BlueeFoxx Member Level Thursday, 07/10/14 04:27:13 PM Re: boarddork post# 401435 Post # of 401459 Dork. David. LG. Catz etc.. Is there anywhere in the POR 7 that states WMIH is entitled to off-the-books assets such as a trust from closure of the P&A per FDIC-R rules? We are looking for any language to points to WMIH assuming interest in any trust or securitization pool. Is it possible the BK court was not aware that the FDIC was harboring the mortgage pools and upon closure of P&A, the interest in the pool would eventually flow back to the original parent? Am I reaching here? If it was to happen this way, there would be cryptic language in POR1, because the debtors would have surely known who was going to control that pool. 363 sales are performed in BK. They dont apply here, but if WMIH is waiting for a turnover of a trust to them, it would explain why they have not done an acquisition. Before all of you get into an uproar. The WMILT was formed to process claims by the estate against perps who caused the destruction of WMI, therefore causing them to lose their prized possession WMB. It was also tasked with collecting funds owed to the estate, however, WMILT would have absolutely nothing to do with an off-the-books mortgage pool administered by the FDIC-R. FDIC-R has broad reaching powers when it comes to mortgage pools in receivership. We know this, what we dont actually know is how much was WMBs worth? Paulson was for an RTC-like deal. He and Geithner were both not on board with Bairs move on WAMU. We know the mortgages were not part of the deal to JPM, so who will own the trust after the closure is the question? We are on the right track...If KKR was expecting WMIH to acquire the mortgages back after P&A closure, it would definitely give them cause to take back KFN and sell it to WMIH in the future. I know this is way out there, but Wall Street is a finicky/insiders place/biz. WMB bondholders had a point in their opposition briefs. Cheers
Posted on: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:35:06 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015