Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[survivor Spain]

Grey, ...
thanks for re-posting it. This is the most important topic now. I mean: the way - and the day, 9/19 - the deposit was made.

This is not a new argument from JPM, now, given the fact that the BK judge has clearly stated that she, and not the DC court, will rule on this, JPM is repeating the argument.

This was already answered by WMI, it seems these deposits were usual cash movements within the holding and its subsidiaries, and that given the fact that the cash of the holding and the bank was managed by precisely the same people, the formal authorization processes for the transfers were sigle handed.

However the way I read it is that the main point in JPM's argument is not that the paperwork was unclear, but that the intention of that specific deposit on 9/19 was fraudulent and targeted to create a fake liability to a potential post-seizure buyer.

They assume that WMI knew about the seizure by 19th. Just this is quite an assumtion: now it seems clear that JPM learned about it even before WMI ( to be porved in the discovery). And they state that WMI's - "fraudulent" - reaction was to keep the cash in their bank instead of moving it to a safe harbor in an external account. These are quite strange assumptions by JPM, ... the logic seems to be that they kept the cash in their bank to protect their bank of the potential liquidity problem. Which, by the way, was the fair and honest thing to do.

... anyway, this is the topic that the judge has to rule upon...

cheers...