Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[marayatano]

Upon information and belief, and the various allegations in the pleadings and comments reviewed, this is the way I look at it through "clear" glasses as opposed to "rose colored" glasses since I believe in reality rather than fantasy.

Why the 70/30 as being proposed (key word is "proposed"): Prefferds are commons within the EC could not agree on a fixed split. Basically NO AGREEMENT within the members. Willingham only holds commons, so you see commons as proposed 30% split. The compromise is, let the "vote" and judge decide and let the EC member have post confirmation employment to cover your deficiency if commons were to get the 30%.

Why did Willingham settle: He is a business man. He realized that going to litigation with SNH will result in ZERO for common shareholders because HUQ is deficient approx $500 million, Sub claims at least by $15 million ( I know there is more), prefferds at $7.5 BILLION, all the while the estate is burning money. Plus, there is the uncertainty all of the $2.5 billion PLUS would prevail in litigation.

The waterfall would NEVER REACH COMMONS in litigation path. Potential disallowance is approx. $2.5 billion plus $$ of the time wasted by the estate, ie atty fees, burn rate, etc. Settlement was the only prudent path.

So, from an "individual" looking from the outside, how does potential disallowance of $3 billion be reduced to a settlement of $75 million and WMI2? See the above response: Litigation = no money in the waterfall for Willingham, cough, I mean commons shareholders. Some got post BK employment which will far exceed any return on their actual WMI security holdings. No only that, I would not be surprised if one of them becomes a board member, they are "awarded" more NEW commons shares as it is a "custom" to do.





imo of course.

Question re 70/30 split: If two of the three EC members hold preferred (one of them preseizure), why did the EC propose a 70/30 split?

Willingham, who only owns U's, comprises only one vote, so at least one of the P holders had to agree, as they needed a majority.

Thoughts?