Replies to post #333182 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[radiumsoup]

my experience with watching judges is limited, but in that limited experience (especially with Appellate courts and SCOTUS), judges regularly play devil's advocate in order to hear someone else argue the point the way they want to hear it, presumably to find additional reasons to rule the way they're leaning toward.

Not saying that's actually happened here (I really don't feel like going back to read this today) but there's more than one reason for her to argue the way she did

[Bizreader]

The speculation is rampant and the only thought that makes sense for me is to allow the process to unfold as it will.

Again, on what grounds is she going to approve this POR? How can she say it was "fair" now that we have heard the recent testimony?

[jhdf51]

Well that's disturbing....each day I vacillate between good judge/ bad judge.

JHD

[etzetrade]

LG, I read several your posts and absolutely agreed to your points. This is the only way that she can be out of this mess without hurting her reputation (i.e. rewrite/disagree her previous opinion.

What is your thought about pps when her opinion is released?

[wamuvoodoo]

your thinking too much ,she doesn't like to be told what she has jurisdiction on,i guess it's a power thing...she has done it numerous times,remember when she ruled on the ec ...she made the court very clear that she did have jurisdiction to rule on that even though ,can't rem. if it was cross w/veneble or joe w/the trustee saying that she had no jurisdiction ...

[Lawrence 147]

Large Green ;
I agree very much with your interpretation of the judge’s mind set, she wants to give the go-ahead to the POR. Starke was thrown off by the judge when she asked him about passing the POR with the IT issue, that or he missed the biggest chance thrown his way in the case.

“do you think the insider trading would prevent approval of this Global Settlement/POS POR 6+) and his response was absolutely not.

Was he caught off guard or did he just want to stay on topic? I am hoping he was simply looking to stay on topic and not enter into a new argument with the judge. If he was truly on his game at this point he would have answered something to the effect of (Absolutely; the SNH negotiated the GSA and helped to craft it, the POR is predicated on the GSA and even though the SNH are no longer a signatory of the GSA it is essentially the same GSA and it still is a product of their efforts to their benefit.) instead he chose not to argue this point with the judge or challenge her thinking.

[gophilipgo]

It seems that every day your mind changes. Which direction will the wind blow tomorrow?