Replies to post #247549 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[uzualsuzpect]

I was thinking this after reading their posts also. But if the examiner okays the PoSv.6 what will stop the judge from just allowing it since nearly everyones on board with it?

I will tell you what it is they don't want to tell you: EC, with Solomons' preliminary numbers, are going to put out a completing POR/DS and force a cramdown.

Boppster and Gibby probably wants it to be a surprise, however, I don't mind spoiling it. Ha ha. =D

Well, I have to go out have some dinner! See you all in the morning.

imo

[Cre]

I hope to God you're right.

[sometimes_right]

which corresponds nicely with Susman's letter included with the ballot material advising for all qualified shareholders to vote "NO" for the current "v6" POR:

discussion on Y"
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=86316&tid=584923&mid=584923&tof=1&frt=2

[etzetrade]

Any more other thoughts...Your advice is always well taken.

[Joshfm]

For my last post of the day I want to ask how you know this. No offense, but this is a huge allegation you're making. Do you have inside info or is this just a guess?

[Yanik]

how can they claim to know this. It sounds logical to me, but im a shareholder not a lawyer. If this does occur i would rather it be before the 9th so we can cram and slam them on the SH meeting on the 9th.


still staying strong and long.

[Lebosco]

Well heck that's better than saying I know and not saying anything...Kudos

Night...

Don the Civil War is coming soon hope your prepared...OSU FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT

[trailblazin]

thanks, hope you are right marayatano. Your post put a smile on my face....it makes sense.

[mehedi]

New Theory! Trustee gets appointed.

A lot of conjectures so bare with me please!

As per the Examiner's report, without the proper valuation of the complete asset list, the share holders are left with nothing.

What happened in that chamber with Susman and everyone else points to the asset list of Solomon's preliminary #s. But how do you use it with solid arguments?

Susman, a guy getting 1k/hour must have known what the F. rosen, jpm and fdic were liable to produce to Hochberg, given the time constraint.

Also, "should have held for more..." tells me that what Susman wanted just by producing the asset value. If the Examiner found something without the asset list(Susman knew there was not going to be any asset included in this report), the "should have held for more" is explained right there, he said what he said assuming that the examiner would find something more without any asset list.

The Examiner does not have the asset list but Susman would produce one - the entry point of proper argument that relates to asset list valuation.

So, susman's new DS would void or contradict/challenge this report.


I dare to think that Susman knew all along that the examiner would find nothing without the assets. That is exactly what he must have wanted because that is when his DS becomes a HUGE argument based on Solomon's numbers


Trustee would be appointed.

[roccoisking]

Thanks. That was great.