Replies to post #397162 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Royal Dude]

f in fact this 118 page PAA exists, can one conclude that the Respondents and their attorneys have perpetrated a possible fraud on the court and that this possible fraud extends to foreclosure lawsuits (past, present, and future) throughout the United States? And if so, what can be done to help these homeowners who were possibly victimized by judges who unwittingly relied on the purported 39 page PAA to seize and sell their homes? What will these judges have to say about this serious misrepresentation of the PAA if found to be true? Will these victimized homeowners be recompensed for the damage caused to them financially and personally? Will the courts take another look?


http://piggybankblog.com/2012/06/22/secret-fdic-jpmorgan-chase-bank-118-page-purchase-and-assumption-agreement-for-washington-mutual-bank-uncovered/#comments

[SeCura]

Nice DD Bluee, Royal, Up et.al. However, I don't believe it is correct to say that the FDIC seized the holding company. The way I remember it, the OTS was strongarmed by Treasury and the FDIC to seize WAMU Savings bank citing risky lending practices and liquidity problems, from WMI. Since WAMUfsb (which was quite liquid to the tune of billions of dollars) was a subsidiairy of WAMU, both banks were handed to FDIC-R, who then passed them on to JPMC, on a silver platter. As a result of the seizure WMI was forced into bankruptcy court, and we now have WMIH and WMILT. I think it would be significant if WMI covered bonds were backed by mortgages, and not just for the holders of those bonds. The excerpt that catches my eye in the Jolly complaint referencing the 39 page PAA as:
....."the transfer of assets to the purchaser is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller’s debts..."
The term "fraud" is also showing up in the FDIC LIBOR complaint. Anytime the term "fraud" crops up in legal matters, it should be either music or a nightmare to a litigator. The FDIC also mentions liquidity misrepresentations on the part of the defendant banks (including JPMC) numerous times in the LIBOR complaint. Perhaps some chickens are beginning to come home to roost.
I believe I caught a comment in another of your posts (#397182): "WMILT is not pursuing JPMC." My question to you is: Why not pursue them if fraud is shown? Am I correct that you are alligned with Large Green who has been repeatedly posting that there will be no third party lawsuits (even if they have merit) because this has already been negotiated prior to exiting bankruptcy?