Replies to post #118084 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[dam]

Nice find.

[drrugby]

With this in mind..

Maybe but maybe..

WMI will hear the fate of the 4b$.. By Turkey Day..

And the FDIC stand off rights.

But, I think.. The FDIC has no right to the money.. They sold the bank.

So sorry charlie..

I hope we hear the fate of the FDIC counter claims from DC..

DrR..

[itsmikie]

If you ask me, looks like the FDIC is back pedaling a little bit now..

[SamuraiProgrammer]

I guess this explains why THJMW has not ruled.

Back to pump & dump until near the 24th of Nov.

Of course, unless they settle unexpectedly....

Like a theif in the night (LOL)

[Bizreader]

Thanks Dr!

I just read the first few pages. I would like to see a list of the detailed claims against the debtors. The FDIC says it far out weighs the amounts on deposit; 4 billion or more.

Interesting... the deposit account didn't belong to WMB, the FDIC seized and sold WMB to JPM. Now, the money belonging to WMI, WMB's holding company, is being held as though it was WMB and the Purchase and Sales Agreement, P&A, according to this filing protects JPM, the receiver, from being sued by WMI.

So, if this logic holds up; the FDIC can take holding company property, IF, they can get their hands on it, oh, and they can keep it.

So, how do these funds get taken? How do the records belonging to the bank holding company get seized...? Well, people with badges show up and either physically take the computers and hard copy files, and/or they freeze accounts with usernames and passwords or threaten those responsible for executing transactions on certain accounts with legal action if they were to make a transaction go through after the seizure notice.

The court and the judges will have to decide, in plain language, why the FDIC can not go back and "fix" this in JPM's favor or the FDIC's favor. Or the court and judges will have to explain in detail why the POSSIBLE offsets are enough to justify in the eyes of the law, the theft that was committed and now is being defended by the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation.

I think Sheila Bair should be very apologetic, publicly, to all Washington State citizens, and all those financially damaged by this seizure and sale.

[survivor Spain]

My take on FDIC move to grasp the money:

1.- JPM lost the money. I think now this is a fact.

2.- In essence FDIC argument to get hold of the money is based on the fact that this money may be needed to offset the future potential result of the claims and counterclaims WMI and FDIC exchanged in the DC court. There is not any litigation between WMB/JPM and FDIC.

3.- By point 2, FDIC somehow recogizes that the 4B are WMI's money and not WMB money. They want the 4B "at hand" to protect themselves so they can get paid in the future if WMI (not WMB)loses against them in the DC court.

4.- On the other hand ... if it's WMI's money, then ... the P&A is not applicable, since it's applicable only to WMB assets. And the only argument for them to initiate this move is based on the P&A, which by default is not applicable to WMI's assets, only to WMB's former assets.

5.- Even in the case that there could be any doubts about the applicability of the P&A ( 2,3 and 4 indicate that it is not applicable ), then with this move FDIC is just trying to get priority to get paid ahead of other creditors who have real, not diputed and proven claims. These creditors would not access the money just because a newcomer ... FDIC could eventually become a valid creditor in the future and just in case it wins in DC court, and subsequent appeal courts..

If I understand minimally the BK judges role, ... their duty is to protect real and valid creditors, not at all potential future creditors.

CONCLUSIONS:

- If the BK court rules that the 4B are WMI's money, the P&A is by default not applicable. So FDIC's move does not hold water.

- Even if for any legality, there are any doubts about the applicability of the P&A, why would the BK judge accept to give priority to FDIC potential/future claims ahead of current valid creditors? .. Again I don't see how this motion can hold water.

- What this motion does for sure is damage JPM, who loses the 4B depoit. (they really never owned it,.. in fact they really never accounted the 4B in their books as theirs but as a deposit).

Cheers!!!

[mordicai]

The fdic is a bit late. SHould have done this BEFORE jpm filed the interpleader. Actually, this issue is already submitted with the decision on the motion for summary judgment of the turnover action. It is already before the court. A party cannot bring it up and reargue it like this. Otherwise litigation would never end. Note that the fdic still has not exercised the contract clause. Just another futile act on fdic's part. The contract clause violates the constitution under the fdic's interpretation. It is up to Walrath to decide what the contract clause means not the fdic.
I don't think the fdic understands that by asking for relief from the automatic stay they have admitted that the deposit is part of the bankruptcy estate and owned by the holding company. They have admitted that the bankruptcy has jurisdiction, and have probably waived all their arguments that the receivership trumps the bankruptcy estate. What fools. I expect JPM to oppose this. They don't want to turn over the deposit to anyone. That is why they filed the interpleader.