Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
COOP is NOT the subsidiary of another entity as we know from legally binding, freely available and recent official documents.
You will of course continue to make this ridiculous claim, not sure what you hope to achieve by this?
No.
This is has absolutely NOTHING to do with Escrows, it’s about First Republic Bank - as it says very clearly. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Presenting actual evidence in front of the judg or at least speaking to her key source herself instead of relying on hearsay may have been helpful at some stage
Still not a shred of proof for various statements like i non US citizens wont be entitled to Escrow payoffs ii Mr Cooper is a subsidiary of XXXX or iii LT Escrow payout exclusively to you (and no one else)
But pls share more about your bikes and sportscars.
COOP has very clearly and unambiguously stated in its latest SEC-filed Proxy Statement that there is no “XXXX“
But this obviously counts for nothing
WMI’s equity was never worth more than 50bn at the asolute height pre-2008, then its key operating entity WMB gets seized by the FDIC and now 15 years later a multiple of 5 or 6x of this absolute peak valuation will be paid out to former shareholders?
Who believes this?
Source for all of this:
Trust me, bro!
And of course they ONLY paid you according to some undisclosed mechanism without telling other investors.
Because that’s EXACTLY what trustees do, right?
There is no XXXX simply because COOP is not a subsidiary of another entity, according to the legally binding, official SEC-filed proxy statement of the company, easily available on COOP’s website.
What you say directly contradicts official SEC filings by COOP.
Who would you say is more credible?
Proxy Statement clearly contradicts AZ‘s nonsense about COOP being the sub of XXXX - but he‘ll probably continue to make this statement anyway…
So COOP plainly denying that it is the subsidiary of another entity in official SEC filed documents over several years would not meet the definition of “lying“, if you‘re right?
So COOP has been lying for years in its official SEC registered proxy statements, annual reports etc by not disclosing that it the subsidiary of XXXX?
What do you mean by “theory“? There simply is no parent to COOP.
These are easily verifiable facts published in official SEC filings by the company.
Actually the 2023 proxy statement has already been published.
There are two shareholders holding >5%: Blackrock 15% and Vanguard 10.5%
So it would be nice to stop this nonsense or at least explain why COOP should file false statements with the SEC.
https://s1.q4cdn.com/275823140/files/doc_financials/2023/2023-proxy-statement-bookmarked.pdf
There is no XXXX, because COOP is not the sub of another entity.
Read the company‘s proxy statement from last year, listing all major shareholders or just wait for the new one, which should come v shortly.
It was nothing but straightforward b…shit
What happened to „Escrows can’t be deleted by the LT“?
Interestingly you never present any evidence for your claims
“Honi soit qui mal y pense“
Yep, then he should maybe explain why COOP is lying in their official proxy statements, which they have to file with the SEC.
Of course he can‘t do that.
There is no such proof of course.
On the contrary COOP‘s 2022 Proxy Statement (filed with the SEC) explicitly disproves your ridiculous statements that COOP is a subsidiary of a parent entity.
In a few weeks COOP will file again a legally binding proxy statement with the SEC which will again show that it is not the subsidiary of another parent entity.
You will continue to make the assertion that COOP is the sub of another entity (which however you don’t name)
Only one of these statements can be true - which one is it?
COOP is not the subsidiary of any other group or entity.
We KNOW this from the company‘s official proxy statement, which shows no parent holding a majority or other large chunk of COOP shares, the only large >5% shareholders identified are Blackrock with 14 and Vanguard with around 9%.
Of course you will continue to make these claims just like all the others.
https://s1.q4cdn.com/275823140/files/doc_financials/2022/sr/COOP-2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf
This of course has (again) nothing to do with Escrows or JP Morgan - because it relates to BROOKFIELD.
Is there any foreseeable point in time when you will stop making these ludicrous claims?
There are still many people who believe AZ simply because he is making (completely ridiculous) claims which they desperately WANT to be true.
And of course the LT didn‘t inform anyone but you about the “many qualifying actions“ which needed to be taken to receive payments, so that you could receive a payment
They ONLY told you because that‘s exactly how trustees work…
So you think that the LT would just completely change the rules and process on Escrow payouts without telling anyone other than AZ? Seriously, how credible is that?
So the LT was saying that non-US investors can get paid.
And AZ is now saying that they can‘t.
Obviously one of them is by defintion not telling the truth.
He can‘t show you such a document because it doesnt exist.
My guess is that he will either ignore the question, hoping that it will go away - or he will claim confidentiality reasons under his ^NDA^
2 weeks later not a shred of evidence that this actually happened or that anyone else also received payment
Also absolutely no information from the LT about this new process incl need to get vetted, the requirement for Rosen to instruct Doreen etc or the restriction of payouts to US ctizens etc.
Still people continue to believe her or AZ
amAZing…
Alice has (i) never presented a single piece of actual evidence for her claims (ii) lost all of her lawsuits (iii) had to withdraw all of her remaining lawsuits. I think she also paid a penalty.
There is no connection between the WMB Bonds and Escrows (and being US citizens).
I dont know why some people continue to believe someone who claims to be the sole and only recipient of such payments.
There is no interest rate on shares - among many other reasons because shares have no nominal amount which anyone could pay interest on.
It’s not plausible to claim that certain contractual private property rights won’t apply to non US citizens - without any such restriction ever having been made public over the last 10+ years.
And again not a shred of evidence from the ONLY person claiming to have received any payment - including any explanation why only US citizens would be eligible for a payout from their securities.
But of course this happened, right?
Had to be ordered to be vetted' by the "wmi-lt" (rooosssie' directed mine to be done by D')
Of course - if you can legally buy the bonds you have the same rights as any other holder.
AZ pretends that the rules who can receive smth (I.e. only accredited investors, only US citizens etc) can just be arbitrarily changed without any notice or documentation.
Can you imagine the sheer volume of litigation that would follow from any such restrictions?
Interesting, you continue to make reference to documents, but dont say what kind of documents or post a link to them - why is that?
There is (aside from your word) not a shred of evidence to support the thesis that the validity and enforceability of contractual rights to private property should be subject to US citizenship - without this massive restriction having been made public in the many many publically available documents since 2008.
AZ was very clear that his payment related to Common shares:
~ Related to Released WMI Common Shares' and the WMI Wells Fargo Property Trustee ... I Have Told You' / Everyone', the WMI Preferred were managed by a Sub' ... now managed by WMIH' ~
So the DTCC has told you that no payment was made - and AZ reports receiving such a payment.