Product: Debt collection

According to Washington Mutual Bank 's XXXX filed with the SEC, XXXX had ceased to exist in XX/XX/XXXX. The identity of the actual lender is a mystery. There were no Notes to assign to XXXX in the sweetheart deal with the FDIC, because WaMu securitized literally everything they wrote through XXXX. The " loans '' never occurred because WaMu lent nothing of their own money. They lent from warehouse lines established by a pool of investors who were told their money would be used to fund the mortgages underlying Mortgage Backed Securities and none of the documents were retained as promised in the PSAs. The Notes were destroyed per requirements of the XXXX rules that state when a Note is converted to a security, the Note is forever a security and ca n't be reconstituted into a Note. They are therefore burned. It is securities fraud for the Note and the security to exist at the same time. XXXX and WaMu converted all the Notes to electronic files, and they print them out and forge endorsements in order to foreclose. Furthermore the investors were paid by credit default insurance payments as the mortgages were poled in mortgage backed securities. 

As of XX/XX/XXXX : WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA Dept. ID : XXXX Status : INCORPORATED Business Code : XXXX Principle Office : XXXX, XXXX, CA. XXXX Notice " XXXX '' listed as a XXXX, not a Federal Association. So the XXXX claimed it merged into XXXX, but then XXXX requested to continue business in the XXXX name. That made no sense. Evidently the Bank that ceased to exist was either " XXXX '' or " fsb. '' Notice it was XXXX that moved Headquarters to XXXX and not XXXX. XXXX was the XXXX and XXXX was XXXX. If it was XXXX that merged with XXXX and ceased to exist, how could XXXX then have move to XXXX? Doing business under XXXX 's name is one thing, but maintaining Headquarters and XXXX status is fraud. Regardless, Washington Mutual Bank should not exist or be registered and/or incorporated anywhere and yet it is. 

XXXX settled a law suit over the acquisition with both the FDIC and XXXX The lawsuit was originally brought by XXXX against the FDIC and later amended to include XXXX. The suit asserted that XXXX deserved an estimated {$6.00} XXXX to {$10.00} XXXX in damages " based upon alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual affiliates in connection with mortgage securitization agreements. '' XXXX claimed that XXXX, by acquiring WaMu 's banking operations, may have assumed liability for those alleged misrepresentations, HousingWire reported. At first the big bank seemed to secure a win, when a court ruled in its favor on the question of whether the FDIC is responsible for WaMu repurchase obligations. But the FDIC appealed that ruling, and the case has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, HousingWire reported. But after that JPMorgan said in a regulatory filing that it had signed a term sheet with the FDIC and XXXX to resolve the case. The agreement is subject to FDIC approval, according to XXXX. 

XXXX & Co said it will receive {$640.00} XXXX in a settlement of litigation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and XXXX arising from its purchase of Washington Mutual Inc 's banking operations during the financial crisis in XX/XX/XXXX. 

According to a regulatory filing, XXXX will collect the cash payment from the estate of Washington Mutual Bank, for which the FDIC acts as receiver. In exchange, JP Morgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets said it will drop its more than {$1.00} XXXX in claims related to the Washington Mutual purchase. 

( Continued below under Desired Resolution )