Replies to post #569718 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[wcheng]

Hard to imagine any money coming back to us legacy with such a preliminary statement by Rosen..

[AZCowboy]

~ WOW’, and, So Ends’, The Irrelevant’ “griffin tantrum” ~

Court Docket # 12464 Filed on 04/12/2019
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu/document/0812229190412000000000002

... So, do any of you Crisis Creation Financial supporters / donators, ... qualify for a refund ... ? ...

... and will the griffin tantrum’s cheerleading squad’ going to get paid ... ? ... this most recent “tantrum” ended for griffin, in the very same way each one of her other attempts to interrupt “equity” have ended’ ...

I’ve read quite a few “burns” in my time, ... but this one ? is a true “classic” ...

AZ

[footballref-8541]

I wonder how Alice will be able to get around taking about any assets outside of this courts jurisdiction when your not allowed to acknowledge anything.

Rosen is only taking about what is in front of the judge now, not what we believe.

Big uphill battle...

[PickStocks]

Who’s statement is this Hosen or AG

[Johnnyiwantsome]

The Trusts, The WMILT, Assets Rosen, Griffin & Safe Harbor

Much discussion here I believe is being misdirect in the discovery of assets.

.The Assets DO NOT LAY IN THE WMILT in my research period.

.ROSEN CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT IS RECOGNIZED INSIDE THE BANKRUPTCY.

.ROSEN CANNOT SPEAK OF NOR DISCUSS THAT WHICH IS OUTSIDE OR NOT PART OF THE DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS..period.

Now what does Rosen speak to in his most recent filing in answering Griffin Objection

"equity interest holders persist and continue to assert that the Trust has significantly unaccounted for assets and it and its fiduciaries are depriving equity holders of recoveries"

Yes he is correct in this statement! Remember again Brain can only speak to what is in the Bankruptcy Estate and legally cannot speak to that which is outside.

SAFE HABOR & The RMBS CMBS Trust
Section 546(e)
(1) that the transfers were made by or to a financial institution and (2) that the transfers were made “in connection with” a class of defined “securities contracts.”

The court found that the PSA governing the REMIC trust was a securities contract within the meaning of section 741(7)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. The PSA set forth the general structure of the CMBS transaction: the depositor would sell pass-through certificates evidencing the entire beneficial ownership interest in the trust fund to be created under the PSA, with the mortgage loans that were transferred into the trust and bundled together constituting the primary assets of the trust.
The court noted that it “may properly consider two separate transactions as a single transaction when doing so would align with economic realities.” In this case, the economic realities were such that it made sense to view the transfer of loans to the trust and the subsequent issuance of the certificates as an integrated transaction.
Further, once the promissory note evidencing Retail’s loan was transferred to the trust, it was subject to the PSA, which in turn defined the manner in which payments from the mortgages flowed to certificate holders. The court read the phrase “in connection with” broadly to mean “related to” and found that, although the debtor’s payments on the loan were not necessarily made for the purchase or sale of securities, they were made in relation to the PSA and therefore fell within the section 546(e) safe harbor.



SO IMHO there is nothing much left inside for equity and that's what Brian Rosen is speaking too. However that is why I would have to say I am more aligned with those whom state and believe the recovery will come to MARKER HOLDERS FROM THE TRUSTS.

Regards,
B