Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Dfrntstuf]

A couple of weeks ago I posted this link to a paper co- written by our Ms. Goldstein discussing ethical issues for bankruptcy practitioners. I found most interesting a citation referencing "Model Rules of Professional Conduct" (apparently a lawyers rulebook) "Rule 1.7(a)'s Prohibition against representing clients whose interests are "directly" adverse implies that an attorney may concurrently represent two clients whose interests are only "indirectly" adverse."

While I can find no evidence that Weil, Gotschal and Manges are currently representing J.P. Morgan, I have found numerous instances in the recent past where Weil, Gotschal, and Manges have represented J.P. Morgan. When we consider the longstanding business relationship between these two companies, it begs the question of whether WMI (a company which may very well cease to exist after this litigation is concluded) is receiving uncompromised representation. I think that Weil, Gotschal, and Manges were too greedy. They saw only the millions of dollars that they could bill and ignored the obvious conflict that exists. To my layman's eye, the representation being provided to WMI is inadequate at best. Why did it take sixteen months to finally figure out that the bondholders were knocking on the wrong door looking for money? Are we supposed to believe that they just figured that out? Weil, Gotschal, and Manges is reputed to be one of the top bankruptcy attorney firms in the world; with 21 offices the U.S., Europe and Asia. They continue to provide J.P. Morgan with stellar representation; not so much WMI.

http://files.ali-aba.org/thumbs/datastorage/skoobesruoc/pdf/Ck092-ch09_thumb.pdf