Replies to post #743667 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[LuckyPanda]

Ron, you are right about the bank bonds being 2x over-collateralized...but what if the collateral is sitting in remote bk? If the receivership closes first, then that collateral in remote bk does not need to pay off the bank bonds. The bank bonds will become the sole responsibility of the receivership. Hence the receivership can either pay off those bonds with the Libor lawsuit proceeds or wait for the remote bk assets release before closing out the receivership.

I dont think FDIC-R will get enough from the Libor lawsuit to pay off the bank bonds. I think they are just keeping the lawsuits open as an excuse to keep the receivership open until the remote bk assets get released. But if you are the trustee of the remote bk assets, why would you release them before the receivership closes. If you do, you could get $13B claw back from the receivership for the bank bonds.

Hence we are stuck in the middle with the waiting game.

[novascotiaSTS]

You maybe should tell the FDIC that WMB‘s bonds are over collateralised. They seem to think that there wont be sufficient assets to make „any distributions“ to them.


On the day after WAMU failed, its holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WMI"), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Case”). WMI owned all WAMU shares of stock and was the sole equity holder of WAMU. The Receiver does not currently have and does not anticipate accumulating sufficient assets to pay in full all of the allowed claims of the general unsecured creditors of WAMU. As a result, the Receiver does not project having sufficient assets to make any distributions to WAMU subordinate note holders or equity holders. Therefore, it is unlikely that any distributions will be made to WMI or its successor on its claim as sole equity holder of the failed bank

https://www.fdic.gov/bank-failures/status-washington-mutual-bank-receivership