Replies to post #482421 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[bkshadow]

Per the CA Probate Expert Witness Report...

...if fully explains the 'claim per the Settlement Agreement that DB (as Trustee for the MBS owners) that will then be treated parri passu at the receivership and what the cash result will be.

...it clearly shows such claim, along with the Sr. WMB bondholders, will only receive a % of their claims.

...the Jr. WMB bonds and lower order priority claims 'get nothing.

...so, the EXPERT WITNESS IN THE CA PROBATE COURT DB case, doesn't know about the hidden, secret billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions and even trillions 'found?

...nope.

...what the FDIC discloses is ALL THAT THERE IS.

...it doesn't matter that a 'sentence no longer says the shareholders are not likely to receive recovery.

...and the shareholder (1) is WMI; and the WMILT, as successor, HAS DISCLOSED NO ACTION IN THE MATTER and, per the concluding documents, has released.

...all in the realm of reality of course.

...your reply comments in BLUE.

...original comments in RED.

...updated replies RED underlined.

UncleBo Friday, 07/14/17 08:23:46 PM
Re: bkshadow post# 482388
Post #
482421
of 482429 Go
Frankly, I don't know either...

For everyone who diligently follows the case and reads the documents...the FDIC site with the status of the receivership NO LONGER states that the shareholders are not likely to receive recovery and it has been like that for a while

Quote:

I don't know how many times it has to be told...

...the DB case has nothing to do with escrows, WMI, WMIIC, WMILT, WMIH or former shareholders directly or indirectly.

-actually it has a lot to do with it...it lists an actual loss of 17.7B dollars loss, documented, court filed in the verified petition as confirmed and agreed by the FDIC. That is about ONE POSIT difference vs. what JPM has said and has been purported 29.9B why the difference - R203. Everyone does their own math...

...it simply explains why the receivership 'doesn't have any funds other than what is disclosed. The $17B, $29B and R203 are three unrelated items brought into fantasy for escrow recovery; cited not by the Expert Witness report as a SOURCE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS, but cited as "FOUND AGAIN" to support fantasy theories.

...why would the Expert Witness recommend accepting the settlement because of the limitation of the FDIC receivership funds when $17B, $29B and R203 $165B really exist?

...because it, or they, doesn't. exist.

...in the realm of reality, of course.

--download the pdf and at the bottom there are the numbers you can copy and paste to excel, if you doubt call the FDIC and ask if this is a legitimate website

www.globic.com/wamurmbssettlement/pdfs/3.%202017%2004%2028%20FILED%20WAMU%20TIP%20Decl%20of%20Robert%20Stevens%20re%20Notice%20to%20DTC%20of%201%20Complex%20Designation,%202%20Notice%20of%20Hearing%20Date,%203%20Civil%20Complex.pdf

--THE ONE POSIT

www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229110209000000000001

--THE COURT: Well, let me posit this. The valuation
3 comes back that the reorganized debtor is worth ten billion
4 dollars. Isn't that something I have to take into
5 consideration when I determine who is getting the equity in
6 that entity and whether or not those creditors are receiving
7 more than they're entitled to under the plan?

...been over and over and over this for year; a posit during the court argument as to whether equity's request to argue the valuation of the reorganized debtor. She didn't state it WAS WORTH SUCH, IT WAS A POSIT in reply to the parties that did not want the valuation argument.
Such was argued, by BDO on equities behalf, in open court and fully survived in hearing transcripts and audio.

...NO ONE, on either side, took up the POSIT of the Court in the valuation argument (or in the filed documents for argument?)

WHY?

...it was a 'posit.

...it deals with an allowed claim CA Probate Court approval that will result in a dollar recovery as per the Expert Witness in such case.

...such Expert Witness "Report" clearly establishes how the WMB receivership assets are insufficient to cover the claim, along with the Senior bondholders, so there will be a pro-rata sharing of the minimal funds available.

...such clearly illustrates, what has been known to all since 2008, that WMI, WMIIC, WMILT, WMIH or the former shareholders will receive NOTHING from the FDIC receivership, directly or indirectly, or JPMorgan, or the US government.

...again, I don't know how many times it has to be told.