Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[bkshadow]

Because the FDIC "must follow the Mandate"

This is the mantra for escrow holders. If such is the case, the FDIC must follow the "Mandate" regarding the priority of the receivership CLASSES.

So, to your question "why should the FDIC-R pay of WMB bonds?," it is because of the same FDIC "Mandate" that supports "the theory." Under the Mandate, there is a Priority of Claims.

2.7.11. Priority of Claims.

The Act establishes the following priorities for
unsecured claims against the covered financial company or the FDIC as receiver:

- Administrative expenses of the receiver;

- Amounts owed to the United States;

- Wages, salaries, or commissions, earned not later than 180 days before the appointment of the FDIC as receiver, subject to a specified cap;

- Contributions owed to employee benefit plans arising from services
rendered not later than 180 days before the appointment of the FDIC as
receiver, subject to a specified cap;

- Any other general or senior liability of the covered financial company;

- Any obligation subordinated to general creditors;

- Any wages, salaries, or commissions owed to senior executives and
directors of the covered financial company;

- Any obligations to shareholders, members, general or limited partners, or other persons with interests in the equity of the covered financial company.

Also, regarding the assertion "if the assets possibly held off-record were assets of the former WMI or direct subsidiaries that were unjustly taken," such has been litigated in the bankruptcy, settled under the GSA, confirmed by the Court and affirmed by the Class ballots including equity (shareholders' releases).

"Junior and senior bonds not trading higher at the moment is not proof," is in DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGE FOLLOW THE BIG MONEY. It is a reaction, a statement of fact, that BIG MONEY is not buying that the receivership funds are sufficient enough to fully settle the Seniors or even touch the Junior WMB bonds; "as is fully disclosed on the FDIC website (which is relied upon for items that support but is not to be relied up for items that disprove).

It seems the facts and realities are quite clear. The support for the assertions that what is there is valid because it doesn't exist pales in comparison to the logical and reasonably prudent person that looks at what has taken place and is on the record by all parties and believe that "it is what it is" because it actually is there in black and white.