Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[clawmann]

Ron, The "change in control" referred to in those documents relates exclusively to the way that term is used in WMI's Equity Incententive Plan (EIP). This is about the employees' claims to receive the stock in the DCR. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Under the EIP, a "change in control" (as defined in the EIP) would trigger the concerned employees' rights to receive stock. WMILT is arguing that - as defined in the EIP - no such change in control occurred and in any case giving those shares to the employees would constitute forbidden golden parachute payments. That is all this is about and nothing more.

Read the proposed order that WMILT submitted on June 7. It is on the last two pages of the second document you linked.

The judge may not even rule on whether a change in control (as defined in the EIP) occurred because she does not have to. Whether such a change within the meaning of the EIP did or did not occur is an issue that the court does not have to decide because - even if such a change did occur - the employees' clams to the stock in the DCR must be denied as they are seeking forbidden golden parachute payments.

There is no greater significance to that change in control language.