1:53:02)
Walrath:
Let me just make my ruling, I think I've heard enough. It seems that all parties are now on board that the appointment of an examiner may help the process here except the WMI Noteholders Group, which suggests that nothing has changed since my original denial of the shareholders' motion for an examiner in May. But I disagree with that analysis. At least three of the factors on which I relied turn out to not be true at this juncture. I had found the Debtor had been investigated to death, the Equity Committee would be able to conduct an investigation that was appropriate, and that an examiner was not a good substitute for the litigation process. Quite frankly I've found that the litigation process is not adequate in this case. There have been inordinate delays and impediments to discovery by all of the parties who have a stake in this case in connection with the confirmation process and that has just convinced me that an examiner is necessary, both to reduce the cost of litigation and to assure that all parties have a forum through the examiner for consideration of their positions. Not simply on the merits of the global settlement but on really the value of the Debtor's assets, both those being settled and those left behind, and the appropriate distribution of those assets under any Plan. I think I made it clear that I think I am not in a position to deal with confirmation at this process... at this juncture... given the inability of the parties to fully investigate or consider all of the claims. I'm not in a position to decide the reasonableness of the settlement at this point without some assistance and I believe an examiner is a good way to go, with the caveat that I agree that this process has to be controlled. The examiner cannot be given carte blanche and no deadline within which to conduct an investigation. There's no substitute for a Congressional investigation. (1:55:39)
