Pending Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Pending Litigation	*Note 12: Pending Litigation* Except as described below, for the period ended December 31, 2012, the Company was not a party to, or aware of, any pending legal proceedings or investigations against the Company requiring disclosure at this time. The Company notes that Article XLI of the Plan includes, among other things, customary discharge, injunction, bar order and release provisions which, when taken together, operate to insulate the Company from and against any liabilities in respect of claims and causes of action that arose prior to the Petition Date. In addition, the Plan also includes a customary exculpation clause in favor of the Debtors, their directors, officers and others named therein for conduct during the pendency of the Company’s Chapter 11 proceedings (other than in respect of willful misconduct or conduct that was grossly negligent). WMMRC Litigation With respect to WMIHC’s sole operating subsidiary, WMMRC, on October 22, 2007, lead plaintiffs Robert Alexander and James Reed filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the “Class Action Complaint”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Action”) against WMMRC, WMI, WMB and Washington Mutual Bank fsb (“FSB”, and collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging that the Defendants violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, by collecting referral payments or unearned fees in the form of reinsurance premiums. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the private mortgage insurance policies procured in connection with their loans are subject to captive reinsurance arrangements between private mortgage insurers and WMMRC. Plaintiffs have alleged that a percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers are ceded to WMMRC, but that the risk assumed by WMMRC is not commensurate with the premiums that it receives. According to plaintiffs, these allegedly excessive reinsurance premiums were disguised kickbacks paid to WMI through the captive reinsurance arrangements in exchange for the placement of its primary mortgage business. The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney’s fees and defense costs. On December 21, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. That motion was denied. The Defendants subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the Third Circuit’s October 2009 decision in Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 585 F.3d 753 (3d Cir. 2009), which raised similar issues, the petition for appeal in the Pennsylvania Action was denied and the matter was returned to the district court. On January 11, 2010, the Pennsylvania Action was removed from the Civil Suspense File and re-opened for final disposition by the district court. A joint discovery plan was approved by the district court on February 2, 2010. The Pennsylvania Action remained stayed as to WMI due to its bankruptcy filing. On March 1, 2010, WMMRC filed an Amended Answer to the Class Action Complaint. In addition, pursuant to the parties’ joint discovery plan, three additional motions were filed on March 1, 2010. The FDIC, in its capacity as receiver for WMB, and JPMC, as successor to FSB, filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the FDIC, as receiver, filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations against the FDIC for failure to comply with procedural requirements of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”). The FDIC’s motion to dismiss was granted on June 28, 2011. In 2011, the parties reached a preliminary compromise and settlement in the Class Action Complaint. That compromise was subsequently memorialized in a written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be approved by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”). On June 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and on June 25, 2012, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving such settlement. In accordance with GAAP guidance on Loss Contingencies, in 2010 management recorded an accrual for estimated anticipated settlements of $4 million as a component of other liabilities on the balance sheet and as a component of general and administrative expenses on the statement of operations. The amount of such accrual as of December 31, 2012 is zero as on or about July 16, 2012, the settlement amount was deposited into a settlement distribution escrow account and the settlement amount will remain on deposit in such account until the District Court finally approves the settlement. A final hearing to approve the settlement of the Class Action Complaint was held on November 27, 2012 and the District Court issued an order finally approving the settlement on December 4, 2012. At December 31, 2011 the accrual corresponds to the $4 million settlement amount.

Note 12: Pending Litigation

Except as described below, for the period ended December 31, 2012, the Company was not a party to, or aware of, any pending legal proceedings or investigations against the Company requiring disclosure at this time.

The Company notes that Article XLI of the Plan includes, among other things, customary discharge, injunction, bar order and release provisions which, when taken together, operate to insulate the Company from and against any liabilities in respect of claims and causes of action that arose prior to the Petition Date. In addition, the Plan also includes a customary exculpation clause in favor of the Debtors, their directors, officers and others named therein for conduct during the pendency of the Company’s Chapter 11 proceedings (other than in respect of willful misconduct or conduct that was grossly negligent).

WMMRC Litigation

With respect to WMIHC’s sole operating subsidiary, WMMRC, on October 22, 2007, lead plaintiffs Robert Alexander and James Reed filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the “Class Action Complaint”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Action”) against WMMRC, WMI, WMB and Washington Mutual Bank fsb (“FSB”, and collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging that the Defendants violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, by collecting referral payments or unearned fees in the form of reinsurance premiums. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the private mortgage insurance policies procured in connection with their loans are subject to captive reinsurance arrangements between private mortgage insurers and WMMRC. Plaintiffs have alleged that a percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers are ceded to WMMRC, but that the risk assumed by WMMRC is not commensurate with the premiums that it receives. According to plaintiffs, these allegedly excessive reinsurance premiums were disguised kickbacks paid to WMI through the captive reinsurance arrangements in exchange for the placement of its primary mortgage business. The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney’s fees and defense costs.

On December 21, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. That motion was denied. The Defendants subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the Third Circuit’s October 2009 decision in Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 585 F.3d 753 (3d Cir. 2009), which raised similar issues, the petition for appeal in the Pennsylvania Action was denied and the matter was returned to the district court. On January 11, 2010, the Pennsylvania Action was removed from the Civil Suspense File and re-opened for final disposition by the district court. A joint discovery plan was approved by the district court on February 2, 2010. The Pennsylvania Action remained stayed as to WMI due to its bankruptcy filing.

On March 1, 2010, WMMRC filed an Amended Answer to the Class Action Complaint. In addition, pursuant to the parties’ joint discovery plan, three additional motions were filed on March 1, 2010. The FDIC, in its capacity as receiver for WMB, and JPMC, as successor to FSB, filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Additionally, the FDIC, as receiver, filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations against the FDIC for failure to comply with procedural requirements of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”). The FDIC’s motion to dismiss was granted on June 28, 2011.

In 2011, the parties reached a preliminary compromise and settlement in the Class Action Complaint. That compromise was subsequently memorialized in a written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement must be approved by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”). On June 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and on June 25, 2012, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving such settlement. In accordance with GAAP guidance on Loss Contingencies, in 2010 management recorded an accrual for estimated anticipated settlements of $4 million as a component of other liabilities on the balance sheet and as a component of general and administrative expenses on the statement of operations. The amount of such accrual as of December 31, 2012 is zero as on or about July 16, 2012, the settlement amount was deposited into a settlement distribution escrow account and the settlement amount will remain on deposit in such account until the District Court finally approves the settlement. A final hearing to approve the settlement of the Class Action Complaint was held on November 27, 2012 and the District Court issued an order finally approving the settlement on December 4, 2012. At December 31, 2011 the accrual corresponds to the $4 million settlement amount.