Rankia Perú Rankia Argentina Rankia Brasil Rankia Chile Rankia Colombia Rankia Deutschland Rankia España Rankia France Rankia Italia Rankia México Rankia Polska Rankia Portugal Rankia United Kingdom Rankia USA

Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

26.5K respuestas
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
3 suscriptores
Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños
3,215 / 3,345

WAMU: Criminal liability no está exenta de ser perseguida

I want all of you to think back to the settlements in this bankruptcy court and understand what they were.. All Settlements in a Bankruptcy court are of the "CIVIL" (Money) type and do not and can not include "CRIMINAL" (jail time and lose of personal wealth) releases. A bankruptcy judge does not have the legal right per statute to release any party from potential criminal liability for their actions.

1. We know the Hedge Funds (allegedly) participated in Insider Trading in the Equity and Notes of WMI securities during the bankruptcy. We are aware their intent was to circumvent the bankruptcy creditor process for their own greed.

2. We know by discovery that JPM executives (allegedly) used "covert tactics" to infiltrate the WMB organization as to gain "insider knowledge" of the books and processes as such and "May" have provided this information to the executives at JPM who pulled the trigger to meet with the FDIC and "get color" on what the FDIC wanted to take WMB from WMI. We also know the Sheila Bair had Jamie Dimon's personal cell phone # and was calling him in early Sept. We also know the JPM signed a "confidentiality agreement" with WMI on WMB with express consent needed by the BOD of WMI to buy WMB from WMI. However, the CA did not apply to JPM getting a "gift" from FDIC via Sheila.

3. What else do we know.. Project West..Billions in "naked shorts on WMI stock when a "no short order" was signed by Paulson. Maybe it was necessary to take WMB down (WMI would file for BK) because all those "shorts" that were outstanding before Paulson added WMI to the list of do not short banks, needed to cover their positions. Best way to do this, take down the stock and cover at the bottom. In their case, they got a windfall, because WMI went into bankruptcy when it lost it "prized possession.. Billions in Deposit withdrawals after the "Banker has it" article from American Banker. TARP needed and a takedown necessary to get it?
We can go on and on.. Think about all the Bankers and Investment Bankers who have committed suicide in the last 2 years.

We shareholders know what "may have allegedly" happened, so hopefully in time, we will see this materialize.

Keep in mind, all the claims the WMILT have "not pursued yet or withdrew from the court" have been do so under the "without prejudice" statute.

Without Prejudice
Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.
The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.

The purpose and effect of the words without prejudice in a judgment, order, or decree dismissing a suit are to prohibit the defendant from using the doctrine of Res Judicata in any later action by the same plaintiff on the subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata (from the Latin, "a thing decided") is based on the importance of finality in the law. If a court decides a case, the subject of that case is firmly and finally decided between the persons involved in the suit, so no new lawsuit on the same subject may be brought by the persons involved. Therefore, the words without prejudice protect the plaintiff from a defendant's res judicata defense.

A court may also enter judgment with prejudice, however. This signifies that the court has made an adjudication on the merits of the case and a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject. If a new lawsuit is brought, a defendant can properly invoke res judicata as a defense, because a court will not relitigate a matter that has been fully heard before. Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.


Re: WAMU: Tricadia expuso el valor de los Escrows

Para los que tienen memoria selectiva Tricadia demostró el valor que había en el Shell de WAMU
y se le pagó para que dejaran de sacar datos tras exponer lo siguiente...


Tricadia, Rosie, The Nixed PORs and Escrow Shares!

The bottom line is Tricadia exposed the value of the NOLs which Rosie was going to cover up entirely and give to the SNHs in the original POR that was turned down even by this court. One reason was Rosie was discriminating within the plan and was going to allow SNHs who held two million worth of the former WAHUQ securities to have the new shares that was going to go for $25.00 a share. This was nixed.

The SNHs were not only going to get the NEWCO but also all of the remaining spoils (IMHO a HUGE CASH PILE) until the final plan nixed all of that, changed the Matrix payout leaving the Piers with a capped non guaranteed rate and possibly impaired in the end. Time will soon tell whether this next week, next month or next year depending on potential delays that we may or may not see.

Again, the point is Tricadia EXPOSED the potential value of the tax attributes, which smacked Rosie hard and then Rosie paid Tricadia around fifty million to shut up and go away which they did. Before the the P&A is official with JPM, the bankruptcy case officially closed along with tranches 5/6 worked, Piers paid or left impaired, only then will we know for sure what the SNHs were going to get originally.

I still expect the escrow share account owners will see what the SNHs were really after and how they divided the former 350 billion dollar organization called WaMu with four year court sealed term sheets they signed on 3/11/2010. Once Susman/Willingham got a hold of this and then fast forward to the final POR where the Piers was capped, Matrix changed, thus allowing Equity all of the spoils and ruining their plan to cancel equity out in total. Hopefully, most of these dates pushed into 3/2105 is just posturing but only time will tell at this point.



Tricadia y los $17 Billones del Shell de WAMU

Tricadia Seeks To Preserve $17B Tax Claim For WaMu
Share us on: By Lance Duroni

Law360, New York (November 23, 2010, 7:54 PM ET) -- Tricadia Capital Management LLC received bankruptcy court approval Tuesday to restrict the trading of certain guarantee claims against Washington Mutual Inc., in an effort to preserve a potential $17 billion tax windfall for WaMu’s estates if its reorganization plan is not confirmed.
Judge Mary F. Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware signed off on the notice and hearing procedures proposed by Tricadia, saying the motion did not impose a significant burden on the debtors.

Tricadia holds a majority of $68 million in claims against Washington Mutual Bank that WaMu guaranteed as part of its 2007 restructuring — the so-called CCB guarantee claims. Tricadia’s said it is concerned that unrestricted trading of those claims could disqualify the debtors from collecting on net operating tax loss carryforwards worth as much as $17 billion.

The debtors’ current plan would claim a similar worthless stock tax deduction, valued at potentially $5 billion, and its structure precludes the net operating loss refunds envisioned by Tricadia, according to a response filed by the debtors.

However, the investment fund pointed out in its motion that WaMu’s Chapter 11 plan is not set in stone and future amendments, or an entirely new plan, could allow the debtors to take advantage of the safe harbor exception for net operating loss refunds.

“Given this uncertainty, it is critical that the debtors retain the utmost flexibility to maximize the value of their estates for the benefit of their creditors… the debtors may be able to utilize the [safe harbor] exception and potentially generate billions of dollars in additional value for their estates,” Tricadia said in its motion.

“In Tricadia’s view, free insurance that may prove to be highly valuable is never a bad thing to have, and that is what the monitoring of CCB guarantee claims amounts to,” the investment fund added.

Brian S. Rosen, an attorney for the debtors from Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, suggested at the hearing that Tricadia’s real goal was to modify the plan, rather than simply provide insurance, and that the investment fund was vastly overstating the value of the net operating loss refunds. The debtors also said Tricadia should pay for the proposed procedures itself.

“We don’t think it is something the estate should bear when next week, if and when the plan is confirmed, this becomes a non-issue,” Rosen said.

Judge Walrath said the potential gains for the estate were worth the minimal costs and granted the motion, which makes any transfer of more than $3 million in CCB guarantee claims subject to court approval.

WaMu’s Chapter 11 plan confirmation hearing is scheduled for Dec. 1 through Dec. 3. Before considering the plan itself, the court will hear an adversary suit filed by a group of investment funds seeking to claw back $4 billion in securities transferred from WaMu to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on the eve of the company’s bankruptcy.

The funds, headed up by Black Horse Capital LP, claim that their preferred securities — worth around $1 billion — do not belong to the Chapter 11 estate of WaMu and the conditional agreement to exchange the securities for equity interests just hours before WaMu collapsed in 2008 is invalid.

When WaMu was trading its trust-preferred securities to raise about $4 billion, it was also engaging in “rampant fraud,” misrepresenting the soundness of operations of its national banking arm and underrepresenting the risks in Washington Mutual Bank NA’s loan portfolio, the suit says.

WaMu is represented by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Richards Layton & Finger PA.

Tricadia is represented by Pickney Harris & Weidinger LLC and Schiffrin & Partners PC.

The case is In re: Washington Mutual Inc. et al., case number 08-12229-MFW, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.


El acuerdo de compra finaliza el 25 Septiembre 2014


3.1 Assets Purchased by Assuming Bank. Subject to Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 4.8, the
Assuming Ban hereby purchases from the Receiver, and the Receiver hereby sells, assigns,
transfers, conveys, and delivers to the Assuming Ban, all right, title, and interest of
the Receiver in and to all of the assets (real, personal and mixed, wherever located and however acquired) including all subsidiares, joint ventures, parnerships, and any and all other business combinations or arangements, whether active, inactive, dissolved or terminated, of the Failed Ban whether or not reflected on the books of
the Failed Ban as of Ban Closing. Assets are purchased hereunder by the Assuming Ban subject to all liabilities for indebtedness collateralized by Liens affecting such Assets to the extent provided in Section 2.1. The subsidiares, joint ventures, parnerships, and any and all other business combinations or arangements, whether active, inactive, dissolved or terminated being purchased by the Assuming Ban includes, but is not limited to, the entities listed on Schedule 3.1a. Notwithstanding Section 4.8, the Assuming Ban specifically purchases all mortgage servicing rights and obligations of the Failed Ban.


Re: El acuerdo de compra finaliza el 25 Septiembre 2014

A ver si llega el día que los que llevamos scrows de las preferentes podemos saber si vamos a recibir algún céntimo.
Hay alguna fecha para ello?


Re: El acuerdo de compra finaliza el 25 Septiembre 2014

Solo se que no se nada... ganas de saber más que ninguno :)


Re: El acuerdo de compra finaliza el 25 Septiembre 2014


Brokers destacados