Mr Cooper Group Inc fka COOP

[bkshadow]

There was no choice...

and when we took door A we did releases

so while rational in general - in the context of the win on insider trading (a half win

There was no choice at that point.

Hindsight is great for second guessing, and I did go through a phase in that regard. However, I don't know 'what they had on the insider trading to make even an informed second guess.

Remember, that colorable notation by Walrath was regarding their trading while having access to insider information (specifically, the potential for making a deal on the larger 5-year NOL). So, Walrath was only going to deal with that trading if EC had not settled. She would not have any basis to expand the scope to activities of the settling noteholders to other pre-seizure/pre-petition trading (short selling).

So, although it would appear that one could connect insider bankruptcy trading during confidential periods to the typical behavior of such hedge funds, it would have been a complete reversal of judicial discretion for Walrath to have let any motion for discovery go outside the bounds of what she specifically identified as colorable.

IMO, we therefore would have never gotten to the hedge fund short sales, and certainly not to JPM or GS, as they were not at all identified in the arguments at the confirmation hearing that resulted in hear opinion reference. Again, Nate presented the trading activity of the notes by certain hedge fund noteholders during certain periods, then key dates and evidence about inside parties getting together with professionals.

and when we took door A we did releases

- did they pick the right course by settling and releasing v battling on

There was no choice at that point.

I sounds great to fight to the end, but what are the responsibilities of the EC and counsel with a settlement proposal?

They have to list each potential outcome, the amount and the range of likelihood. Included in that assessment, is if the path is chosen to 'go for it and you get nothing; what is the fiduciary duty in a sense of the EC and counsel for NOT TAKING THE DEAL (the $75M, control of the BOD, LT subcommittee, LT, etc.)?

You've seen how shareholders have been carnivorous with this version of 'winning. Can you imagine if they got nothing and found out they could have had something?

No good deed goes unpunished.

BEYOND THAT, I believe now that this case could never have be won from the get go. Too much money, power (financial and regulatory and political and all hybrids and inbreds); quite an eye opening spectacle for those who believe in TJ and the AW. Not a clean hand in the house.