Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[marayatano]

Upon information and belief, the quote below extracted from TPS's pleadings which basically states that EC had $3 billion possible to extract from SNH, however, EC decided to abandon a potential $3 billion in favor of $75 million and 95% of WMI2.

If we do the math, this does not make sense and it will not make sense to Judge Walrath either.

Now that being said, you have Willingham, I mean the EC come with a "proposal" of 70/30 split, but the EC abandoned their claims for $75 million and 95% of WMI2 out of $3 billion cause of action.

This looks really really bad on the EC's part and it was to the detriment of TPS because the settlement was not even close to a quarter or even a 1/5th of the amount of claim EC had on SNH.

EC obtained sooooooooooooooo little and yet wants to "propose" a 70/30 for do nothing but a piss poor job.

I don't even think the Judge needs to see the vote to even change the split. It is all there in the math.

It does not take a math genius to see that "something" caused a settlement of $75 million and 95% WMI2, from a $3 billion cause of action.

Analogy, but this is actually what happened:

The same thing happened when Weil Gotchal filed their adversary proceeding against JPM with all those causes of action ie trademark infringement, conversion of assets, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent conveyance, etc. etc. and then all of the sudden, Weil gives the the majority of WMI's tax refunds and assets to JPM with a smile.


Like I said, something happened that the EC decided to throw away the case for peanuts.



IMO of course.

Abandonment of Potentially-Valuable Estate Claims
During the July 2011 confirmation proceedings in connection with the last version of
the Plan, the Equity Committee, with the support of the TPS Consortium, achieved a
significant victory in obtaining permission to proceed with litigation against certain hedge
funds accused of engaging in illegal insider trading in securities of the Debtors (the
“Settlement Noteholders”). In the September opinion denying confirmation of the Plan, the
Court provided a lengthy discussion and analysis of potential claims against the Settlement
Noteholders, finding such claims to be “colorable” even on the limited evidence adduced
through the minimal discovery conducted by the Equity Committee to that point. Recovery
on such claims could result in significant additional value being made available to members
of Class 19 (either through affirmative recoveries from the Settlement Noteholders or through
disallowance of their claims against the Debtors (resulting in more value flowing down to
Class 19 through the recovery “water fall”)).

But, rather than pursuing that litigation (or even conducting additional discovery), the
Equity Committee appears to have acquiesced to the revised Plan’s: (a) full release of all
claims against the Settlement Noteholders (including claims you might have in your
individual capacities); and (b) a demand that the Court’s September opinion (as it applies to
potential claims against the Settlement Noteholders) be withdrawn and vacated as if the
Court had never found such claims to be colorable. In the view of the TPS Consortium, this
extraordinary abandonment of potentially-significant value for Class 19 is not justified by the
Settlement Noteholders’ potential provision of a secured loan, post-bankruptcy, to the
“reorganized” Debtors3 or other minimal consideration supposedly to be provided by the
Settlement Noteholders in connection with the Plan.
The TPS Consortium does not believe the Debtors’ estates are receiving sufficient value in
exchange for the release of significant potential claims against the Settlement Noteholders,
and recommends that members of Class 19 vote against the Plan and support further
investigation into such claims.

The TPS Consortium does not believe the Debtors’ estates are receiving sufficient value in
exchange for the release of significant potential claims against the Settlement Noteholders,
and recommends that members of Class 19 vote against the Plan and support further
investigation into such claims.
In sum, the TPS Consortium believes the Plan fails to provide members of Class 19
with an appropriate recovery on account of their interests and is another in a series of
proposed settlements negotiated against the interests of Class 19. In that regard, the TPS
Consortium believes members of Class 19 should vote against the Plan and elect to “opt out”
of the releases proposed to be granted to JPMC, the FDIC, the Settlement Noteholders and
others. To the extent you share our concerns regarding the Plan, we would also encourage
you to voice your opinion to others who will be voting on the Plan.