Replies to post #153128 on Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[Joshfm]

I think this should get a sticky...

[RetirewithWaMu]

Great post Fish, but given all that you laid out, why would you let them off for $16? One would think that the EC and Quinn should be able to squeeze $24 min.

[Dylzar]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in discussion of the forced liquidation by JPM, but I'm wondering the following:

Is it possible that JPM's forced liquidation is a way to get the EC to accept a lesser offer? I say this because if the EC's intentions and approval are for both pre/post shareholders, then all those ex-employees would most likely hold pre-seizure shares. Therefore, if the EC was to take a "utilitarian" point on the matter, it would be to accept an offer so that those shareholders aren't forced to sell at such a low price.

Any thoughts?

[redbudal]

Another super duper post!WAMU hall of fame material.This should be fax'd to JD's office ASAP!Thanx's!

[cashgrinder]

great post.
Can you let me know where the following lawsuits are taking place?

Against JPM and FDIC

Where can i find information on the current status of these suits and what exactly the claims and counterclaims are?

thanks so much for all your work.

[jimmyturbine]

Your a dam genius! Great post! I always look for your post. Not many explain as well as you, thank you!
jimmy

[itsmikie]

Do you see different settlements for pre and post shareholders? Sorta looks like that is what is going to happen, with the sealed documents, Unless there is a trail.

[Batman14]

Fish, you are a well oiled machine that makes this board and everyone who reads it go! Thank you for all of your efforts.

[Dragynn]

On the topic of pre- vs. post shareholders, I agree Fish, that some here tend to jump on new posters too quickly. Especially in light of the fact, that this is a valid question. And the fact is, that "a share is a share is a share", is nonsense until proved otherwise, proof that no one here has, and likely will not have any kind of decent time frame, especially now that the judge has approved the big iron curtain to cover-up the proceedings...IMO there is way too much "redaction" and "confidentiality" going on here.

The BofA-Merrill-SEC case has some important parallels and precedents being set as we speak (feel free all to tell me how it absolutely is meaningless and has no bearing on this case, the more thoughtful folk will doubtless see where i'm coming from).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/23bank.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1266933851-aUvptFsrSbmffHfaVfPMEQ

The Judge just approved a 150 million dollar settlement, a paltry amount in his view (and mine), but the point here is, the money will be divided up and paid out ONLY to "legacy" shareholders, that is, people who were holding shares at the time the deal went down, NOT post-merger buyers.

So you see, a share is not always a share in the law's eyes.

And again in this case, despite it being GUILTY FRAUDSTER EXECUTIVES who are to blame for the VIOLATIONS OF SECURITY LAWS, it will be the shareholders who wind up and have to pay the penalty, just like it will be JPM shareholders and not DIMON or JPM, that actually pay any damages here.

[paulebino]

"What JPM will do is require the EC "who represents all equity shareholders" agree to a deal where all liability is extiniguished (pre and post) therefore releasing them of future litigation liability. "

So JPMC is Equity's best friend? Maybe had something to do with its creation?