Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[WithCatz]

Bubba -- because, as testimony from the Debtors (A&M) says, they did not value each and every item of contention. They took the "business judgement" approach that "this pot of disputed assets" vs. "this pot of claims against assets" plus the "currency of settlement" (Tax Refunds) = the GSA.

It would be up to the DEBTORS to have argued point-by-point of assets, etc. The DEBTORS chose to run their affairs in a "big picture" {hidden} way, and that is a legal "business judgement" way to do things.

Stinks. yes. --- Again, do I like it, no.

Is it up to the court to say "no, you can't do it that way" ? -- not at all. It is within the purview of the DEBTORS to do it that way.

And it's a perfectly legal way to do it. The whole "litigation morass" problem -- the court (and the laws) allow for 'settling' of items without discrete valuations, listing, etc -- if it's in the interest (very loosely defined) of the Debtors -- to avoid {lessening} a possible result of litigation for years.

Given the pockets of JPM and FDIC, that's a real possibility here.

...Catz