August 11, 2020


Via E-Mail

Richard Brand
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
200 Liberty Street
New York, New York 10281

       Re:     CoreLogic, Inc.
               PRRN14A filed August 6, 2020
               Filed by Senator Investment Group, Inc., et al.
               File No. 1-13585

Dear Mr. Brand:

       The staff in the Office of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Division of
Corporation
Finance has conducted a limited review of the revised preliminary proxy
statement listed above
and have the following comments. In some of our comments, we may ask you to
provide us with
information so we may better understand your disclosure.

       Please respond to this letter by revising your proxy statement, by
providing the requested
information, or by advising us when you will provide the requested response. If
you do not
believe our comments apply to your facts and circumstances or do not believe an
amendment is
appropriate, please tell us why in your response.

       After reviewing any amendments to your filings and the information you
provide in
response to these comments, we may have additional comments. All defined terms
used here
have the same meaning as in your revised proxy statement, unless otherwise
indicated.

Revised Preliminary Proxy Statement filed August 6, 2020 - General

   1. Please generally revise the proxy statement to reflect recent
developments, including the
      fact that the Company has set the special meeting for November 17, 2020.
Given this
      fact, your revised proxy should also explain the reason you are
continuing to solicit
      consents to call a special meeting.

   2. Refer to comment 2 in our prior letter dated July 31, 2020. Your revised
disclosure in
      response to that comment states that a Special Meeting Request Card
delivered to the
      Requesting Stockholder will continue to be valid until the earlier of the
Special Meeting
 Richard M. Brand, Esq.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
August 11, 2020
Page 2


       or the termination of the solicitation. However, we understand that DGCL
Section 228(c)
       and CoreLogic   s Amended and Restated Bylaws invalidate any Special
Meeting Request
       Card not delivered within 60 days of the delivery of the first such
Card. Please advise or
       revise.

Plans for the Special Meeting     Proposal 2, page 7

   3. You have not filled in the blanks in the revised proxy statement
identifying the Company
      directors you are seeking to remove. Please identify them in the next
preliminary version
      of this proxy statement.

   4. The disclosure in the carryover sentence at the bottom of page 7
continuing onto page 8
      states that a director on the Board may be removed with or without cause
  by the holders
      of a majority in voting power of all issued and outstanding stock
entitled to vote at an
      election of directors.    However, the disclosure in the second full
paragraph on page 8
      states that removal of a director    requires the affirmative vote of the
holders of a majority
      of shares of Company Common Stock present in person or represented by
proxy and
      entitled to vote on the matter.    This appears to be a different
standard. Please revise to
      clarify.

   5. Refer again to the second paragraph on page 8, last sentence. Your
disclosure states that
      broker non-votes will not be counted in determining the outcome of
Proposal 2. Given
      what we understand to be the voting standard on Proposal 2 under Section
3.4(b) of the
      Bylaws and Section 141(k) of the DGCL, it appears that broker non-votes
would have the
      effect of a vote against Proposal 2. Please revise or advise.

Proposal 3, page 8

   6. You state that by granting you a proxy for the special meeting, a
shareholder will be
      authorizing the Requesting Stockholder to submit an application to the
Delaware Court of
      Chancery to request the Court to order an election to be held to fill any
vacancies if the
      directors then in office constitute less than a majority of the entire
Board. Consider
      presenting this as a separate proposal to allow shareholders to express
their wishes on this
      point. See Rule 14a-4(b).

   7. See our last comment above. Since it appears there is some disagreement
about whether
      replacement Nominees may be elected to the Board versus appointed by
existing
      directors, please present as two separate matters the election of the
Nominees and the
      precatory request to the Board to appoint the Nominees in the event they
are not able to
      be elected. See Rule 14a-4(b).
 Richard M. Brand, Esq.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
August 11, 2020
Page 3



    We remind you that the filing persons are responsible for the accuracy and
adequacy of their
disclosures, notwithstanding any review, comments, action or absence of action
by the staff.
Please direct any questions to me at (202) 551-3263, or in my absence, Dan
Duchovny, at (202)
551-3619.


                                                    Sincerely,

                                                    /s/ Christina Chalk

                                                    Christina Chalk
                                                    Senior Special Counsel
                                                    Office of Mergers and
Acquisitions



cc:    Joshua Apfelroth, Esq. (via email)