Replies to post #38109 on Washington Mutual Preferred fka WAMPQ

[clawmann]

marayatano: First, I think you actually meant "executory", but I still like the typo. :)

Second: I have a hard time believing that the Dimes would allow this to become a game of chicken, a binary event with a huge win or huge loss as an outcome. I have to believe that they - the parties - have given great consideration to including Dimes in the settlement and then telling the judge to file and never issue her decision on the dimes. I could see, of the many possibilities, for example, Dimes agreeing to reduce their claim by 50+% and the debtor and the other parties agreeing to not contest Dimes' status as debt subject to Dimes' agreement to that haircut. Final arguments may only have been for negotiating purposes.

[NASCOW]

As JPM inherited all, picked all, the goodies of WAMU "Purchase"...It would only be Fair & Reasonable they cover TPS [mortgage securities] and finish the Anchor transfer off with transferring LTW to JPM, LOL; rather than the estate getting stuck with double indemnity....[lol sarcasm]

And, as noted, once the WMI Board decided to give away the Anchor Litigation to JPMorgan, it never asked JPMorgan to assume the LTW obligations under the 2003 Warrant Agreement. In sum, the WMI Board breached its obligations to the LTW holders when it decided to adopt the proposal made by two of the Settlement Noteholders in giving away the Anchor Litigation to JPMorgan. "