Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[WithCatz]

vics - I get you. Sometimes it's hard for me to take both sides of an equitation. I can be as frustrated as the next shareholder, like on the billing equation. And it's gross GROSS inequity to it.

But, I can also step back and look at the legal {as in, how the laws are written and exploited} aspect of it -- and the court - when faced with a "settlement" that all parties agreed to -- and no objection from any of the parties, and no objection from the US Trustee -- well..

Sure, we wish she was more of an 'activist' judge, but by now we know she isn't one.

She specifically pointed out that there were no objections, other than the shareholders, and gave them the time to present their objections.

She did specificallly mention the "Settlement" and that she felt {for right or for wrong} it was not her job to pull out the fees from the overall settlement, which specifically DID include to have the fees paid. In other words, the settlement was a "a+b+c+d" item -- and "c" was for fees to be paid. The settlement would be broken if it was "a+b+d" and C was pulled out. She made that point {in different words}.

She specifically said that limited what level of review of fees she was doing, because, again, even the Equity Committee agreed with having them paid.

It is factual.

Do I like it. NO. Do I agree with it NO. Do I wish she had been more activist, here - YES.

It is what it is.

...Catz