Replies to post #328419 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[steel58]

warcton -- I don't think JMW will take, "if we would have known, we would have bought PIERS" as evidence. I believe that Fish is saying the record of who bought the PIERS and when, in connection to what else was going on behind the scenes that we did not have privy to, is the evidence. I would have to think that the judge can use some type of reasonable doubt in her rulings and think that it makes sense (what Fish is saying) and rule accordingly.

Otherwise, wouldn't every murder/rape/(add other crime here)case have to end in not guilty unless the accused basically said he/she did it? She could logic that the victim was lying, the witnesses were lying , the video was doctored, the stolen money and the murder weapon were planted, etc.

Any judge with common sense would have to be able to look at the evidence presented and determine something unethical/illegal happened and that it cannot be proven that it did not. IMO her only ruling can be to either deny POR/GSA or delay and in her delay very, very, very strongly suggest that a settlement would be wise.

[clawmann]

The determination of what is or is not material info does not depend on the self-serving present day statements of an actual investor as to what they might or would have done in the past had they known that info.

The determination is an objective one, and the judge will make that on her own. If she had wanted, she could have asked for expert testimony on the issue. So it does not matter that some shareholder or debt holder - after the fact - did or did not testify or submit evidence as to what they might or would have done.

Nor does it really matter, except possibly in a subsequent criminal IT case, whether the SNH's thought the info was material or not, even if they relied on the advice of counsel. If that mattered then IT cases would be very rare because everyone could say "Well, I did not think that info was material..."


If, in the judge's view, a reasonably prudent investor would have taken the concerned info about settlement negotiations into consideration when making an investment decision (whether to buy, sell or hold), then it is material.

And, IMPO, I cannot see how the judge could possibly rule that the non-public info that was in the possession of the SNH's about on-going settlement negotiations was not material.

My issue is this: even if - as I believe will happen - the judge rules against the SNH's on the IT allegations, what are the consequences in a bankruptcy proceeding, in this bankruptcy proceeding? Is the GSA so tainted that it has to be tossed as well as the POR on which it was based? Or does the judge simply accept the deal, but sanction the SNH's, possibly by knocking them out of the waterfall. I don't know the answer.