Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[WithCatz]

steel, you are correct to a point. Even though the Debtors could still do a give-away while A<L, there is the factor that once A>L can be reasonably shown / proven - IN COURT {not on our collective cocktail napkins}, and reflected in a MOR preferably, or in a EC POR that can withstand attacks -- in either case, then Equity does drive.

That's the anti-screw factor. A>L.

And in my opinion, the Examiner helps get us there. And THJMW observed that in this case, the typical 'adversary process' would have gotten an answer, but that has failed (ergo the delays, refusal to turn over documents, debtors inexplicably claiming that Equity wasn't their client, etc...) And, the Examiner, because of Work Product access, and the 'objectivity' that they bring to the table.

Accoring to bankruptcy law, a plan can be accepted by a judge if at least one 'impaired' class votes for the plan.

But once A>L, and assuming a competing POR, then all the former imparied classes are whole, and are 'deemed' to accept the plan.

And if preferreds end up imparied, then they are the voting block. If we get past preferreds to commons, then nobody is impaired and the company moves forward, and any competiing PORs are evauated based on votes and THJMW's interpretation of laws. By that point A>L anyway to my point.

So, I don't think we're screwed as long as the Examiner validates, for the first time in many cases, what we think we 'know' via DD on how much the assets are really worth. And assets to the Estate include a valuation of torts, etc -- currently being given away for $0, or in fact, less than $0 -- actually paying the adversary party for us to drop the suit. Bizzarre -- and I expect the Examiner to say so.

The Beginning I'm referring to, is that simply the Examiner's report doesn't create A>L. It gets the EC the in-court basis though, to make that case, and drive.

...Catz


On your last question, I missed the reference. Rephrase it please.