On March 20, 2009 Washington Mutual's holding company filed suit
against the FDIC for over 13 billion dollars. The suit contends that
the fire-sale of the bank's assets to JPMorgan Chase was a violation
of its rights.

In its suit lawyers for the bank's holding company Washington Mutual
Inc. contend that the bank was worth more than the $1.9 billion
JPMorgan paid for it in a deal arranged by the FDIC. The lawsuit
argues that if WaMu's assets had been liquidated prudently, they would
have been worth more than that.

On March 24, 2009 JPMorgan Chase countersued Washington Mutual in the
U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware. JPMorgan urged the federal
bankruptcy court not to interfere with its September purchase of the
thrift's banking operations.

In another article I wrote entitled; "The plunder of Washington
Mutual" I outlined some of the rather burning questions relating to
the seizure of that institution by the federal authorities.

Many questions of propriety remain regarding the seizure of WaMu and
the exact role played by JPMorgan Chase.

Could it be that the infamous Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie
Dimon - who always seems to be in the right place at the right time -
has succeeded in biting off more than even he can chew?

Dimon - always the spin-doctor - may this time find himself twisting
in the wind.

In their countersuit, filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Delaware
(where the WaMu bankruptcy is being handled); JPM indicates it "sued
to ensure that it does not lose any of its interests in Washington
Mutual's banking operations, which it said it bought in good faith. It
also wants to be reimbursed for various claims it might face over the
purchase."

JPM also stated: "Protection of the title conveyed by the FDIC to
institutions like JPMorgan Chase, who are encouraged to step into the
breach and provide the stability and continuity necessary to avert a
run on a failing bank and disruption of its services to the public, is
critical to the ability of the regulators to manage bank failures,"
The bank also said Washington Mutual's failure came at no cost to the
FDIC insurance fund, while the July 2008 failure of IndyMac Bancorp
Inc. a California thrift one-tenth the size of Washington Mutual, cost
the FDIC $10.7 billion.

The issue of "good faith" in this instance is certainly one worth
investigating. There are more than mere indications that JPM was given
a head start in the "bidding" process for WaMu. A process about which
the FDIC has still not seen fit to openly discuss.

As to whether or not JPM did indeed "step into the breach" or whether
it actually stepped in something else still remains to be seen. And
whether or not the WaMu seizure came "at no cost" to the FDIC is
irrelevant. Either this seizure was conducted properly or it wasn't.
That is the relevant issue.

The facts seem to indicate that all of the concerned parties spoke
with forked tongues at one point or another. The FDIC, the Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS), and JPM were all seemingly unable to get on
the same page.

Dimon's D-Day

The bankruptcy court in the WMI case has set March 31 as the Bar date.
(The date by which the court must receive proofs of claim) JPM filed a
motion objecting to the Bar date. In its motion, JPM stated among
other things: "JPMorgan Chase needs more time than afforded by the
proposed deadline to continue its ongoing efforts to understand and
evaluate the claims and assets it has acquired from the FDIC in its
capacity as receiver for WMB."

In other words, Dimon has no idea what it is he actually purchased
from the FDIC, nor can he properly place a value on the total assets
and liabilities of the deal. In spite of all that, Dimon in a January
15, 2009 conference call seemed confident enough to offer guidance on
the impact of the WaMu transaction on the balance sheets of JPM.

One thing is painfully obvious. Either JPM knows what it acquired from
FDIC or it doesn't. If it does, then one must question the points
raised in its objection to the bankruptcy court. If it doesn't
actually know what it purchased, then one must question how it can
offer guidance as to what the impact of the WaMu transaction will have
on its balance sheets.

In any event, Mr. Dimon has another appointment with adversity as JPM
is scheduled to release its Q1 earnings on April 16.

Perhaps you're wondering why we simply don't look at the Purchase and
Assumption agreement between the FDIC and JPM to get some handle on
just what it was JPM purchased. It's certainly a reasonable request to
do so. However, when we do that, we are still left in the dark.

In "ARTICLE III PURCHASE OF ASSETS" we are told: The
subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships, and any and all other
business combinations or arrangements, whether active, inactive,
dissolved or terminated being purchased by the Assuming Bank includes,
but is not limited to, the entities listed on Schedule 3.1a.

Unfortunately, the FDIC indicates that no 3.1a document exists.

Where is the Media?

You might be asking yourself where the media is in all of this.
Certainly that is another good and fair question.

Just where is the touted David Faber of CNBC fame? Perhaps he still
has his head in the sand, as he's had since WaMu's seizure - yes,
since the last time he hung up on me as I started my investigation
into the circumstances surrounding the government's actions. Do we
hear nary a peep from the financial news mega cheerleaders and talking
heads? Personally, I would just like a nickel for every time Maria
Bartiromo chirps "AIG" or "Google."

And where you might ask is Jim Cramer -- who is the host of CNBC's
"Mad Money" -- last seen making his contribution to the truth by
referring to investors in Washington Mutual stock as "clowns."

Whatever the final result of all of the obfuscation in this case --
one thing is certain -- we need a fair and unbiased investigation into
the circumstances surrounding the seizure of WaMu.

Shares of the once mighty thrifts holding company still trade, albeit
on the "Pink Sheets" under the symbol WAMUQ.

Bets, anyone?