Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CHASE-WAMU ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEUTSCHE BANK-MA 2011 - FDIC ALSO DEFENDANT

CHASE-WAMU ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEUTSCHE BANK-MA 2011 - FDIC ALSO DEFENDANT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 335|Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
FDIC has to face $10 billion WaMu-related lawsuit
WILMINGTON, Delaware | Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:55pm EDT
(Reuters) - A federal judge ruled that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp has to face a $10 billion lawsuit tied to the failure of Washington Mutual Bank.
The judge refused the FDIC's request to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co over bad mortgages that were securitized by Washington Mutual.
Washington Mutual, or WaMu, was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision in September 2008 in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.
The FDIC was appointed receiver and immediately sold the bank to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.9 billion.
The Deutsche Bank unit filed its lawsuit in 2009 arguing that loans that were pooled into mortgage bonds did not meet the underwriting standards that had been promised by WaMu, causing investors to lose billions of dollars.
A Senate committee report this year said WaMu's mortgage securitization was "polluting the financial system" with bad home loans and partly to blame for the 2008 financial crisis.
The FDIC argued it should be dismissed from the lawsuit and Deutsche Bank should bring its claims against JPMorgan, which assumed WaMu's liabilities as well as assets.
JPMorgan has denied it assumed any WaMu liabilities.
Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court denied the government agency's request last week. She said it would be "improvident and premature" to dismiss the FDIC from the lawsuit after refusing a similar request by JPMorgan.
A spokesman for the FDIC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is Deutsche Bank National Trust Co v Federal Deposit Insurance Corp et al; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 09-1656.
(Reporting by Tom Hals, editing by Matthew Lewis)
FDIC has to face $10 billion WaMu-related lawsuit
WILMINGTON, Delaware | Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:55pm EDT
(Reuters) - A federal judge ruled that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp has to face a $10 billion lawsuit tied to the failure of Washington Mutual Bank.
The judge refused the FDIC's request to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co over bad mortgages that were securitized by Washington Mutual.
Washington Mutual, or WaMu, was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision in September 2008 in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.
The FDIC was appointed receiver and immediately sold the bank to JPMorgan Chase & Co for $1.9 billion.
The Deutsche Bank unit filed its lawsuit in 2009 arguing that loans that were pooled into mortgage bonds did not meet the underwriting standards that had been promised by WaMu, causing investors to lose billions of dollars.
A Senate committee report this year said WaMu's mortgage securitization was "polluting the financial system" with bad home loans and partly to blame for the 2008 financial crisis.
The FDIC argued it should be dismissed from the lawsuit and Deutsche Bank should bring its claims against JPMorgan, which assumed WaMu's liabilities as well as assets.
JPMorgan has denied it assumed any WaMu liabilities.
Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court denied the government agency's request last week. She said it would be "improvident and premature" to dismiss the FDIC from the lawsuit after refusing a similar request by JPMorgan.
A spokesman for the FDIC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is Deutsche Bank National Trust Co v Federal Deposit Insurance Corp et al; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 09-1656.
(Reporting by Tom Hals, editing by Matthew Lewis)

More info:

Published by: 83jjmack on Aug 25, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANY, as Trustee for the Trusts listedin Exhibits 1-A and 1-B,Plaintiff,v.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCECORPORATION, as receiver forWashington Mutual Bank; JPMORGANCHASE BANK, National Association; andWASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGESECURITIES CORPORATION,Defendants.Case No. 1:09-cv-1656 (RMC)
ANSWER OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ANDWASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION
Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) and Washington Mutual MortgageSecurities Corporation (“WMMSC”; collectively with JPMC, “Defendants”), by and throughtheir undersigned counsel, for their Answer to the Amended Complaint dated September 8, 2010(the “Amended Complaint”), hereby respond as follows:
PARTIES
1. The first sentence of Paragraph 1 consists of legal assertions as to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, upon information and belief,Defendants admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 1. Defendants denyknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of thesecond sentence of Paragraph 1.
Case 1:09-cv-01656-RMC Document 68 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 25
 
22. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegation that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) serves “invarious other related capacities,” and they refer the Court to the documents referenced for acomplete and accurate description of their content, and otherwise deny any allegations orimplications inconsistent with these documents, the terms of which speak for themselves.Defendants deny that “WMB” can properly be defined to include “its subsidiaries, theirpredecessors-in-interest and their affiliates, including Washington Mutual Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation.” Defendants will use the term WMB to refer exclusively to Washington MutualBank throughout the remainder of this Answer. Defendants otherwise admit the allegations of Paragraph 2.3. The first and second sentences of Paragraph 3 consist of legal assertions as towhich no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit thatDBNTC serves as trustee for certain trusts and otherwise deny or deny knowledge or informationsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, except refer the Court to thedocuments referenced for a complete and accurate description of their contents and deny anyallegations or implications inconsistent with these documents, the terms of which speak forthemselves. Defendants admit the allegations of the last sentence of Paragraph 3.4. WMMSC admits, and JPMC denies knowledge or information sufficient to form abelief as to the truth of, the allegations of the first two sentences of Paragraph 4. Defendantsadmit the allegations of the third sentence of Paragraph 4.5. Paragraph 5 consists of legal assertions as to which no response is required. Tothe extent a response is required, Defendants admit that DBNTC purports to bring this action on
Case 1:09-cv-01656-RMC Document 68 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 25
 
3behalf of the Trusts (as defined in Paragraph 3) and the investors in the Trusts, but denyknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations.6. Paragraph 6 consists of legal assertions as to which no response is required. Tothe extent a response is required, Defendants admit that DBNTC purports to bring this actionpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1)(E) and refer the Court to the Trustdocuments for a complete and accurate description of their terms, and otherwise deny anyallegations or implications inconsistent with these documents, the terms of which speak forthemselves.7. The first sentence of Paragraph 7 consists of legal assertions as to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 7. Defendants admit the allegations of the second and thirdsentences of Paragraph 7.8. Defendants admit that JPMC is a national banking association with its homeoffice in Columbus, Ohio, and a place of business in Washington, D.C., and that JPMC is awholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Defendants admit that WMMSC iscurrently a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMC. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations of Paragraph 8.9. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 9.10. Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth of the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 10. Defendants admit the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 10.11. The first sentence of Paragraph 11 consists of legal assertions as to which noresponse is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants respectfully refer the
Case 1:09-cv-01656-RMC Document 68 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 25

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
johnpers liked this
Rob Harrington liked this
acederbaum liked this
acederbaum liked this
acederbaum liked this
83jjmack liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->