Replies to post #548431 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[rp2012881]

Fair enough. Then why even post the substance of the supposed call? Why not name the source? Why not come out and say Rosen is being intentionally misleading?

Rosen's opinions in the call weren't described by vague terms of legalese spoken by an attorney trying to hedge his meaning. Definitive terms like "fantasy" and "no chance" were used that left no doubt Rosen thinks there is little to no significant recovery for escrows.

[Royal Dude]

Let me make it clear I am "Anonymous" and Rosen never said Escrow would not receive anything. I am not defending Rosen but lets be clear on what he said. I did not record this conversation and this not totally accurate. The problem here is that direct communication is necessary for clarification. Again, who has a fiduciary responsibility is it Susman Godfrey or Rosen. I talked to Edgar Sargent afterwards who also knew nothing to help the shareholder at this stage.

Rosen Call:

1. He had no knowledge of Safe Harbor

2. The Bankruptcy and LT is all he was concerned about

3. March 19th was an operative date for the Bankruptcy completion

4. He was not aware of a DB payment date that would have to be made
within a year.

4. There would not be a payment to LT in November from the Bankruptcy(Trust?)

Believe me When I say Rosen did not give me any information that would hurt his position IMO All is still good for escrow and our position in COOP. As AZ says COOP is the tell and CSNY is correct in his optimism.

[gold-nugget]

People have to understand How much and what a lawyer can only say.
Rosen is only expressing his views of what is right now IN front of him. Key word “IN”. He can not assume or express legal views of what is outside of his boundaries. For example FDIC. FDIC-R. Ect ect.
He can only comment of what he has now. and that’s what he is doing.
People need to understand legal law before commenting.