Sorry, but do you even read what you write before posting? What shall I start reading?
- I read the official documents, check.
- I read the explanations available regarding all the buzzwords here, check.
- I also read all the theories here since 2008, check.
There is no "Debtor in Possession" anymore since WAMU restructed 2012 into WMIH and the "rubble" which was called WMILT is gone also.
Start looking behind the curtain... if you want to trace the "bk remote assets", which of course existed, start to understand the corporate structure of WAMU and if that is not enough compare it with Lehman Brothers... yeah, they also had "bk remote" assets.
But I'll help you further... a BK remote asset is used to prevent it from being liquidated or claimed in a BK process. Now it depends WHO owned that asset...
Case A: WAMU Holding owned the asset, which qualified as "bk remote asset", went to BK, restructured and came back. Yeah, you're correct, in THAT case it would still reside at Mr. Cooper today - potentially!
Case B: WAMU Holding owned WMB, which in turn held the asset, which qualified as "bk remote asset". Sounds familiar? Have a look at Lehman... Now WMB was seized (yeah, it was NOT a bk case!) together with that asset, which qualified as "bk remote", so WAMU Holding entered BK protection, AFTER the assets have been stripped away! So those went with the "fire sale" in 2008, sorry...
Now, which Case we had? A or B?
If you want to get yourself more familiar with that concept, start with a doc called "Asset Securitization: How Remote Is Bankruptcy Remote?"... you can find it with google... It's from the year 1998, so from the early days, but maybe you then understand who was allowed to build that "SPV" or "bk remote asset" in a securitization process...
Hint: A "bk remote asset" was designed to protect the asset in case of bankruptcy, not a seizure ...
