Replies to post #141235 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Jestiron]

I like your analogy! There have been many good analogies, but this one seems to have another point of view to it as it reflects WMI and the other claims.

Now lets hope it is 100% correct! LOL

AJest

[jhdf51]

<Settle this danmn thing before the only ones that get anything at all, are the lawyers!!!>

The governement will just print more money..they never run out. lol


JHD

[unevilfavouredness]

What I can't believe is that JPM was that arrogant and cocky not to have created a "Kyser Sose" to have at least put a semiserious 3rd party bid under JPM, so when the smoke cleared it didn't look like a one party auction.

[CIGGYGAG]

very nicely put. thanks

[hestheman]

Great post!

[jhdf51]

With the government debt picture they are probably coughing at actually having to "right a wrong" as compared to prining money and throwing it at every failed company CEO that surfaces with his hand held high.

[rramirez82]

This was an excellent post and I especially loved your analogy, which I referenced below.

If a thief steals a brand new lexus off the dealer's lot. Recklessly crashes into 7 other vehicles, kills 3 people in the process and ultimately destroys the stolen lexus. I honestly believe that any court in existence would award damages to the dealership in the amount, not less than, the full value of the car at the time it was stolen, not it's current value. Furthermore, all the additional claims associated with the theft will be the responsibility of the thief, not the owner of the car.

WMI-Weil's motion to disband the EC confirmed the rumors of the parties seeking to leave equity out of the settlement. I suspect TPG/Bonderman may have something to do with this. Moreover, it may be the reason the shorts haven't fully covered yet - because they're anticipating the cancellation of equity to let them off the hook. People must keep in mind that the $50B in claims referenced in WMI-Weil's reply (filed last night) is not - as Byrd referenced in his post - WMI's responsibility. JPM and the FDIC will have to deal with that, which is exactly why Weil has never brought those claims up until now.

Another point, which I believe Mary and Vivian addressed on the Yahoo! forums, is the fact that Weil contradicted itself on the issue of its representation of equity holders. In WMI-Weil's motion to disband, Weil argued that there is no need for the formation of an EC because equity holders are already adequately represented by the debtors (WMI). Then, in a swift about-face, argues in its reply that equity is seeking a recovery (or a "gift" as they artfully stated) that the debtors will not. IMO, we already know they're not seeking the same recovery because the WMI-Weil is solely seeking to appease the bondholders in a settlement, while the EC wants to get the full value of the estate (creditors, equity and all). Accordingly, since WMI is not seeking the same relief, then it is not representing the EC's interests and the EC should be allowed to represent itself.

Thank God for the U.S. Trustee and the EC. When this is all over and justice is served, I will thank them from the bottom of my heart and remain indebted to them forever as my life and the lives of my family and friends will be forever changed as a result of their efforts. Lets hope Judge Walrath sees past the smoke and mirrors and realizes that she needs to act if the law is to be followed and justice is to be served.

[XOM]

Very logical and convincing post, byrddog
WMI's claims against formation of an EC hinge on regarding themselves as a typical debtor in bankruptcy, charged with formulating a plan to pay down creditors and winding down its estate. Meanwhile, it pursues expanded discovery in alleged business tort claims, with damages potential up to 3X original value of loss. This duality is evident to even uninterested eyes and is not lost upon the scrutiny of the United States Trustee and the Court.

WMI's latest filing derides the EC's "math" and seeks to thwart an apparent "gift" to shareholders who seek to profit from these cases, while obviously failing to include those who lost due to the seizure, numbers far greater than the brave ones who averaged down their losses in hopes of an equitable resolution, and the fewer still who are wholly invested post-seizure. Indeed, WMI's argument could be turned upon WMI Noteholders who sat in on the first attempted settlement discussions in early 2009. Those negotiations (and confidentiality agreements) broke off and now WMI bonds are trading in 1MM blocks at par.

Shareholders' interests deserve a seat. WMI's assertion of $50B of claims against the estate have not been resolved and are, at very least, disingenuous. If WMI is attempting to do what I believe they are doing (negotiating a deal with JPMC to pay off the Noteholders, reorganize through issuance of new equity for this Group and pursue claims against the FDIC), I hope the Court squashes its scheme.

There is no "gift" regarding WAMUQ. There is only legal remedy.

Best wishes to those of us attending the hearing on Thursday. Wear your Sunday best and represent shareholders across the country with dignity, respect, and that ol' AMERICAN NEVER GIVE UP SPIRIT!