4. In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern underscores that the relief sought through the Plan and the Settlement Agreement is beyond this Court’s ability to grant. As such, confirmation of the Plan and approval of the Settlement should be denied. But, even if the Court
were to find that it had the power to adjudicate the fairness of the Settlement, the recent ANICO Decision compels reconsideration and disapproval of the Settlement in light of the potentially
valuable claims against JPMC that would be sacrificed for little (or no) value thereunder.
6. Just as an example of the diverse and wide-ranging matters with respect to which the Debtors ask this Court to exercise jurisdiction and enter final Orders (to implement the Settlement and confirm the Plan), the Debtors would have this Court resolve or release claims by
the Debtors, including, inter alia:
•Litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking review of WMI’s claim in the WMB receivership pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A);
• Litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
§ 1821(d)(13)(E)(i), seeking recovery from the FDIC for a breach of its statutory
duty to maximize the value received for WMB;
• Litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking compensation
from the FDIC pursuant to the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution;
• Litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia regarding claims
sounding in conversion against the FDIC pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80;
• Claims against JPMC for recovery of fraudulent transfers of approximately $6.5 billion and Trust Preferred Securities with a value of $4 billion, pursuant to Washington state law and 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 548;
• Claims against JPMC for recovery of preferential transfers, pursuant to
Washington state law and 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 547;
• Claims for avoidance of the sale of WMB to JPMC, pursuant to Washington and Nevada state avoidance laws;
• Claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust and equitable liens, presumably under state law;
• Claims for trademark infringement, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
• Claims for common law trademark infringement;
• Claims against JPMC for patent infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271; and
• Claims against JPMC for copyright infringement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501.6
AQUI HAY TOMATE !!!!!!!
