COOP News (ehemals: Wamu /WMIH)

Montag, 8. Oktober 2012
Columbus Day (Kolumbus-Tag)
gesetzlicher Feiertag in den USA

WaMu Bondholders' Suit Over 'Fire Sale' To JP Morgan Pared

Law360, New York (October 01, 2012, 5:45 PM ET) -- Washington Mutual NA bondholders will see only their tortious interference claim against JPMorgan Chase & Co. move forward, after a Washington, D.C., federal judge on Friday trimmed the insurers' suit claiming JPMorgan engineered the bank's downfall in order to buy it at a massive discount.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer found the bondholders' claims for unjust enrichment and breach of a confidentiality agreement failed because the alleged damage had actually been done to WaMu itself. The claims therefore belonged to the FDIC receiver for the.
www.law360.com/insurance/articles/383016/...to-jp-morgan-pared

Hast Du einen Zugang zu der Seite, so dass man den kompletten Text lesen kann? Sehe ich das richtig, dass es sich dabei um die ANICO-Geschichte handelt...?

www.structuredfinancenews.com/news/...ing-Return-234012-1.html

bin nicht ganz sicher, aber evtl. ist das identisch.
oli

in der sie jpm vorwerfen, sich ungerechtfertigt bereichert zu haben, sind von der richterin collyer nicht anerkannt worden. so wie ich das verstanden habe, aber leider nicht ganz lesen kann, da man sich dort anmelden muss, ist sie der meinung, nein nicht gegen jpm sondern wenn schon dann gegen die fdic klagen...
oli

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Sept. 28 partially granted JP Morgan Chase & Co.'s (Chase) motion to dismiss Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) bondholders' suit arising from Chase's acquisition of WaMu, finding that two counts are derivative in nature and do not belong to the bondholders but that the bondholders have sufficiently stated a claim in their count for tortious interference, a claim that belongs to the bondholders (American National Insurance Co., et al. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., No. 09-01743, Dist. D.C.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139831).

10720   BNC Certificate of Service re: Notice of Filing of Transcript and of Deadlines Related to Restriction and Redaction Regarding Hearing Held on September 25, 2012

www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229121001000000000001.pdf

10721   Complaint by WMI Liquidating Trust Against Gennadiy Darakhovskiy (Adversary Case No. 12-50902)

www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229121001000000000008.pdf

10722   Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Abbe A. Miller to Represent Edward J. Bach, Henry J. Berens and Michael R. Zarro

www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229121001000000000002.pdf

Leider -hoffentlich erstmal- nur gegen Bear Stearns......

 

"Die US-Großbank JP Morgan wird von der Vergangenheit eingeholt: Die Staatsanwaltschaft New York verklagt das Geldhaus wegen Betrugs bei Hypothekenpapieren vor Ausbruch der Finanzkrise. Ist das der Beginn einer Klagewelle kurz vor der Präsidentschaftswahl Anfang November?

Gerade auf Spiegel Online gelesen:
www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/...gsklage-a-859063.html

Die US-Großbank JP Morgan wird von der Vergangenheit eingeholt: Die Staatsanwaltschaft New York verklagt das Geldhaus wegen Betrugs bei Hypothekenpapieren vor Ausbruch der Finanzkrise. Ist das der Beginn einer Klagewelle kurz vor der Präsidentschaftswahl Anfang November?

 
New York - Die Finanzkrise beschäftigt auch vier Jahre nach ihrem Ausbruch die US-Gerichte. Die New Yorker Staatsanwaltschaft hat gegen die US-Großbank JP Morgan Chase eine Klage wegen Betrugs eingereicht. Sie wirft der von JP Morgan übernommenen Investmentbank Bear Stearns vor, Investoren beim Kauf von Hypothekenpapieren belogen zu haben.

Den Anlegern soll vorgetäuscht worden sein, dass es sich bei den durch Immobilienhypotheken besicherten Wertpapieren um eine gute und sorgfältig zusammengestellte Anlage handle - in Wirklichkeit aber basierte sie auf tausenden von faulen Hauskrediten. Die Käufer der Papiere erlitten riesige Verluste.
JP Morgan zeigte sich in einem Statement enttäuscht, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft der Bank nicht rechtzeitig die Gelegenheit gegeben habe, die Vorwürfe zu entkräften. Der Finanzkonzern gilt als Nutznießer der Finanzkrise, da er sich durch geschickte Zukäufe vergrößern konnte. So hatte JP Morgan im März 2008 mit Unterstützung der US-Notenbank den Konkurrenten Bear Stearns übernommen, um eine Insolvenz der Investmentbank zu verhindern. Bear Stearns war das erste größere Opfer der Krise auf dem US-Immobilienmarkt, die zur weltweiten Finanzkrise führte.

Einige US-Medien werteten den Vorstoß als Vorboten einer Klagewelle kurz vor der Präsidentschaftswahl Anfang November. US-Präsident Barack Obama hatte bei seinem Amtsantritt angekündigt, die Wall Street zu zügeln. Er trieb die Finanzmarktreform voran, den sogenannten Dodd-Frank-Act. Kritiker bezeichnen das Regelwerk jedoch als zu lasch. Im Januar hatte die Regierung zusätzlich eine Gruppe mit hochrangigen Ermittlern eingerichtet, die Betrug mit Hypothekenpapieren nachgehen sollten. Zu den Mitgliedern zählt auch der New Yorker Generalstaatsanwalt Eric Schneiderman, der nun die Klage gegen JP Morgan eingereicht hat.

Seit Ausbruch der Krise laufen bereits zahlreiche Betrugsklagen, meistens von Investoren, die sich geprellt fühlen. Welche Folgen öffentliche Vorhaltungen wie jetzt bei JP Morgan haben können, hatte vor zwei Jahren die Investmentbank Goldman Sachs   zu spüren bekommen. Die US-Börsenaufsicht SEC hatte ihr vorgeworfen, ebenfalls beim Verkauf von Hypothekenpapieren getäuscht zu haben. Über Wochen stand das Wall-Street-Haus in der Kritik. Am Ende zahlte Goldman in einem Vergleich 550 Millionen Dollar, um den Fall zu den Akten legen zu können.

so weiter geht, bleibt für uns nichts mehr über... ;-(

Wer Releases erteilt hat, braucht sich darüber sowieso keine Gedanken zu machen... ;-)

Außerdem wissen wir mittlerweile doch alle, wie diese Geschichten ausgehen: Hohe Klagen, damit die Anwälte teure Rechnungen schreiben können, und anschließend gibt es i.d.R. ein Settlement über einen Bruchteil der ursprünglichen Summe.

Ich glaube, ich muss dich korrigieren... Es geht um die zeit vor pleiter von Bear stears... Und in unsere fall hat JPM auch kein releases erhalten... Nur fur zeit " during  buncrupcy" oder?

Das gilt aber nur für Pre-Seizure-Holder.

wohl nicht wahr sein!    (Old Song)

die Frage wie lange und wann geht die Party richtig los...?
Und zweitens kommen die Escrows irgendwann mal ins Geld oder wurden wir einfach salopp gesagt nur ´abgefertigt´ , die Hoffnung stirbt bekanntlich zuletzt...

Ein Verkauf aktuell ist unsinnig, denn ich hätte quasi fast einen Totalverlust....
es bleibt einem gar nichts anderes übrig als gelduldig zu warten und zu hoffen...
Aber das kann und wird sicherlich noooooooooooooooch  etwas dauuuuuuuuuern...

Glück auf...

JMMorgan hat damals die Wamu fürn Appel undn ei übernommen ich frage mich ob das alles reell zugegangen ist, definitiv nein nur die Macht des Geldes kann sich einfach sehr gute Anwälte leisten, da hat man im Grunde kauf eine reelle chance diese Banditos zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen.........Wammmmuuuuuuu gooooool  lol

du kennst dich aus.

Wer Releases erteilt hat, braucht sich darüber sowieso keine Gedanken zu machen... ;-)

Das seh ich aber anders,
wenn sich Betrug nachweisen
lässt, dann hat die Releaserteilung
keine Gültigkeit mehr.

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80115641


Hi Board...Still have not heard anything from the jack wagons running the new entity, but as I said awhile back, they are not writing any new business and have not even breathed one word of an acquisition, that has to be because they are getting prepared to be acquired for the tax benefits and the tax benefits only.

I did try my best to beat it into this board's head, that the NOL's were of the OL variety and had no restrictions. Some tried to knock me down for my comment, but this little tidbit proves what I was saying was entirely correct. I was a little off in the value of such, something got written off entirely after the BK started, because WMB had much more OL loss accumulated for WMI.


From 10-QA

Based on our analysis, we believe WMIHC experienced an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to emergence, WMI abandoned the stock of Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB"), thereby generating a worthless stock deduction of approximately $8.37 billion, which gives rise to a NOL for the current year. We believe that the total available and utilizable NOL carry forward at March 19, 2012 is expected to be approximately $5.96 billion and at June 30, 2012 there was no limit on the use of these NOLs. See Note 7: Federal Income Taxes and Item 1A. Risk Factors- Risks Related to WMIHC"s
Business

Bring on a really huge corporation that needs to offset a large amount of profits... NO RESTRICTIONS.

Look up my previous post on why the IRS in 2008 made a rule change for the benefit of an OL that is not restricted.. One example is when a Parent company of a bank that has the bank account for 80% or more of its total earnings loses the bank through receivership, the worthless stock deduction will become an Ordinary Loss (OL) that will have no restrictions for the acquiring party of the parent company.

This rule change was made to protect the shareholders of the parent company from huge losses and therefore when they are acquired they can get back some of the losses in said acquisition of parent. As I stated last year..

WMIH will acquired by a multi-billion dollar corporation who will want to use the "unrestricted" OL of the NOL variety to offset the profits they have generated over the year. Companies like Apple, Google, Exxon-Mobil, Not BP (they lost too much in Gulf spill) etc.. OL's are written directly off the balance sheet (like expenses)
Let's say you made

4 Billion and you acquire a company that has a 2 Billion OL
You now have a taxable income of 2 Billion at 35% that translates to 700 Million saved by acquiring the company with the 2 Billion OL. If you paid 25% for the company you get what they have and you save 350Million in the process.

OUR OL/NOL is 6 Billion X 35% = 2.1 Billion discounted 20% = 1.68 Billion/200M = roughly $8 pps. You issue stock in your company equivalent to and the transaction is done and you get the OL/NOL for a direct write-off which benefits all shareholders in your corp.

Now all we do is wait for Dec 31, to see if the BOD is on pace to get acquired. I hope you guys enjoyed this awesome summer, I know I have. My Ducks are undefeated and we (shareholders) are waiting for the announcement of being acquired. Go back and read my posts on the 382 (D) I think, rule change for NOL into OL by the IRS. Or just search my posts. I would post it, but I am just too damn busy right now.

Did we get released from THJMW's court yet?
I know she had command and control still.

Take Care
~Don~

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80117017

fsson, it is always good to hear from you and I hope you are doing well. I will copy/paste your older post that you discussed but did not have time to post. I believe this is it.

I think yoor thought is what the Horsies wanted to do orginally for the fast buck - use the O.L. and waste the rest. i think now with the group in there representing Equity they will take the longer approach and use ALL of the NOL's and while the may lose the fast buck there will be far more money to be made ove the next many years taking the slower route but we shall see.

READ ALL OF THIS>>> Do not forget the "Ordinary Loss" that occurred when the debtors abandoned the stock in WMB. That is a very large sum of money. Probably in the neighborhood of 18 Billion. I know the debtors took some tax losses in 2009, 2010. When the IRS installed the Rule that allows holding companies i.e. WMI to realize an Ordinary Loss instead of an Operation Loss when they lost their main income producing asset i.e WAMU BANKS they did with the expressed intention that the Holding Company could then take an "ORDINARY LOSS" that could be rolled over onto the entities books, therefore allowing the holding companies creditors and shareholders to recoup some investment through an acquisition schedule. Of course IRS does not want to facilitate acquisition to avoid taxes, but that is exactly what they did with this rule. WMIH meets every requirement in the language I have submitted below.

If the Holding Company does not use this Ordinary Loss in the tax year it was acquired i.e 2012, then the Hold Co will have to put the Loss on the books in the NOL category and therefore subject the loss to stricter rules per the IRS. WMI is not going to allow a multi-billion loss now worth 39% to an acquiring firm to just rollover into the NOL category on WMI's books. No, once the BK is completely finalized and all creditors are satisfied, (if I am reading this right) WMIH can then be acquired for the losses as well as the assets. An ordinary loss is not an operating loss. Worthless Stock is just that WORTHLESS !!!

WMI MEETS THE 165 TEST (remember discussions about this in BK court?)

Parent can deduct as ordinary loss worthless securities in wholly-owned subsidiary PLR 201108001 IRS has privately ruled that, provided Code Sec. 165(a) 's and Code Sec. 165(g) 's requirements for claiming a worthless securities deduction are met, a savings and loan (S&L) company may claim an ordinary loss for its basis in the stock of its wholly-owned banking subsidiary. In so holding, IRS determined that the interest on and gains from the sale of the subsidiary's real estate and consumer loans were active receipts for purposes of applying the Code Sec. 165(g)(3) gross receipts test since, until the subsidiary was placed in receivership, it was an active operating company that performed significant services in its banking transactions. Background. If any security that is a capital asset becomes worthless during the tax year, the loss is treated as from the sale or exchange of a capital asset—that is, as a capital loss—on the last day of the tax year. ( Code Sec. 165(g)(1) ) A share of stock in a corporation is included in the definition of a security. ( Code Sec. 165(g)(2) )

Under the Code Sec. 165(g)(3) exception, a domestic corporation can claim an ordinary loss for worthless securities of an affiliated corporation. A corporation is affiliated with the taxpayer if it meets these two tests: ...

Ownership test. The taxpayer must own directly stock in the corporation meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2) (i.e., at least 80% of the voting power and value of the corporation's stock); ( Code Sec. 165(g)(3)(A) ) and ...

Gross receipts test. More than 90% of the aggregate of the corporation's gross receipts for all tax years must be from sources other than royalties, rents (except rents derived from rental of properties to employees of the corporation in the ordinary course of its operating business), dividends, interest (except interest received on deferred purchase price of operating assets sold), annuities, and gains from sales or exchanges of stocks and securities. ( Code Sec. 165(g)(3)(B) ) Reg. §

1.165-5(d)(2)(iii) provides that the gross receipts test applies for all tax years during which the subsidiary has been in existence. Under Reg. § 1.1502-80(c) , subsidiary stock is not treated as worthless under Code Sec. 165 until immediately before the earlier of the time: (1) the stock is worthless within the meaning of Reg. § 1.1502-19(c)(1)(iii) ; or (2) the subsidiary for any reason ceases to be a member of the group. Under Code Sec. 582(c) , the sale or exchange of a bond, debenture, note, certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness by financial institutions (including banks) will generally result in ordinary gain or loss. Worthless stock in an affiliated bank (in which the taxpayer owns at least 80% of each class of stock) gives rise to an ordinary loss deduction if the stock becomes worthless.

Facts. Parent and its domestic corporate subsidiaries are members of an affiliated group of corporations that has historically filed a U.S. consolidated federal income tax return. Parent is a S&L company, and the subsidiary at issue (Sub), in which Parent owns all outstanding stock, operated as a federally chartered savings bank and was Parent's principal operating subsidiary. Parent and one of its non-banking subsidiaries (bankrupt subsidiary) filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on Date 1. The bankruptcy filing was precipitated by the seizure of Sub by the Office of Thrift Supervision and placement into a receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on Date 2, immediately followed by a receivership sale of substantially all of Sub's assets.

The FDIC, as receiver, continues to act on Sub's behalf and holds Sub's remaining assets (including the sale proceeds). The receivership sale was a taxable transaction in which a separate entity purchased substantially all of Sub's assets and assumed all of its the deposits and certain other liabilities. Sub also had unassumed debt liabilities, and parent's group reported a net loss on its consolidated tax return with respect to the sale.

Since the sale, Sub's assets have principally consisted of the cash proceeds, some amount of which has been invested in marketable securities, and certain intercompany claims and other causes of action. On Date 3, Parent and its bankrupt subsidiary filed a proposed plan of reorganization under chapter 11. The plan is premised on the Bankruptcy Court's approval of a proposed settlement agreement resolving numerous disputes among Parent and its bankrupt subsidiary, the corporation that purchased substantially all of Sub's assets, and the FDIC.

The existing outstanding stock of Parent will be cancelled on the effective date of the plan, and it is currently contemplated that new common shares of reorganized Parent will be issued to certain claimholders. The plan also provides for the establishment of a liquidating trust. At the time that the private letter ruling (PLR) was issued, ignoring any possible recovery on the receiver's claims, the outstanding debt of Sub exceeds its assets, and Sub is expected to remain insolvent.

Parent has an adjusted tax basis in its Sub stock of at least an undisclosed amount, Sub continues to be a member of Parent's group, and Parent has not claimed a worthless stock deduction with respect to the Sub stock under Reg. § 1.1502-80(c) .

Parent expects to recognize its loss from its Sub stock no later than the cancellation of such stock upon the winding-up of the Sub receivership. But, Parent may seek to abandon its stock interest in Sub at an earlier time, in which case Parent will recognize the loss at the time of abandonment. Conclusion. IRS determined that, provided all the requirements for claiming a worthless securities deduction are met,

Parent may claim an ordinary loss for its basis in Sub's stock. Parent represented that the stock would be worthless under Code Sec. 165(g)(1) at the time specified in Reg. § 1.1502-80(c) , and IRS concluded that Parent met the affiliation requirements under Code Sec. 165(g)(3) where it satisfied both the ownership test and the gross receipts test.

The ownership test was readily met based on facts that (i) Parent directly owned all of the stock in Sub, (ii) Parent didn't elect under Reg. § 1.597-4(g) to disaffiliate Sub, and (iii) Sub would continue to be an affiliate until it was liquidated or until Parent abandoned its stock. IRS then examined the language and legislative history of Code Sec. 165(g)(3)(B) and determined that the interest on and gains from the sale of Sub's real estate and consumer loans were active receipts for purposes of applying the gross receipts test. IRS reasoned that the gross receipts test was intended to be a mechanism for determining whether a subsidiary is an operating company (for which an ordinary loss may be allowed) or a holding company (for which no ordinary loss is allowed), and Sub was clearly an operating company that performed significant services in conjunction with the banking transactions that yielded interest income and gain. IRS found that the legislative history of Code Sec. 582(c) further indicates that, for operating banks, gains from transactions involving items of indebtedness are more appropriately treated as yielding ordinary income since these items are akin to inventory or stock items. Thus, IRS reasoned that such gains from such transactions shouldn't be treated as passive for purposes of Code Sec. 165(g)(3)(B) . § 165 Losses.

Parent has until last day of Tax YEAR 2012 to realize the Ordinary Loss on the Books of the WMIH

Until then... WE WAIT !!! Sorry it was so long, but it is important that we look ahead and not back.

~Don~

Habe keine Lust, hier wieder uralt Diskussionen hervorzukramen, aber noch einmal: In so einem Fall wäre es entscheidend, wann man seine Shares erworben hat (Stichwort Pre-/Post-Seizure-Holder). Alles schon tausendmal geschrieben.

Da ich aber stark davon ausgehe, dass ihr von einem "bösen Basher" wie mir ohnehin keinen Rat annehmen wollt, erlaube ich mir einfach, einen Link zu einem alten Posting von ID_payback einzustellen, der bei euch sicherlich über jeden Zweifel erhaben ist. Und wer es dann immer noch nicht glauben möchte, soll einfach weiter von einer Millionen-Klage gegen JPM träumen: www.ariva.de/forum/...93906-News-364286

Wie kann man  den Dreck hier eigentlich schön reden? Die haben uns alle verarscht. Ich für meinen Teil kaufe keine Drecksamiakltien mehr ,alles Heuchler und Verbrecher.Unsere Anwälte hätten wir uns schenken können,die haben uns eh nur abgezockt .Hier würd nichts mehr passieren.

Moin!

Die Situation finde ich auch nicht prickelnd.

Nur, soll ich auf die BerufsBasher hören und mit 85 % im Minus aussteigen?

Oder sind wir wertlos ausgebucht :-)

schön ruhig bleiben

Glückauf

ist doch so, dass das es die wenigsten von uns betrifft. für diejenigen, die die aktien so lange, und zwar bevor "geseizt " wurde, im depot hatten, für die trifft das urteil in erster linie zu. Die frage die sich dann allerdings stellt ist doch die, ob die klagen nochmal gestellt werden koennen und zwar gegen die fdic....und das ist scheinbar ein knackpunkt, denn meines erachtens könnten diejenigen dies nochmal versuchen, aber wie groß ist dann die aussicht auf erfolg ?...anders...wer lässt sich dann darauf ein...?

was wäre denn eigentlich passiert, wenn den klagen recht gegeben worden wäre ?...dann wären die letzten jahre, in denen verhandelt worden ist, auf einmal für die katz gewesen, dass hätte ein heilloses durcheinander gegeben, in meinen augen wäre dann ja alles fraglich, ob der por , das ds überhaupt rechtskräftig sind...? ich weiß das nicht, koennte mir aber vorstellen, dass es dann evtl. auch spekulationen gegeben hätte, ob die firma ( neu wmih ) überhaupt so hätte starten koennen . ( vorausgesetzt sie startet einmal ...lol
ich hab jedenfalls nicht ernsthaft damit gerechnet, dass die klagen durchgehen. da hätte man schon ein unverbesserlicher optimist sein muessen.
oli

Insolvenz, wie wärs damit?, damit ist alles hinfällig.