Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[dix]

It was my belief that the DS did not meet Scioto and that it wouldn't be approved.
I was wrong(conditionally pending revision of language).
Time to move on but before I do;
Who stated that the DS approval would be 'bad' and why? I forget who but the 'Why' was, I believe, described in terms of plummeting share price.
Didn't happen.

Moving on.

http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1789

"In the face of the increasing number of motions for the appointment of examiners, other courts have recently begun to question the mandatory reading of the statute. This has occurred several times recently in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware...."

"In Spansion Inc..yada yada.. Chief Judge Carey yada yada..."

"Id. This approach has been employed by other judges in the court recently. In rapid succession, Judge Walrath recently found in three cases that no investigation was necessary and therefore declined to appoint an examiner. See In re Magna Entm’t Corp., Case No. 09-10720 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. April 20, 2010) (Walrath, J.); In re HSH Delaware GP LLC, Case No. 10-10187 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. April 23, 2010) (Walrath, J.); In re Washington Mut., Inc., Case No. 08-12229 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. May 5, 2010) (Walrath, J.).

In the Washington Mutual case, the Official Committee of Equity Securityholders filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner. The committee was not appointed until 15 months into the case, and the motion was filed several months later, after the Debtors had filed a plan and a motion seeking the approval of a settlement agreement with the principal constituents in the case. The court began its analysis by noting that Section 1104(c)(2) gives the court discretion in deciding whether or not to appoint an examiner. Judge Walrath identified four factors that the court will consider in determining if an investigation is appropriate under Section 1104(c)(2): (i) whether another party has already conducted the investigation, (ii) whether the appointment of an examiner will result in increased costs and delays with no corresponding benefit, (iii) the timing of the motion, and (iv) whether the motion is a litigation tactic. Transcript of Hearing at 97:5-24. The court denied the motion, finding that the Debtors had been “investigated to death” and that the committee could conduct the investigation for which it sought an examiner. Transcript of Hearing at 98:12 – 101:12."

(i) whether another party has already conducted the investigation, (ii) whether the appointment of an examiner will result in increased costs and delays with no corresponding benefit, (iii) the timing of the motion, and (iv) whether the motion is a litigation tactic.

On the second request by EC for an examiner and considering her stated paradigm, Her Honor granted the motion.
Why?

She probably ruled out 'litigation tactic' or she wouldn't have granted; the timing was further down the road than when she first denied; 'whether another party has already conducted an investigation' other than Congress maybe another party did (investigated to death) or maybe they didn't(adversarial process not working blah blah); even if there was a poor investigation,IMO Her Honor could have denied an examiner if the second(ii) criteria had not been surpassed,"whether the appointment of an examiner will result in increased costs and delays with no corresponding benefit".

If Her Honor, who had denied THREE requests for an examiner(in sundry cases), believes there might be enough corresponding benefit to justify increased costs and delays then, in my mind. I'd have to revise the 50/50 odds mentioned on this board upward in Equities favor.


Ten