Dannon, WMI has not challenged the actual seizure in any filings, only the value received in exchange for that seizure. Basically, FIRREA says they can seize a bank -- and that's not WMI's argument, so unless the Examiner found something that contradicts FIRREA --- AND also somehow lets WMI avoid the elapsed 'bar' date for claiming such seizure, the answer is NO. And, for my opinion, I don't expect the seizure itself to be any focus. (a) it's not necessary at all to 'win', and (b) it's a red herring legally.
And Y! vs. iHub -- well, actually GB... but that's another story.
After that, generally iHub, but Y! has it's place.
...Catz
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
