Replies to post #472478 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[sometimes_right]

Wrong...Preferreds would have EVERY RIGHT to complain because they agreed to & were awarded the 75%/25% distribution ratio in favor of Preferreds uncapped, as reinforced recently by the company's own clarification statement that some wish to ignore or twist its intended meaning.

NOBODY knew how much IF any assets would be returning to Preferred shareholders when they were faced with voting whether to keep all distributions for themselves and extinguish the common shares; OR allow the common shares to remain intact and share the distribution.
At that time most folks thought there would not be enough to even pay face value for Prefereds, let alone pay a single cent to commons. Yet Preferred shareholders against most watchers' opinion, voted FAIR & REASONABLY to include common shareholders and share whatever assets that may be distributed 75%/25%.

This 75%/25% split was negotiated and agreed upon. It is "fair & reasonable" on several levels besides being a negotiated contractual term. Preferreds gave up their BK waterfall seniority in order to allow commons to remain intact and receive payment in the same Tranche as Preferreds. Furthermore, while Preferred's face values were $1,000 for "P" and $25 for "K" preferreds; common share's par value is something like $0.00001 or some such minuscule amount (check the issuing filing for exact). So IF Preferrds are 10X or even 75X face value... IF THERE IS SUCH HUGE $$$ TO BE DISTRIBUTED, commons in fact will be receiving at least 100X or 750X their par value... and quite possibly 1000X or 7500X par!!!

So yes...the negotiated and agreed upon contractual term for equity distribution is 75%/25% in favor of Preferreds, uncapped. And yes it is "fair & reasonable."

Finally for all the folks worried about "pre-seizure" WaMu shareholders, apparently they received a class action settlement. Granted it is not much, but it is $$$ they did receive.

So IF release-signing Escrow Shareholders receive anything, it is because of the risk we assumed from the fleeing "pre-seizure" shareholders when the knife was falling.

http://www.washingtonmutualsecuritieslitigationsettlement.com

https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1128822

[hotmeat]

All I can speak on is what is clearly laid out in the POR and LTA as far as the payment priority in Tranche 6.

The language is specific and IMO difficult to manoeuvre around even though alternate theories may seem plausible.

As for who knew exactly what assets were there, I believe that would have been WGM, JPM, AAOC and the FDIC.

This was the reason why equity had to be cancelled and they all acted in concert to achieve that goal.

Everyone else would have just been speculating since they were not privy to the WAMU's books.

[BBANBOB]

"""Preferreds have no right to complain if they recover $1000+10 years of interest.

Preferred capped is the most fair and reasonable."""


Tanz
As you know I have always said I hold no ill will towards any that came here post but for all intents it should have only included PRE's
I have also stated we are all in the same life boat, and as such IMHO we should all eat whatever food we have in this life boat till its all gone.

Preferds in FACT actually let commons come along
No right to complain, I wont complain about getting my face and interest for 10 yrs,but I will complain about COMMONs getting ALL that is left past that.

Again SAME BOAT fixed amount of food, all should share that food.

What if it had been turned around and PREFERDS received 100% of everything until they were paid in full and there ended up only being just enough to pay them whole and nothing to Q's untill they were paid whole??????????

Consideration were made for IN THE EVENT there were limited funds that ALL shared equally.............. Fair and reasonable????????


Again I will end up very well off if we actually get face,but as to your statement preferds have nothing to complain about,well

FIRST I WAS pre, secondly I hold preferd markers which are ALWAYS first in line.

And again we are all in the same life boat PLACED there out of FAIRNESS TO ALL...............so we will agree to disagree,if it turns out prefereds are capped.
Now realize if the H's and all up stream are paid first, your tune might change as we would all be issued LTI's, then the tide and opinion might just cahnge...........

[BBANBOB]

Preferred capped is the most fair and reasonable. Preferred receiving 5 to 10 times their par value is unjust enrichment based on the nature of their initial investment.


Tanz I would suggest that most here that are common holder are POST holders , so you're suggesting that being paid 6-8-10$ a share is just?
Hell I was pre and my avg cost was $6.47

IF say 40 bill comes to commons ONLY I find this far from fair and reasonable but again we agree to disagree