Replies to post #509289 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[etzetrade]

You're right since day 1. AZ's theory only applies classes 16 and 17. Even, judge changed its fundamental rules to put the caps of return for class 16. So, there is nothing could not be changed in BK's court. BK 101, judge can supersede any previous rules. In our case, class 19 and 22 were mingled as only one equity.

[etzetrade]

Furthermore, Dimeq is another good case. Judge finally vetoed
everything as per her judgement, even the same case was proved by other court. So, she has the final says, and 75/25 is her final.

[clawmann]

hotmeat, I don't think this is a complicated question. The LT - not WMIH - is the legal successor to WMI. Any assets that belong to WMI go to the LT.

Some posters on this board have made the mistake of believing that the POR does not govern such assets because those assets "were not within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court." This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the safe harbor provisions. The truth is that the safe harbor provisions say nothing of the kind. The safe harbor provisions protect securities transaction agreements from being avoided (undone) or stayed (halting the further performance) by the court.

The safe harbor does not mean, and has never been interpreted to mean, that assets generated by or pledged as security for such agreements that somehow find their way back to the debtor or the debtor's estate are outside the scope of the bankruptcy court or - in our case - the POR.

[CBA09]

Ref: There is a theory where only Common Escrows, as the true owners of the original WMI estate as per pre-bankruptcy rights, benefits from the former WMI estate ie the Safe Harbor assets of WMI and Pref escrows only benefits from the Preferred Offerings that backed those securities.
I have two questions.......


1) If this is true, would Common and Pref holders who did not sign releases to elect to participate further be eligible to benefit from any returned Safe Harbor assets as they are bankruptcy remote and since releases were a bankruptcy process??? Using that theory's logic (kudos to goodietime).

Comment:

The answer is what you provided in # 2) below:

2) In the POR (pgs 59-60 quoted below) it clearly states that "ALL DOCUMENTS" pertaining to Prefs and Commons are deemed cancelled relating to WMI, (the Debtor),...not the Trusts. How could this be reconciled with the above theory???

Furthermore-
The court approved the negotiated 75/25 %. As for Non-release stakeholders, they have no standing, they do not exist.

Only released share holders, while being the last paid, will reap the greatest treasure - Safe Harbor Sssets. Some ripe and some still generating revenue. It's "abundantly" clear they are still there!