In Re Washington Mutual, Inc.

OPINION 1

Before the Court is the request of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and WMI Investment Corp. (collectively the “Debtors”) for confirmation of their Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, filed on October 6, 2010, as modified on October 29 and November 24, 2010 (the “Plan”). The Plan incorporates a Global Settlement among the Debtors, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in its corporate capacity and as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”), certain settling creditors (the “Settlement Noteholders”), 2 certain WMB Senior Note-holders, and the Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the “Plan Supporters”). The Plan is opposed by the Equity Committee, alleged holders of Trust Preferred Securities (the “TPS Holders”), holders of Litigation Tracking Warrants (the “LTW Holders”), the United States Trustee (the “UST”), certain WMB Noteholders, and several individual shareholders and creditors *322 3 (collectively, the “Plan Objectors”). Although concluding that the Global Settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court finds that the Debtors’ Plan is not con-firmable unless the deficiencies explained herein are corrected.

I. BACKGROUND

WMI is a bank holding company, that formerly owned WMB. WMB was the nation’s largest savings and loan association, having over 2,200 branches and holding $188.3 billion in deposits. Beginning in 2007, revenues and earnings decreased at WMB, causing WMI’s asset portfolio to decline in value. By September 2008, in the midst of a global credit crisis, the ratings agencies had significantly downgraded WMI’s and WMB’s credit ratings. A bank run ensued; over $16 billion in deposits were withdrawn from WMB in a ten-day period beginning September 15, 2008.

On September 25, 2008, WMB’s primary regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”), seized WMB and appointed the FDIC as receiver. The FDIC’s takeover of WMB marked the largest bank failure in the nation’s history. On the same day, the FDIC sold substantially all of WMB’s assets, including the stock of WMB’s subsidiary WMB fsb, to JPMC through a Purchase & Assumption Agreement (the “P & A Agreement”). Under the P & A Agreement, JPMC obtained substantially all of the assets of WMB for $1.88 billion plus the assumption of more than $145 billion in deposit and other liabilities of WMB. The FDIC, as the receiver of WMB, retained claims that WMB held against others.

On September 26, 2008, the Debtors filed petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Early in the bankruptcy case disputes arose among the Debtors, the FDIC and JPMC regarding ownership of certain assets. On December 30, 2008, the Debtors asserted various claims in the WMB Receivership by filing proofs of claim with the FDIC. The FDIC denied all of the Debtors’ claims in a letter dated January 23, 2009. On March 20, 2009, the Debtors filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “DC Court”) against the FDIC (the “DC Action”) 4 asserting the following five counts: (1) review of the FDIC’s denial of the Debtors’ proofs of claim; (2) wrongful dissipation of WMB’s assets; (3) taking of the Debtors’ property (stock interest in WMB) without just compensation; (4) conversion of the Debtors’ property; and (5) a declaration that the FDIC’s disallowance of the Debtors’ claims was void. JPMC and certain WMB debt security holders (the “WMB Noteholders”) were permitted to intervene in the DC Action. The DC Court has stayed the DC Action pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding. 5

On March 24, 2009, JPMC filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court against the Debtors (the “JPMC Adversary”) 6 seeking *323 a declaratory judgment that it owned various assets as a result of its purchase of WMB, including the funds on deposit at WMB in the name of the Debtors with a value of approximately $3.8 billion (the “Deposit Accounts”), tax refunds in the approximate amount of $5.5 to $5.8 billion, the Trust Preferred Securities (“TPS”) with a value of $4 billion, intellectual property, assets in certain employee deferred compensation plans, shares in Visa, Inc., certain judgments awarded in the Goodwill Litigation, 7 and contract rights. (Ex. D-41.) On May 29, 2009, the Debtors filed an answer and counterclaims in the JPMC Adversary asserting ownership of the disputed assets and seeking to avoid as preferences and fraudulent conveyances certain pre-petition capital contributions and other payments they had made to WMB. (Ex. D-42.) JPMC filed a motion to dismiss the Debtors’ counterclaims, which was denied by the Court on September 14, 2009. (Ex. D-45.) JPMC sought leave to appeal that ruling, which was opposed by the Debtors.

In addition, the Debtors filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court against JPMC (the “Turnover Action”) 8 on April 27, 2009, seeking the turnover of the $3.8 billion held in Deposit Accounts in the Debtors’ names at WMB. (Ex. D-48.) JPMC filed a motion to dismiss the Turnover Action, which was denied on June 24, 2009. (Ex. D-49.) JPMC filed an answer, counterclaim and a crossclaim against the FDIC as Receiver. (Ex. D-53.) On May 19, 2009, the Debtors filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Turnover Action, in which the Creditors’ Committee joined. (Ex. D-50.) JPMC, the FDIC and the WMB Noteholders filed responses to the Debtors’ Motion. (Exs. D-54 & D-55.) The Court heard oral argument on the Debtors’ Motion on October 22, 2009.

In the interim, the Debtors filed a Motion for an order under Rule 2004 to investigate additional potential claims against JPMC, including tortious interference with business expectancy, antitrust, and breach of contract (the “Business Tort Claims”). (Ex. D-68.) That motion was granted on June 24, 2009. (Ex. D-69.) The Debtors filed a second motion under Rule 2004 seeking discovery of third parties (including the OTS and other regulators, investment banks and rating agencies) regarding those same claims. (D.I. # 1997.) That motion was denied on January 28, 2010, with the Court suggesting that such discovery should be sought after an adversary proceeding was commenced raising the Business Tort Claims. (Hr’g Tr. 1/28/2010 at 88-90.)

On November 4, 2009, the FDIC filed a Motion seeking relief from the stay to permit it to exercise its right under the P & A Agreement to have JPMC transfer the Deposit Accounts back to the FDIC (to allow the FDIC to set off against them claims it asserts it has against the Debtors). (Ex. D-59.) The parties asked the Court to consider the Debtors’ Summary Judgment Motion with the FDIC’s Motion; oral argument on the motions was continued several times to permit settlement discussions.

On March 12, 2010, the parties announced that they had reached a settlement of all issues regarding the disputed property and the claims of the FDIC and *324 JPMC (the “Global Settlement”). (Kosturos Decl. at ¶ 36.) The Global Settlement was incorporated into the Plan which was originally filed on March 26, 2010. (Id. at ¶ 37.) The Global Settlement and the Plan were modified on May 21, 2010, to adjust the parties’ split of the tax returns and to adjust the price JPMC was paying for the Visa shares. (Id. at ¶ 38.) The Plan modification also provided a distribution of a portion of the tax refund (capped at $150 million) to WMB Senior Noteholders and WMB Subordinated Noteholders, to the extent their claims were not subordinated under section 510(b) of the Code, if the class of such holders accepted the Plan. (Id.) The Plan was modified again on October 6, 2010, to adjust further the allocation of the tax refund, to provide a distribution to WMB Senior Noteholders only (and not to WMB Subordinated Noteholders) of $355 million, to delineate the mechanism by which REIT Trust Holders who are granting a release obtain their pro rata share of $50 million paid by JPMC, and providing that the Global Settlement may be terminated if the Plan is not confirmed by December 31, 2010 (unless WMI and JPMC agree to extend it to January 31, 2011, with the consent of the Creditors’ Committee). 9 (Id. at ¶ 39.)

On July 6, 2010, the TPS Holders filed an adversary proceeding against WMI and JPMC seeking a declaration that they were the owners of the TPS (the “TPS Adversary”). 10 Because the TPS will go to JPMC free of all claims under the Global Settlement and the Plan, the TPS Holders also filed objections to confirmation. The parties to the TPS Adversary filed cross motions for summary judgment. The motions were briefed and oral argument was held on the first day of the confirmation hearing. By separate Opinion and Order, the Court has granted the Defendants’ motions and denied the TPS Holders’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the TPS Holders no longer have any interests in the TPS because their interests have been converted to interests in preferred stock of WMI.

On April 12, 2010, an adversary proceeding was commenced by certain LTW Holders against WMI and JPMC seeking a declaratory judgment, inter alia, that they are entitled to 85% of the proceeds of the Anchor Litigation 11 (the “LTW Adversary”). 12 The complaint was subsequently amended to be a class action on behalf of all LTW Holders. Because the Anchor Litigation proceeds will go to JPMC free of all claims under the Global Settlement and the Plan, the LTW Holders also filed objections to confirmation. On October 29, 2010, WMI filed a motion for summary judgment in the LTW Adversary. The motion was briefed and oral argument was held on the first day of the confirmation hearing. By separate Opinion and Order, *325 the Court has denied WMI’s motion for summary judgment in the LTW Adversary, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute.

On January 11, 2010, the UST appointed the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the “Equity Committee”). On April 26, 2010, the Equity Committee filed a Motion for the Appointment of an Examiner Pursuant to Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Initial Examiner Motion”). (D.I. # 3579.) The Court denied the Initial Examiner Motion on May 5, 2010, finding that there was no appropriate scope for an examiner to conduct an investigation given that issues pertinent to, and even beyond the scope of, the chapter 11 cases had been “investigated to death.” (D.I. # 3663; Hr’g Tr. 5/5/2010 at 98.) The Court specifically premised its ruling on the fact that the Debtors and Creditors’ Committee had done an investigation of the various claims being settled by the Global Settlement and that the results of that investigation would be shared with the Equity Committee. (Hr’g Tr. 5/4/2010 at 97-101.)

While certain information was shared with the Equity Committee, the Debtors and Creditors’ Committee refused to provide it with their work product. As a result, the Equity Committee and the UST renewed their requests for appointment of an Examiner. (D.I. ## 4644 & 4728.) The UST argued that “the cost benefit analysis favors the appointment of an examiner in the short term as opposed to miring the process immediately [in] what seems to be [protracted] litigation between the parties over a host of issues. And in fact the cooling down period ... may, in turn, allow the parties to ... hopefully, potentially, resolve some points.” (Hr’g Tr. 6/3/2010 at 86.)

On July 22, 2010, the Court granted the renewed motion for appointment of an examiner. (D.I. # 5120.) On July 28, 2010, the Court approved the UST’s selection of Joshua Hochberg as Examiner to conduct an investigation into the merits of the various claims of the estate, JPMC, and the FDIC which were being resolved by the Global Settlement, as well as additional claims the estate might have. (D.I. # 5162.) The Examiner filed his final report on November 1, 2010. 13 (D.I. # 5735.)

The hearing to consider confirmation of the Plan was scheduled for December 1, 2010. Because resolution of issues raised in the LTW and TPS Adversaries could affect the confirmability of the Plan, the Court held oral argument on the summary judgment motions filed in those adversaries first. Testimony and argument on the confirmation issues was presented on December 2, 3, 6, and 7, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. It is ripe for decision.

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over approval of the Global Settlement and confirmation of the Debtors’ Plan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 & 1334. These matters are core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), (K), (L), (M), (N), & (O).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Reasonableness of the Global Settlement

The Plan Supporters acknowledge that the Global Settlement is the foundation of *326 the Debtors’ Plan. They contend that the Global Settlement provides value to the estates of approximately $6.1 to $6.8 billion in readily available funds. Together with the approximately $900 million in cash that the Debtors currently have, the Plan Supporters argue that there will be approximately $7.5 billion available for distribution to creditors and interest holders upon confirmation of the Plan. In addition, under the Plan, WMMRC, an insurance company subsidiary of WMI that is currently in run-off (the “Reorganized Debtor”), is expected to provide additional value to stakeholders from cash flow and the possible use of net operating loss carry-forwards (the “NOLs”). With the release under the Global Settlement of substantial claims filed by JPMC and the FDIC (which the Debtors contend are approximately $27 billion each), the Plan Supporters believe that the Plan should result in payment in cash in full (plus post-petition interest) of all creditors’ claims except the lowest class of creditors, which are expected to receive approximately 74% of their claims plus the right to participate in an offering of stock in the Reorganized Debtor. 14 (Ex. D-5C.) The Plan Supporters contend that the Global Settlement must be considered as a whole because the elimination of one part of the settlement will cause it all to collapse.

The Plan Objectors argue that the Global Settlement is unreasonable because it releases substantial claims of the estate for no value. They contend that the Global Settlement was reached before the Debtors even conducted an investigation into the merits of those claims. They note that the Debtors agreed to settle only for sufficient funds to pay creditors, ignoring their fiduciary duty to shareholders. This was exacerbated, the Plan Objectors contend, by the fact that lead counsel and the chief restructuring officer for the Debtors had a conflict of interest because of their firms’ representation of JPMC in other matters. See, e.g., In re Project Orange Assocs., LLC, 431 B.R. 363, 374-75 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2010) (denying retention application of debtor’s lead counsel where counsel represented a major creditor in unrelated matters and despite conflicts waiver, was precluded from suing it and finding that retention of conflicts counsel was insufficient).

1. Conflict of Interest

The Court takes seriously any allegation that professionals involved in cases before it are conflicted or have acted unethically. See, e.g., In re Universal Bldg. Prods., 2010 WL 4642046 (Bankr.D.Del. Nov.4, 2010) (disqualifying counsel for creditors’ committee because of improper solicitation); In re eToys, Inc., 331 B.R. 176, 194 (Bankr.D.Del.2005) (disallowing fees of counsel for debtors and committee because they had undisclosed conflicts of interest). Further, a conflict of interest may result in a finding that a plan of reorganization has not been proposed in good faith. See, e.g., In re Coram Healthcare Corp., 271 B.R. 228, 234-40 (Bankr.D.Del.2001) (denying confirmation because a conflict of interest arising from the relationship between the Debtor’s chief executive officer and largest creditor tainted the entire reorganization effort). Thus, this issue must be addressed at the outset.

The Plan Objectors argued at the confirmation hearing that because the Debtors’ principal negotiators of the Global Settlement represented JPMC in other matters, they were reluctant to push for the best possible deal for the estate. The Debtors *327 and their representatives vigorously deny this and contend that the allegations are a “sideshow” to divert attention from the real issues in the case.

The Plan Objectors presented no evidence to'support their contentions, however, and the record in this case refutes the suggestion that the Debtors’ professionals acted in any manner other than in the best interests of the estate. In their original retention applications, counsel for the Debtors did disclose that their firm represented JPMC in unrelated matters. (Ex. D-20.) In addition, at the hearing to consider counsel’s retention held on October 30, 2008, the parties advised that the issue had been raised by the UST and counsel clarified that it was able to sue JPMC with respect to the Deposit Accounts but not for any lender liability or avoidance action. (Hr’g Tr. 10/30/2008 at 15-16.) As a result, the Court approved the retention but directed that in the event the Debtors determined that additional claims existed against JPMC, they should promptly advise the UST and the Committee so that the issue could be addressed. (Ex. D-21.) Subsequently, an application was filed by the Debtors to hire conflicts counsel to pursue the other claims the estate had against JPMC. (Ex. D-26.)

As noted above the Debtors did sue JPMC shortly after the case was commenced for turnover of the $4 billion in Deposit Accounts held at JPMC and vigorously defended the JPMC Adversary. All of the litigation between the parties was contentious and hard-fought, even efforts by the Debtors to obtain discovery from JPMC. During the course of that litigation, the Court personally observed the actions of the Debtors’ professionals and finds no evidence that they failed to represent adequately the interests of the estate. The Plan Objectors presented no evidence to the contrary other than the insinuation that because there was a potential conflict, there must have been undue influence exerted by JPMC on the Debtors’ professionals.

This case is clearly distinguishable from the Coram case where direct evidence of an actual conflict was presented (that the Debtor’s CEO was being paid $1 million a year as a “consultant” by one of the largest creditors while serving as an officer of the Debtor). 271 B.R. at 231. This case is also distinguishable from the Project Orange case. In that case the conflicts waiver severely limited counsel’s ability to bring suit against the creditor or even to threaten suit. 431 B.R. at 375. In contrast, in this case Debtor’s counsel was permitted to sue JPMC over the Deposit Accounts. Further, the Project Orange Court acknowledged that in most cases the use of conflicts counsel solves the problem. Id. Therefore, the Court rejects the Plan Objectors’ argument that the potential conflict taints the Global Settlement or makes it unapprovable.

2. Standard of review

Compromises are generally favored in bankruptcy. See, e.g., Myers v. Martin (In re Martin), 91 F.3d 389, 393 (3d Cir.1996) (finding that compromises help expedite case administration and minimize litigation). The approval of a settlement under Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is committed to the discretion of the bankruptcy court. Key3Media Group, Inc. v. Pulver.com Inc. (In re Key3Media Group Inc.), 336 B.R. 87, 92 (Bankr.D.Del.2005) (finding that pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a), approving a settlement is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court). In making its evaluation, the court must determine whether “the compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the estate.” In re Louise’s Inc., 211 B.R. 798, 801 (D.Del.1997) (explaining the *328 factors the court should take into consideration when deciding whether to approve a compromise under Rule 9019(a)). The court does not have to be convinced that the settlement is the best possible compromise, but only that the settlement falls within a reasonable range of litigation possibilities. In re Coram Healthcare Corp., 315 B.R. 321, 330 (Bankr.D.Del.2004) (finding that the proper test to apply in the determination of whether to approve a proposed compromise is if the compromise falls “within the reasonable range of litigation possibilities”). Therefore, the settlement need only be above “the lowest point in the range of reasonableness.” Id. (citing Official Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. of Pa. Truck Lines. Inc. v. Pa. Truck Lines, Inc. (In re Pa. Truck Lines, Inc.), 150 B.R. 595, 598 (E.D.Pa.1992)).

The Plan Supporters bear the burden of persuading the Court that the Global Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness. Key3Media Group, 336 B.R. at 93 (“While a court generally gives deference to the Debtors’ business judgment in deciding whether to settle a matter, the Debtors have the burden of persuading the bankruptcy court that the compromise is fair and equitable and should be approved.”). In addition, the Plan Supporters bear the burden of proving that the Plan complies with all of the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code for confirmation. See, e.g., In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp., 368 B.R. 140, 252 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2007) (finding that the plan proponent has the burden of proof in establishing by a preponderance of evidence that its plan meets the best interest of creditors test).

The Plan Objectors argue that in considering whether the Global Settlement is reasonable, the Court must determine whether it is fair to them. “Under the ‘fair and equitable’ standard, [the court looks] to the fairness of the settlement to the other parties, i.e., the parties who did not settle.” Will v. Northwestern Univ. (In re Nutraquest, Inc.), 434 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir.2006). Because the Plan Objectors contend that they are not getting a fair recovery under the Global Settlement, they argue that the Global Settlement is not reasonable.

When determining the best interests of the estate, the Court must balance the value to the estate of accepting the settlement against the claims that are being compromised. Martin, 91 F.3d at 393. See also Nutraquest, 434 F.3d at 644-45 (tracing the history, and reaffirming the applicability, of the Martin test in considering the compromise of claims by and against the estate). In striking this balance, the Court should consider: (1) the probability of success in litigation; (2) the likely difficulties in collection; (3) the complexity, expense, and delay of the litigation involved; and (4) the paramount interest of the creditors. Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968) (finding that a bankruptcy judge should form an educated estimate of the “complexity, expense, and likely duration of such litigation, the possible difficulties of collecting on any judgment which might be obtained, and all other factors relevant to the full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise”); In re RFE Indus., Inc., 283 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir.2002) (finding that the bankruptcy court should examine four factors in deciding whether to approve a settlement: the probability of success of litigation, the likely difficulties in collection, the complexity of the litigation involved, and the interest of the credi *329 tors); Martin, 91 F.3d at 393 (same). 15

a. Probability of success

The Plan Supporters argue that the Court must take a “holistic” approach to the Global Settlement contending that the resolution of each claim is dependent on the resolution of all the claims. The Plan Objectors disagree, contending that the Court cannot determine whether the settlement as a whole.is reasonable without evaluating the merits of each claim.

The Court agrees with the Plan Objectors: each part of the settlement must be evaluated to determine whether the settlement as a whole is reasonable. This is not to say, however, that this is a mere math exercise comparing the sum of the parts to the whole. Rather, the Court recognizes that there are benefits to be recognized by a global settlement of all litigation (eliminating costs of continued litigation and delay in distributions to creditors and shareholders) that may recommend a settlement that does not quite equal what would be a reasonable settlement of each part separately. Nonetheless, the Court must consider the reasonableness of the resolution in light of each of the separate claims being resolved or released in the Global Settlement. 16

The Plan Objectors contend preliminarily that the Plan Supporters have failed to meet their burden of presenting objective evidence regarding the probability of success on the various claims. Both in discovery and at the hearing, the Debtors objected to any testimony being elicited from their witnesses regarding anything that counsel discussed with them. This essentially precluded any testimony regarding the likelihood of success on any of the Debtors’ positions with respect to the disputed claims. Because of this, the Plan Objectors argue that the Plan Supporters have not met their burden of proof on this factor and the Global Settlement cannot be approved. See, e.g., In re Spansion Inc., No. 09-10690, 2009 WL 1531788, at *7 (Bankr.D.Del. June 2, 2009) (finding the debtors provided “little information as to the specifics of the Actions to provide a basis for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the litigation.”).

The Plan Supporters respond that they have presented objective evidence about the probability of success. Although the witnesses were not permitted to testify about any attorney/client communications (in order to preserve the privilege), the Plan Supporters argue that the witnesses did testify to the analysis that the witnesses themselves performed. This they contend, together with the pleadings filed by the parties in the litigation, is sufficient for the Court to determine the likelihood of whether the Debtors would have succeeded on their claims.

The Court agrees with the Plan Supporters. The Spansion case is distinguishable; in that case debtors’ management *330 stated that they did not rely on counsel at all in evaluating the merits of potential litigation, which the Court found incredible. Id. at *8 (finding it unlikely “that a reasonable evaluation of the merits of litigation of this nature and extent could have been made without taking into account advice of counsel.”). Here, the Debtors’ management admitted that they relied substantially on the advice of counsel. Unlike Spansion, the Court finds that a reasonable evaluation of the merits of the litigation was conducted by the Debtors.

It is not necessary for the Debtors to waive the attorney/client privilege by presenting testimony regarding what counsel felt was the likelihood they would win on the claims being settled. Although it may be helpful, it is also not necessary that the Plan Supporters present the testimony of a legal expert on the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s position. It is sufficient to present the Court with the legal positions asserted by each side and the facts relevant to those issues. The Court itself can then evaluate the likelihood of the parties’ prevailing in that litigation to determine whether the settlement is reasonable. Mere arguments of counsel or opinions of experts cannot substitute for that decision-making. Rather, the objective evidence that the Court should consider is the factual analysis (which was presented in this case by the Debtors’ witnesses) and the legal positions of both sides (which are contained in the pleadings filed by them). The Court finds that sufficient evidence of this kind has been presented by the Plan Supporters in this case to determine whether the Global Settlement is reasonable.

i. Deposit Accounts

The dispute regarding ownership of the Deposit Accounts was raised in both the JPMC and the Turnover Adversaries. (Kosturos Decl. at ¶ 53.) Essentially, the issue was who owned the cash in WMB that was in bank accounts in the Debtors’ name. The Debtors relied on well-settled case law in arguing that the Debtors’ Deposit Accounts are property of the estate subject to turnover. See, e.g., In re Amdura Corp., 75 F.3d 1447, 1451 (10th Cir.1996) (“We presume that deposits in a bank to the credit of a bankruptcy debtor belong to the entity in whose name the account is established.”); In re Meadows, 396 B.R. 485, 490 (6th Cir. BAP 2008) (finding that funds in a debtor’s checking account became property of the estate); In re Rocor Int’l, Inc., 352 B.R. 319, 328 (W.D.Okla.2006) (“[T]he presumption is that ‘deposits in a bank to the credit of a bankruptcy debtor belong to the entity in whose name the account is also established.’ ”); In re LandAmerica Fin. Group, Inc., 412 B.R. 800, 809 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (“In line with the broad definition of ‘property of the estate,’ money held in a bank account in the name of a debtor is presumed to be property of the bankruptcy estate”); In re Rock Rubber & Supply of CT, Inc., 345 B.R. 37, 40 (Bankr.D.Conn.2006) (holding that debtor’s deposit accounts were property of the estate); In re Tarbuck, 318 B.R. 78, 81 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2004) (holding that money chapter 7 debtor had placed into depository account was property of the estate). See generally 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (property of the estate includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.”); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.09 (15th ed. 2009) (“deposits in the debtor’s bank account become property of the estate under section 541(a)(1).”).

JPMC argued, however, that under the unique circumstances presented in this case the presumption that the funds in the Deposit Accounts are property of the *331 Debtors’ estate should not be applied. In fact, JPMC pointed to notations in the parties’ books and records that suggested the Deposit Accounts were meant to be a capital contribution by WMI to WMB. (Kosturos Decl. at ¶ 53.) In support of its response to the Debtors’ summary judgment motion, JPMC offered the declaration of an expert in bank accounting, who stated that there are inherent differences between a typical depositor opening an account at a third party bank and a bank holding company creating an account at its subsidiary. For example, the expert stated that a typical third party depositor would be required to present good funds, whereas the Debtors might have been able to create the Deposit Accounts without the delivery of money. In some instances, JPMC contended that rather than transfer actual funds, the Debtors simply adjusted general ledger entries. 17

The Debtors countered that the Deposit Accounts contain actual funds deposited by WMI when it sold WMI securities ($2.2 billion) and received tax refunds ($1.15 billion). In addition, they argued that WMI had exercised control over the accounts for more than four years, utilizing one of them as its primary checking account to service its outstanding debt, pay dividends, pay tax obligations, and pay a myriad of other operating expenses.

JPMC and the FDIC also contended that even if the Deposit Accounts are property of the estate, they have the right to set off against them any claims they have against the estate. (Id. at ¶ 57.) The Debtors responded that JPMC has no right of setoff. The Debtors note that all of JPMC’s claims must be post-petition because under the P & A Agreement the FDIC retained all of WMB’s claims that existed as of September 25, 2008. Therefore, the Debtors argued that JPMC could not satisfy the mutuality requirement for setoff. (Id. at ¶ 58.) See also 11 U.S.C. § 553(a).

JPMC asserted that it did acquire pre-petition claims that WMB had against WMI under the P & A Agreement. (Kos-turos Decl. at ¶ 59.) Alternatively, to the extent that WMB’s claims against WMI were not sold to JPMC, the FDIC Receiver and JPMC argued that the FDIC has the right to claw back the Deposit Accounts under section 9.5 of the P & A Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 60.) The Debtors opposed the FDIC Receiver’s motion for relief from the stay to permit the claw back, contending that any rights the FDIC acquired from the claw back of the Deposit Accounts would be equally ineligible for setoff as they would be deemed post-petition claims. (Id. at ¶ 61.)

Based on the pleadings filed in the Turnover Action, the Court finds that the Debtors had a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim to the Deposit Accounts, although the issues were hotly contested and the FDIC vowed to fight the issue to the Supreme Court. (Hr’g Tr. 12/7/2010 at 141.) Under the Global Settlement, the Debtors will receive the entire Deposit Accounts totaling almost $4 billion. The Court concludes that the Debtors could not do any better than this if they had continued to litigate rather than settle this claim.

ii. Tax refunds

In the JPMC Adversary, WMI argued that it was entitled to all of the tax refunds *332 (which total between $5.5 and 5.8 billion) 18 because it had filed the consolidated federal tax return for itself and its subsidiaries which meant that the tax refunds would be paid to WMI by the respective taxing authorities. 19 The Debtors contended that at most JPMC and/or the FDIC Receiver have a claim against the estate under the Tax Sharing Agreement for any amounts attributable to WMB’s losses. (Carreon Decl. at ¶¶ 11-12, 16.)

JPMC, the FDIC, and the WMB Senior Noteholders argued that they had legal or equitable claims to the tax refunds, because the refunds were based in large part on the losses suffered by WMB. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 18.) They argued that WMB was the legal owner of the tax refunds and that WMI had only acted as WMB’s agent in filing the consolidated tax return. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.) See, e.g., Capital Bancshares, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 957 F.2d 203, 210 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the parent could not convert the refund into its own property because “[t]he refund is the property of the [subsidiary] Bank, which could have generated the refund on its own had it filed with the IRS as a separate entity.”); In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., 473 F.2d 262, 265 (9th Cir.1973) (“Allowing the parent to keep any funds arising solely from a subsidiary’s losses simply because the parent and subsidiary chose a procedural device to facilitate their income tax reporting unjustly enriches the parent” and concluding that parent “receive[s] the tax refund from the government only in its capacity as agent for the consolidated group” and is therefore “acting as a trustee of a specific trust and [is] under a duty to return the tax refund to the [subsidiary].”). See also Interagency Policy Statement on Income Tax Allocation in a Holding Company Structure, 63 Fed. Reg. 64,757-79 (Nov. 23, 1998) (providing that “a parent company which receives a tax refund from a taxing authority obtains these funds as agent for the consolidated group”).

Further, JPMC and the FDIC Receiver contended that the Tax Sharing Agreement among WMI and its affiliates required WMI to pay to each member of the group its share of the respective tax refund. (Carreon Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 13.) They noted that WMI had consistently complied with that agreement in the past. At a minimum, JPMC and the FDIC argued that they had a claim against WMI for WMB’s share of the tax refunds which was almost the entire $5.5 to $5.8 billion. (Id. at ¶ 15.) See, e.g., In re First Cent. Fin. Corp., 377 F.3d 209, 218 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that failed subsidiary had contract claim against parent, under tax sharing agreement).

Under the Global Settlement, the parties are splitting the tax refunds: the estate will receive $2,195 billion and JPMC will receive $2.36 billion. (Ex. D-1 at § 2.4.) JPMC and the FDIC are waiving all claims against the estate, including any claims related to the tax refunds.

The Plan Objectors argue that this portion of the Global Settlement is not reasonable because the Debtors had a greater chance for success on this claim than acknowledged. First, they argue that the tax refunds are based largely on a recent change in the tax laws which allowed the *333 Debtors to extend the NOL carryback period from two to five years. (Carreon Decl. at ¶ 9.) That change in the tax laws, however, prohibited any financial institution which took TARP funds from taking advantage of the more favorable NOL rules on which the tax refunds were based. (See Objection of Schnabel, D.I. # 5964.) Consequently, the Plan Objectors contend that JPMC would not be entitled to the bulk of the tax refunds. The Plan Objectors also note that JPMC acquired the assets of WMB and did not merge with it; therefore, they question how JPMC can argue it is entitled to the tax attributes of WMB. (Id.)

The Court concludes that the Debtors have a fair likelihood of prevailing on the tax claims in the first instance. Even if the Debtors were correct and the tax refunds were property of the WMI estate, however, it would create a corresponding claim by JPMC (or the FDIC Receiver 20 ) for the vast majority of those tax refunds. Because creditors are being paid almost in full under the Plan, the likelihood that the Debtors would succeed in obtaining a net result better for the estate than the Global Settlement with respect to the tax refund issue is not strong.

iii. TPS

The background facts relating to the TPS are detailed in the Opinion issued this same date resolving the cross motions for partial summary judgment filed in the TPS Adversary. In that Opinion the Court concludes that because the Conditional Exchange occurred, the TPS Holders no longer have any interest in the TPS and instead are now deemed to be the holders of securities representing preferred shares in WMI.

There is a dispute, however, between the Debtors, JPMC, and the FDIC regarding who is entitled to the TPS. Under the Global Settlement, the Debtors will waive any interest in the TPS and the TPS will belong to JPMC. (Ex. D-l at § 2.3.)

The TPS Holders contend, of course, that the Debtors cannot convey the TPS t