|
Anwälte - insbesondere gute Anwälte - wissen immer, was sie schreiben/nicht schreiben können oder dürfen, ohne dass sie irgendwann einmal zur Rechenschaft herangezogen wurden.
Und in der letzten Mail vom FDIC-Anwalt ist mir ein Wort aufgefallen:
FDIC as Receiver for WaMu has no control over the holding company liquidation and FDIC never had control of exclusive holding company assets.
Die FDIC als Konkursverwalter von WaMu hat keine Kontrolle über die Liquidation der Holdinggesellschaft, und die FDIC hatte nie die Kontrolle über die exklusiven Vermögenswerte der Holdinggesellschaft.
Warum schreibt der nicht einfach den Satz ohne "exclusiven" ?
Für mich bedeutet dieser Satz, dass die FDIC sehr wohl Kontrolle über Vermögenswerte der Holding hatte - oder auch hat!
Die ganze Antwort:
ItsMyOption Wednesday, 10/27/21 12:22:03 PM
Email reply from FDIC - I will put in BOLD what I feel is important. Mr. ME, Thank you for your email. Your explanation and final question about DTC control of assets and the receivership is still a little confusing to me. I will attempt to answer as best I can. FDIC as Receiver for WaMu has no control over the holding company liquidation and FDIC never had control of exclusive holding company assets. To that end, the answer to your question about release of holding company assets depending on receivership termination is no. The FDIC’s termination of the receivership should not impact the liquidation of the holding company in that way.
You continue to identify the alleged value of the assets of WaMu at the time of failure without also factoring in the liabilities that offset those assets. When taken as a whole, the capitalization of WaMu at the time of its failure was deficient, due to its underreported liabilities. Chase paid $1.9 billion to purchase assets AND take on certain liabilities of WaMu, including all deposit liabilities. That transaction by FDIC as Receiver fulfilled the primary mission of FDIC to insure the deposits of WaMu so that no insured depositor lost any money due to WaMu’s failure. Let me re-iterate that the receivership and the liquidation trust are separate legal entities, have different roles and responsibilities, and do not coordinate on each other’s missions. Therefore, the resolution of the receivership should not impact the distribution of holding company assets held by the liquidation trust. In addition, FDIC already paid preliminary dividends under the priority scheme under FIRREA to the general creditor class. Any future dividends will depend upon the receivership’s ability to recover additional value for the receivership. Please see my previous email for the link to the balance sheet currently. You will note that the remaining assets of the receiver (a little over $200 million) are far less than the general creditor class of claims, let alone lower priority claimants. Respectfully, Aaron Moore Counsel, Legal Division Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas, 75201 Office: 972-761-2464 Cell: 214-202-6139 aarmoore@fdic.gov
|
Thread abonnieren
