Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[WithCatz]

CWG -- thank you for re-summarizing what many, including me, have been trying to say. You said it better.

I'll add to that mix that in a negotiated settlement, that the implicit nature of preferreds vs. commons will - (more than likely) - be maintained. While nobody may be happy with such a negotiated settlement, I am fully confident that as long as preferreds remain impaired, there are several ways of accommodating that impaired nature.

One of which, we've already seen proposed -- that the litigation/liquidation trust benefits impaired classes until full, then the next class. This is a signficant change from where the prior litigation/liquidation trusts were to be set up to solely benefit the impaired class (debt holders) and even if they got 'full' - as litigation succeeds and liquidations occur -- that they'd still keep the excess even after their impaired-ness was rectified.

I won't speculate on all the permutations in a negotiated settlement. There's just too many moving parts of if/this, but if that/instead to go on.

But I absolutely agree with your summary. And the nuance of APR vs. No Agreement vs. settlement agreement that includes the EC. With my added comment of however it is dealt with, that there will be (in fact, to pass the 'best interests of creditors test') would/will have some form of acknowledgement of the inherent nature of prefs vs. commons.

...Catz