Replies to post #533940 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[Large Green]

clawman, EXACTLY correct as you, I, BBANBOB and hotmeat have been saying for a very long time.

Everything, whether Safe Harbor or not relating to ownership reverts back to those who signed timely releases by 3/2012, which was an ownership change that was effective on 3/19/2012.

This as indicated by those who have markers in their accounts which also clearly specified all former preferred and common prospectuses were cancelled by the court as well as all associated documents on the Effective Date of March 19, 2012

[BBANBOB]

CLAW
Thank your LOGIC prevails !!!!!!!!!

To honestly believe that the court and POR 7 no longer hold weight in any of this moving forward is ludicrous...........

[hotmeat]

The problem here is "tunnel vision" on the part of some posters. If one reads the WAMU 2005 FASB Comment Letter (pgs 3-6), it clearly shows that assets of a bankrupt entity can also qualify for Safe Harbor protections. Safe Harbor is clearly NOT a fully bankruptcy remote process. It's documented...not an opinion.




Disclaimer: Regardless of my optimistic posts, I am still not 100% certain that there are any benefits from Safe Harbor assets due to our Markers as there is, as of yet, no verifiable proof of such existing.

[fixedops]

Claw, do know or remember if WMIH has any Intercompany Claims In POR7...I havent read that friggin mess for a few years now. Im not 100% sure but I think the answer is no?
If so then I agree that everything goes to Escrows and nothing WMIH...

(e) the equity interests in (i) WMI Investment (all the assets of which shall be
contributed to the Liquidating Trust, including any Intercompany Claims), (ii)
WM Mortgage Reinsurance Company (“WMMRC”), and (iii) Washington
Mutual Bank (the stock in Washington Mutual Bank was worthless and was
abandoned by WMI shortly before the Effective Date).

Im trying to wrap my head around what AZ is trying to say about the New Co. but if its not in POR7 then I cant see WHIH geting any assets...

Below is what AZ MIGHT be trying to prove...Im not sure...

14.1 Intercompany Claims and Obligations
Generally, the commencement of an insolvency proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code does not alter the treatment of valid intercompany claims. Like all other claims against a debtor, claims of a parent, subsidiary or affiliate against a debtor (collectively, “Intercompany Claims”) are entitled to pari passu treatment with claims of unaffiliated third party creditors having the same priority (i.e., secured, unsecured, subordinated, etc.) if the Intercompany Claims are valid.

While Intercompany Claims generally are entitled to pari passu treatment with other claims, they often are separately classified and afforded different treatment under chapter 11 plans of corporate debtors, particularly those with complex corporate structures. In many cases, there are no distributions under a chapter 11 plan on account of Intercompany Claims between and among debtors in the same corporate family who are reorganising in jointly administered bankruptcy cases. Instead, such claims are reinstated. The reinstatement of Intercompany Claims preserves a means for the reorganised corporate family to move cash between related entities on account of the repayment of Intercompany Claims after the company reorganises, which may be more efficient and cost-effective than transferring funds via dividends.

Complications may arise when distinct corporate entities within a corporate family have different assets and liabilities owed to third party creditors. Whether or not Intercompany Claims are recognised and respected may significantly impact the recoveries of third-party creditors. Creditors may insist that Intercompany Claims be taken into account when calculating the recoveries of third party creditors at different corporate entities. Even when Intercompany Claims are taken into account when calculating recoveries to third-party creditors, Intercompany Claims may still be reinstated as part of a chapter 11 plan so that they can be used by the reorganised company to efficiently transfer value within the reorganised corporate enterprise.
https://practiceguides.chambersandpartners.com/practice-guides/insolvency-2018/usa/14-intercompany-issues

My personal opinion - and I know some will howl me down at the campfire for expressing this - is that all assets of WMI that were not specifically given to WMIH by the POR (or otherwise specifically dealt with by POR 7) will go to the LT for distribution to claimants and escrows in accordance with the priorities established in POR 7. And any distribution to escrows will be done by the LT in accordance with the 75/25.

I think the idea that the disposition of some WMI assets are not governed by POR 7 is silly. That is not what safe harbor is about at all. It places some transactions of the debtor beyond the reach of the bankruptcy court, but not assets in which the debtor has a residual interest that are returned as a consequence of the winding up of those transactions (assuming there are any such assets).