Replies to post #314692 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[luckybear]

hey steel...can you explain it a lil more, thanks,not to hip on the lawyer lingo

[SlyOne]

IMO: To (F) bad. Its not been going on for decades.
Only in the recent past. Since BK rules were re-written.

[drkazmd65]

This practice has been used to attempt to negotiate settlements among parties in countless bankruptcy cases for decades.

Well, one size don't fit all cases,... and I would argue that this is one such case where they are trying to jam a size 10 foot into a size 2 shoe.

This isn't a sound legal statement (IM non-legally trained opinion) - it is a post-hoc attempt at justification of an action that, in retrospect, is inappropriate for at least some of the parties that are involved. The EC & us being some of those parties.

[Civil War General]

Aurelius Hedge Fund Lawyers negotiated in Bad Faith.

Surely the Aurelius Hedge Fund Lawyers participated in the discussions leading to the "tentative settlement" as that is what parties participating in Good Faith do and is the foundation of "the central chapter 11 goal of fostering consensual resolutions."

Surely the Aurelius Hedge Fund Lawyers gave some hint about their willingness to participate prior to the May 24, 2011 Hearing where Brian Rosen (AKA Brown Rodent) stated (with substantial agreement from the EC attorneys) that "its investigation had uncovered no wrongdoing."

Suddenly after the announcement of a "tentative settlement" and that "its investigation had uncovered no wrongdoing," Aurelius steps up and announces that they are not part of the settlement causing the EC to re-schedule depositions and request documents .

This smells of bad faith negotiation to me.

Excerpt from Aurelius' motion:

4. As the Court knows, when the Equity Committee had reached a tentative settlement in late May, it was prepared to acknowledge that its investigation had uncovered no wrongdoing.(see footnote 4) Now that it has returned to litigation mode, the Equity Committee blithely reverses course and asserts that charges of improper trading by Aurelius are “well-founded.” Motion to Compel at 2. However, as we demonstrate in detail below, this statement – like so many others in the Motion to Compel – is vexatious and untrue. The Motion to Compel is predicated on fundamentally distorted and misleading accounts of both the facts and the law.


footnote 4 See May 24, 2011 Hearing Transcript at 42-43 (excerpts attached as Ex. A to Aurelius’s response to the Equity Committee’s Motion to Shorten (D.I. 7925)).