InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 363
Posts 9949
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 09/17/2008

Re: thepennyguy post# 156171

Monday, 03/01/2010 12:08:48 PM

Monday, March 01, 2010 12:08:48 PM

Post# of 734883
She could have been ready back near Dec 18th, but the UST's Motion to Shorten was an eye-opener and showed her that the parties are trying to work it out (w/o equity). Why open up a can of works, if you're not going fishing just yet, they are better when they are fresh. She might have intentionally held off on the decision because of what was written in the UST's motion. It was obvious while in the courtroom that the parties were in negotiations. So she might have decided to give them so time, before setting a new legal precedent that could be catastrophic to the FDIC/JPM case.

You have to look at it from outside the box, she was ready to rule in early Feb. A bench ruling at the end of the hearing. Instead she gave the party that wanted it, a delay because she does not want any emergenices when she rules. They would be stupid to challenge her after that ruling. WMI can simply request a trial, JPM can simply release the deposits, but the FDIC is going to have some serious issues (and Clarke knows it)..IMO

~Fish~

Please do not invest in this stock because of what I say, you must do your own DD and make decisions based on your knowledge, NOT MINE!

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent COOP News