiffs' Claims to be valid and proven against the Receivership; 2. An order directing FDIC-Receiver to pay the Claims from the assets of the Receivership in accordance with 12 U.S.c. § 1821(d)(ll); 3. An order directing FDIC-Receiver to provide Plaintiffs with an accounting of the disposition of the assets of the Receivership if any Claim is not satisfied in full; 4. An order directing FDIC-Receiver to provide Plaintiffs with an accounting of all property transferred from Plaintiffs in, connection with the Receivership; 5. Enter a judgment against FDIC-Corporate and FDIC-Receiver for damages, in an amount to be determined, equal to the amount of money Plaintiffs would have received in a straight liquidation of WMB' s assets and liabilities less any amounts actually received from the Receivership; 6. Enter a judgment against FDIC-Corporate and FDIC-Receiver for damages, in an amount to be determined, equal to the value of Plaintiffs' property converted by the FDIC; 7. An order declaring that the FDIC's January 23, 2009 disallowance to be void, and that the parties should proceed as if such disallowance never occurred; 8. A ward Plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees as may be permitted by law; and 9. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as may be just.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
