Replies to post #411230 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[bkshadow]

Absolutism is not paramount...

...reasonable prudence is all that is required.

It is simple.

1. WMI had pre-seizure claims (for services, inter-company goods, etc., all laid out in the D.C. Court Action) against WMB.

2. WMI "abandoned WMB," which is in receivership (fiduciary, regulatory control of the FDIC-R and it's guarantor -C). WMI's pre-seizure claims against WMB was the objective of this language.

These are not claims against the FDIC, rather, the "FDIC "as receiver for WMI," i.e., fiduciary, regulatory control.

Again, not the FDIC's actions in seizure (it didn't, the OTS did). The FDIC as it administers (regulates) claims against WMB.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

If not, the FDIC-R or FDIC-C would never have released and the WMILT would certainly be aggressively pursuing them. Would they not?