I am also reluctant to believe that Rosen found a way to delay or successfully challenge the appointment of Mr. Hochberg. Our adversaries are in dangerous territory right now. I think I mentioned in a post last week that our adversaries would wait until the examiner was appointed to determine whether they might be able to "buy" him or her off. I'm willing to bet that once they got a look at Mr. Hochberg and his experience as a high-profile examiner and leader of the Department of Justice, they might have realized that buying him off was not something they could do - let alone risk attempting to do. They really underestimated the U.S. Trustee and of course, the Equity Committee. To that end, I am very proud that there is still some sense of respect and justice in our nation's legal system - because as a law student, I justified making this investment on that belief.
The only thing I might disagree with is your second statement because the appointment of an examiner traditionally falls within the exclusive authority of the office of the U.S. Trustee - and the court not only allowed the U.S. Trustee to exercise that authority, but also gave it broad scope of power with which the examiner can use to investigate a wide range of claims. Accordingly, if there was a concerted effort led by Rosen to discredit the appointment of Mr. Hochberg, it would most likely be in the form of a letter delivered to Judge Walrath - not filed on PACER. I work in litigation and I see parties challenge applications and requests all the time - and unless the letter stating the grounds for the challenge is "so ordered" or "memo endorsed" by the judge and filed on the docket, the general public will never know of its existence.
