Replies to post #338715 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Bizreader]

The upshot of this passage is that the Tax Refunds, i.e. NOLS belong first to WMI not the FDIC or anyone else.

[mattchew]

And, we have a shit load of state refunds coming our way, which I have seen in the billing statements of the debtors, which no one wants to talk about.

[Civil War General]

fair and reasonable? fair and equitable?
sounds very familiar.......

1. The Plan is proposed by the Debtors and supported by (a) Wilmington Trust ('Wilmington Trust'), as trustee of the trust preferred securities ('TRPS') that were issued by a trust wholly owned by Debtor Guaranty Financial Group, Inc. ('GFG'), and (b) the FDIC in its capacity as receiver (the 'Receiver') for Guaranty Bank ('Guaranty Bank'), a wholly owned subsidiary of Debtor Guaranty Holdings Inc. I ('GHI'), which served as a holding company for GFG‘s investment in Guaranty Bank. The Plan rises and falls on a settlement (the 'Settlement') by and among the Debtors, Wilmington Trust and the Receiver (collectively, the 'Plan Proponents').
2. Without any meaningful examination of the claims that the Receiver and the Debtors hold against each other, the Plan Proponents bound themselves to a Settlement which distributes all of the Debtors‘ material assets to the Receiver to the detriment of all other creditors while at the same time gifting a significant post-confirmation role to Wilmington Trust, to the substantial benefit of Wilmington Trust and its professionals. The Settlement was cemented despite the Receiver having asserted its claims only in passing and even after the Debtors and Wilmington Trust revealed the Receiver‘s lack of any foundation for the Receiver‘s claims. Remarkably, both the Plan and the Disclosure Statement say precious little regarding the claims and litigation between and among the Debtors, the Receiver and Wilmington Trust, much less the reasons that justify the settlement of these claims on the basis contemplated by the proposed Plan. Certainly, nothing is said on the face of these documents that sustains the Debtors‘ burden to show that the proposed settlement of such claims is ?fair and equitable and in the best interest of the estate.? Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. United Cos. Fin. Corp. (In re Foster Mortgage Co.), 68 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir. 1995).

http://www.haynesboone.com/gfg/492.pdf

Thank you 'aladin61'

This is a pathway forward and from a Texas BK Court as well.

[onco]

sounds like we may end up with all the NOL's