Uncle RD
42 minutes ago
Ron,
Thanks for the link. Listed below is an example of many cases invloving WAMU and it's trustees. The case shown below is from 2024.
To see others like it, click on the Docketbird link, then type WAMU into the tan search bar and hit enter.
U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OA4 v. JEFIM POLISCHUK et al
Richmond County Supreme Court, c-nyric-2024-135039/2024
2024 civil case
Thanks,
Uncle RD
goodietime
1 hour ago
From PerplexityAI:
Q:
In the WAMU bankruptcy, a POR (POR 7)was voted on and approved by all parties affected. LATER this POR 7 was 'amended'. These 'amendments' were not voted on by all of the former approvers of the original. On top of that these 'amendments' were/are being kept hidden from a large group that were the original voters. Is this a common business practice? How can the Courts even find this a Legal thing to do?
A:
Amendments to WaMu’s POR 7: Voting, Disclosure, and Legal Standards
Summary of the Situation
In the Washington Mutual (WaMu) bankruptcy, the Seventh Amended Plan of Reorganization (POR 7) was confirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in February 2012, following extensive negotiations and settlements among major parties, including WaMu, JPMorgan Chase, and the FDIC. The plan had undergone several amendments before reaching this confirmed version.
Your question concerns the process by which amendments to POR 7 were made after an initial vote and whether it is common or legal for such amendments to be made without a new vote by all original approving parties, especially if some amendments were not disclosed to all affected groups.
Is It Common Practice to Amend a Confirmed Plan Without a New Vote?
Amending a Plan of Reorganization:
In U.S. bankruptcy practice, it is not unusual for a plan of reorganization to be amended multiple times before final court confirmation. Each major amendment typically requires renewed disclosure and, if the changes are material and affect creditors' treatment, a new vote by affected classes. However, once a plan is confirmed by the court, any subsequent modification is governed by strict rules under the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 1127).
Post-Confirmation Amendments:
After confirmation, the Bankruptcy Code allows modifications to a plan only under certain conditions, and generally only before the plan has been substantially consummated. Material modifications usually require court approval, notice to affected parties, and sometimes a new vote if the changes adversely affect creditors or equity holders.
Disclosure and Notice Requirements
Transparency:
The bankruptcy process requires transparency and notice to all parties whose rights are affected by the plan or its amendments. If amendments are material and affect distributions or rights, the court generally requires that all impacted parties receive notice and, in some cases, the opportunity to object or vote again.
Court Oversight:
The bankruptcy court acts as a safeguard to ensure that all parties are treated fairly and that the process remains transparent. The court will not approve undisclosed or hidden amendments that materially alter the plan without proper notice and process.
Legality and Judicial Review
Legal Standards:
The court must find that the plan (and any amendments) is “fair and equitable” and in the “best interests of creditors.” If amendments were made without proper notice or the opportunity for affected parties to be heard, this could be grounds for objection or even reversal of confirmation if challenged in time.
Case-Specific Context:
In WaMu’s case, the court’s orders and public records indicate that the Seventh Amended Plan was the product of extensive, public negotiations and settlements, and that the court reviewed the fairness and adequacy of disclosures before confirming the plan. If there were later amendments made in secret or without notice to affected parties, this would be highly irregular and likely subject to legal challenge.
Conclusion
It is not common or permissible for material amendments to a confirmed plan of reorganization to be made without notice, disclosure, and, if necessary, a new vote by affected parties. The bankruptcy court’s role is to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process.
If amendments to WaMu’s POR 7 were made and kept hidden from original voting parties, this would be contrary to standard bankruptcy practice and could be challenged legally.
Courts can only find such actions legal if they are satisfied that all statutory requirements for notice, disclosure, and opportunity to be heard have been met.
If you believe amendments were made without proper process, affected parties may have grounds for legal action to challenge those amendments or seek remedies.
newflow
16 hours ago
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
A **constructive trust** is a legal remedy imposed by a court. It's not a formal trust created by agreement, but rather a tool used to prevent unjust enrichment. When someone has obtained or holds property unfairly—through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other wrongful conduct—a court can declare that they hold that property as a "trustee" for the benefit of the person who was actually harmed or is the rightful owner. The purpose is to transfer the property back to its rightful owner and prevent the wrongdoer from profiting from their actions.
**Why JPMorgan and Washington Mutual Agreed to a Constructive Trust:**
It's important to clarify that JPMorgan Chase did *not* agree to a constructive trust with Washington Mutual (WaMu) itself. Washington Mutual was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2008 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. The FDIC then sold most of WaMu's assets and some liabilities to JPMorgan Chase.
The concept of a constructive trust arose in the *aftermath* of WaMu's collapse and the acquisition by JPMorgan Chase, often in legal disputes concerning specific assets or actions related to WaMu's prior conduct. Here's why a constructive trust might have been relevant in that context:
* **Unjust Enrichment:** If it was argued that JPMorgan Chase (as the successor to certain WaMu assets) or WaMu itself had been unjustly enriched at the expense of another party due to wrongful conduct before the collapse, a constructive trust could be sought as a remedy.
* **Breach of Fiduciary Duty:** If WaMu or its officers had breached a fiduciary duty to certain parties, and this resulted in the wrongful holding of assets, a constructive trust could be imposed on those assets for the benefit of the wronged parties.
* **Fraudulent or Wrongful Conduct:** If assets were obtained through fraudulent or other wrongful means by WaMu prior to its failure, a constructive trust could be a way to ensure those assets are returned to the rightful owners, even if they are now held by JPMorgan Chase as part of the acquisition.
**Examples in the WaMu/JPMorgan Context:**
While there wasn't a broad agreement for a single "Constructive Trust" between the two entities, the legal principle might have been invoked in specific disputes. For instance:
* **Deferred Compensation Plans:** Following WaMu's bankruptcy, there were legal battles over funds held in "rabbi trusts" related to deferred compensation plans for WaMu executives. Some argued for a constructive trust over these funds due to alleged wrongful conduct by WaMu. However, in at least one case, the court denied the imposition of a constructive trust, finding that the plans were unfunded "top hat" plans and the funds were part of WaMu's bankruptcy estate.
* **Mortgage-Backed Securities:** In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, there were numerous lawsuits concerning mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by WaMu. If it was proven that WaMu had engaged in misconduct in the packaging or sale of these securities, and JPMorgan Chase had acquired assets related to these securities, a constructive trust could theoretically be a remedy sought by investors who were harmed. Settlements in these cases often involved significant payments and other forms of relief, which could be seen as addressing similar concerns to those a constructive trust aims to resolve.
**How Long Does It Take to Finally Distribute a Constructive Trust?**
The timeline for the final distribution of assets held in a constructive trust is highly variable and depends on several factors:
* **Complexity of the Case:** If the underlying legal dispute that led to the imposition of the constructive trust is complex, involving numerous parties, intricate financial transactions, and extensive litigation, it will take longer to resolve.
* **Identification and Location of Assets:** Identifying all the assets that are subject to the constructive trust and ensuring they are properly secured can be a lengthy process, especially if assets have been commingled or are difficult to trace.
* **Number of Beneficiaries:** If there are many beneficiaries entitled to the assets held in the constructive trust, the process of identifying them, determining their rightful shares, and distributing the assets will be more time-consuming.
* **Legal Challenges and Appeals:** The imposition of a constructive trust and the plan for distributing its assets can be challenged in court by various parties, leading to further delays through appeals.
* **Court Oversight:** The court that imposed the constructive trust will likely oversee the distribution process. The court's schedule and the need for judicial approvals at various stages can influence the timeline.
* **Administration of the Trust:** The trustee (who may be appointed by the court) will need time to manage the assets, handle claims, pay any necessary expenses, and prepare for final distribution.
**Generally speaking, it can take anywhere from several months to many years to finally distribute the assets of a constructive trust.** Simpler cases with clearly identifiable assets and a small number of beneficiaries might be resolved relatively quickly, perhaps within a year or two after the trust is established. However, more complex cases, especially those involving large financial institutions and intricate wrongdoing allegations, can drag on for many years due to protracted litigation and the complexities of asset recovery and distribution.
In the context of the financial crisis and the fallout from the collapse of institutions like Washington Mutual, many related legal battles and settlements took several years to reach a conclusion and distribute funds to affected parties. Any constructive trust imposed in such a scenario would likely have followed a similar protracted timeline.
Royal Dude
17 hours ago
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a leading financial services firm based in the United States of America (“U.S.”), with operations worldwide. JPMorganChase had $4.4 trillion in assets and $351 billion in stockholders’ equity as of March 31, 2025. The Firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm serves millions of customers predominantly in the U.S., and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients globally. Information about JPMorgan Chase & Co. is available at www.jpmorganchase.com."
https://www.jpmorganchase.com/.../d88c408a-bbc9-4b06-b263...
xoom
20 hours ago
DBD, Bitcoin was a ‘boring’ $0.10 in 2009
$20,000 invested in BitCoin would have gotten you 200,000 BitCoins
Value as of this post today :
200,000 * $94,968 = $18,993,600,000
(XRP is only $2ish today)
DarkB4Dawn
20 hours ago
Everybody has a right to their opinion. I thought the original WAMU purchase was going to happen and that JPM would improve the bid. That didn't happen.
I thought that after the seizure, the govt. would step in and see that it was an illegal taking under the 5th amendment. That didn't happen.
Thought eventually, the classes above us would settle and that our interest(s) in the MBS would flow back to class 19/22 after the dust settled. That hasn't happened yet.
Thought the FDIC would close out WMB within 6 to 8 years... That hasn't happened
I thought that WMIH would take the the NOL's and make a boatload of money... Well, that has happened for some.
I am very much hoping the RKT merger goes through, my share count is x11, and that RKT climbs.
Who knew something as boring as servicing mortgages could turn into a 22+ bagger (so far ) :p)
Have a good weekend!
DB4D
BBANBOB
23 hours ago
DARKB
""" I only see this not happening if the environment changes to such a degree that it makes it a loss to COOP share holders. Example: RKT drops to 8$, COOP increases to $125"""
""not sure I would want to vote for that even if we did have to pay ~$400M to walk away.""
NOT TO BE INSULTING AT ALL BUT, NOBODY'S VOTE HERE COUNTS WITH Institutional Ownership. AT 92.68% ;
All praised the fact yrs ago we had 268 tutes and I warned THEN, They may very well NOT turn out to be our friends, as I suggested WAY BACK WHEN that they could do just about anything INCLUDING A TENDER OFFER at $3.50 and we could do nothing about it............................
The thing I never liked about this deal is that, THERE IS NOT SET VALUE, ONLY AN EXCHANGE RATE has ever been disclosed or commited to
Now with there only being an exchange rate and no value declared could this MOU be declared invalid??????????????????????
Now what if another buyer comes into the picture????????????????????
.
sunshinevibrations
24 hours ago
There is no doubt that the acquisition will be good for COOP shareholders, based on what we now know.
But, the Moon could crash into the Earth tomorrow. In that case, the acquisition probably won't happen.
The U.S. economy, the U.S. dollar, and the U.S.-based stock market could collapse before then. That's actually much more likely. If that happens, this acquisition will likely fall apart, along with everything else.
DarkB4Dawn
1 day ago
You are correct Bob.
If COOP backs out we pay (less, but pay). Based on the excessive pandering to shareholders, and Jay Breys whopping amount of shares, I only see this not happening if the environment changes to such a degree that it makes it a loss to COOP share holders. Example: RKT drops to 8$, COOP increases to $125. In this scenario we are getting $88 dollars a share + $2 div, so call it $90 for every $125 dollar share we own... Even if the share price was $105 for COOP...not sure I would want to vote for that even if we did have to pay ~$400M to walk away.
Yes, its a double edge sword but I think there are scenarios where either side may see more value in walking away so good to have a sword in your sheath regardless of whether you need to use it right? Protection for the deal.
Having COOP and the growth we have had on the ride up has made this whole event less painful over the last 16+ years. Less, not parity for what I think should have been done/happened in this saga.... I am hoping the deal goes through and we can enjoy some additional benefit(s)
Sometimes I think if we all knew we would be down the road 16+ years with what we got, would any of us been here? I did take a big jump in when we were down in the dumps and it paid off greatly but even with that return... If I knew then what we know now and everything that was and has been hidden from us, would any of us still be here? I think there is a case for a Washington Mutual 12 step program... JK
DB4D
DarkB4Dawn
1 day ago
Its interesting to me how the R/S notion is being considered so much and being attributed to a single person when the factors in play at COOP were so different. Institutional investors typically don't buy in the $5 and under price range for a multitude of reasons. Not all, most. The 12:1 was to put the share price well above that mark and increase institutional interest in the stock. It was clearly stated by the board, it was stated in released documents to the public and SEC, and as stated did not change the immediate net value but attracted more large investors and you can go back and look at institutional ownership and see that affect. You also see an increase in share price over the following quarters.
Its accretive to RKT and I think the share price which is correlated currently will continue to diverge as the time decays provided other market factors remain positive for the overall housing market. Its a little choppy now but lets see what happens for the remainder of 2025.
To me, I think either way COOP will continue to do well and if the transaction does not occur, we walk away with a poison pill of cash and continue onward and upward with another .5B in COOPs pockets. Maybe the BOD would even honor the $2 div? what's that cost to them after getting a break up fee...$130M (just a hope, doubt they would). Hope it goes through and we are closer to the $14.5 estimate for EOY. That's what, a $46 total bump to current $115.5 including the div. ~39%+ Would love to see that happen.
BBANBOB
1 day ago
We ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL have to understand that in ALLLLLLLLLLL fairness, NOBODY HERE KNOWS CHIT.
I don't mean to be insultive to any that have done extensive DD here as many have, BUT
They created an AMENDED PLAN 7 A , and NONE OF US have seen it or not what is contained in it. Alice tried her best to have them disclose it to her and let her see it , BUTTTTTTTT THEY REFUSED. Now on top of that we have some 750 pages of redacted docs...
Again in short, WE ALLLLLLL have Zero IDEA as to what has been put in play here that we have ZERO KNOWLEDGE of 100% of those docs
Trade smarter, not harder: Unleash your inner pro with our toolkit and live discussions.
ReikoBlack
40 minutes ago
jhdf51
19 hours ago
Hot Features
Premium
