Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[rramirez82]

I'm not so sure about that. I respectfully disagree because the EC's primary objective was the appointment of an examiner - and after that motion was denied it sought to pursue the avenue of discovery under Rule 2004 as directed by the court. Once it became clear to the court that WMI was really a hostile party and adverse to EC interests, Judge Walrath reconsidered her prior decision and essentially gave us the green light to file another motion - indicating that she would rule in our favor provided that she has the jurisdiction and authority to do so. Accordingly, if the imminent appointment of an examiner - which happens to be one of our biggest bargaining chips aside from any valuations conducted by PJS and/or "smoking gun" documents - was adjourned in exchange for "an understanding with respect to the multitude of issues" then I believe it's because they're prepared to come to the table with an offer for shareholders.

In short, Susman would not have agreed to the adjournment of examiner unless our adversaries (WMI, JPM and the FDIC) were ready and willing to engage in serious good faith negotiations.

That's just my humble opinion.