Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Dmdmd2020]

Per my Ihub post #555889:

Excerpt:

"Per The Congressional Subcommittee report as of April 13, 2011:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PSI%20REPORT%20-%20Wall%20Street%20&%20the%20Financial%20Crisis-Anatomy%20of%20a%20Financial%20Collapse%20(FINAL%205-10-11).pdf

Page 118 (PDF page 125 of 646)

“At the Subcommittee hearing on April 13, 2010, Mr. Beck explained the role of WCC in WaMu and Long Beach securitizations as follows:

“WaMu Capital Corp. acted as an underwriter of securitization transactions generally involving Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. Generally, one of the two entities would sell loans into a securitization trust in exchange for securities backed by the loans in question, and WaMu Capital Corp. would then underwrite the securities consistent with industry standards. As an underwriter, WaMu Capital Corp. sold mortgage-backed securities to a wide variety of institutional investors.434

WCC sold WaMu and Long Beach loans and RMBS securities to insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds, other banks, and investment banks.435 It also sold WaMu loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. WCC personnel marketed WaMu and Long Beach loans both in the United States and abroad.”
...

Footnote 434:

“434 April 13, 2010 Subcommittee Hearing at 53. Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (WMMSC) and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (WAAC) served as warehouse entities that held WaMu loans intended for later securitization. Mr. Beck explained in his prepared statement: “WMMSC and WAAC purchased loans from WaMu, and from other mortgage originators, and held the loans until they were sold into the secondary market. WCC was a registered broker-dealer and acted as an underwriter of securitization deals for a period of time beginning in 2004 and ending in the middle of 2007. In addition to buying and selling mortgage loans, WMMSC acted as a ‘master servicer’ of securitizations. The master servicer collects and aggregates the payments made on loans in a securitized pool and forwards those payments to the Trustee who, in turn, distributes those payments to the holders of the securities backed by that loan pool.” Id. at 163.”

________________________

Per the Purchase and Assumption Agreement:

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FDIC-Chase-PAA.pdf

Page 2 (PDF page 6 of 44)

“Assets” means all assets of the Failed Bank purchased pursuant to Section 3.1. Assets owned by Subsidiaries of the Failed Bank are not “Assets” within the meaning of this definition.”

_____________

Per Docket #10666 filed by the WMILT objection to Underwriters' claims as of September 14, 2012:

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229120914000000000006

PDF page 5-6 of 553:

"II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. CHALLENGED PROOFS OF CLAIM; UNDERWRITING AGREEMENTS

5. A number of proofs of claim have been filed on behalf of the Underwriter
Defendants against WMI in these cases. The four proofs of claim at issue in this Objection, numbers 3935, 4045, 4046, and 4047, are the products of amendment to a host of previously filed claims:

• Claim No. 3935. Proof of Claim No. 3935 was filed on January 17, 2011 by Goldman Sachs on behalf of itself and Morgan Stanley, UBS, BofA, Credit Suisse and JPM, as a supplemental proof of claim to claim number 2909 (filed on March 30, 2009). It relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated September 11, 2006.

• Claim No. 4045. Proof of Claim No. 4045 was filed on July 14, 2011 by Morgan Stanley on behalf of itself and Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPM, Greenwich, UBS, BNY, Cabrera, KB&W, Ramirez, and Williams, as a supplemental proof of claim to claim number 3938 (filed on January 17, 2011), which, in turn, amended proof of claim No. 2569 (filed on March 30, 2009). It relates to an underwriting agreement dated December 11, was 2007 among, inter alia, Morgan Stanley and WMI.

• Claim No. 4046. Proof of Claim No. 4046 was filed on July 14, 2011 by Credit Suisse on behalf of itself and Barclays, Morgan Stanley, KB&W, Cabrera, and Williams, as a supplemental proof of claim to proof of claim number 3936 (filed on January 17, 2011), which, in turn, amended proof of claim number 3794 (filed on October 29, 2009). It relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated October 25, 2007.

• Claim No. 4047. Proof of Claim No. 4047 was filed on July 14, 2011 by Morgan Stanley on behalf of itself and Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank, a supplemental proof of claim to claim number 3937 (filed January 17, 2011), which, in tum, amended proof of claim number 2584 (filed March 30, 2009). Proof of Claim No. 4047 relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated August 21, 2006."


_____________

IMO...my conclusions as of March 09, 2019:

1) All of the Underwriters' proofs of claims (No. 3935, 4045, 4046, & 4047)

Claim No. 3935 : "It relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated September 11, 2006"

Claim No. 4045: "It relates to an underwriting agreement dated December 11, 2007 among, inter alia, Morgan Stanley and WMI."

Claim No. 4046: "It relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated October 25, 2007."

Claim No. 4047: "Proof of Claim No. 4047 relates to an underwriting agreement between those Underwriter Defendants and WMI, dated August 21, 2006."

2) All proofs of claims were against WMI not against WMB, WMB,fsb, nor against any of WMB direct subsidiaries which created and securitized all the loans in the MBS Trusts and its prospectuses (i.e. Long Beach Securities Corp., WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., WaMu Capital Corp.)

3) The Underwriters knew exactly who to sue, and it was WMI not WMB (or any of its subsidiaries), and not WMB,fsb (or any of its subsidiaries). So the Underwriters, of all the parties, knew the exact entity to sue. In order for the Underwriters to receive their indemnification from the MBS Trust Agreements/Prospectuses, the Underwriters had to sue the entity that had the ultimate liability for the MBS Trust Agreements/Prospectuses created by the WMB subsidiaries. So if WMI is the ultimate entity that has the liabilities to all the MBS Trust Agreements/Prospectuses then IMO, WMI is also the ultimate entity that has rightful ownership to the retained bankruptcy remote beneficial interests in certificate participation in MBS Trusts which WMI subsidiaries created.


Therefore, IMO...WMI Escrow Marker Holders has rightful ownership to the retained bankruptcy remote beneficial interests in certificate participation in MBS Trusts created by WMI subsidiaries.