I respect your opinion and thoughtfulness on matters greatly, Catz, but I disagree with you about where our anger should be solely directed.
I agree that most of our anger should be directed at the debtors. But to be fair, I think it is reasonable to be upset with the judge, and frankly, I believe the EC agrees with that line of thinking. They clearly spelled out why the judge's opinion was not "fair" or "reasonable" in their appeal to the third circuit. (And it was the judge's opinion that shifted my opinion of her.) I understand that the judge can only respond to issues raised by the parties, but why did she go so far as to state that equity's chances of recovery were minimal in her opinion? What part of bankruptcy law says inserting such opinions are necessary? None. Even if she believed that, she could have rendered an opinion without making such biased statements. Statements like these are hearsay, and clearly tip the favor over to JPM, FDIC, and the debtors. And we know this is just one entirely unnecessary example from her opinion that had this effect. There most certainly are more.
I'm not in the band that believes this judge is corrupt, or even adverse to equity. But I do believe she has made some awfully unfair decisions which have greatly harmed equity, and unnecessarily so. I believe she may have done so without the intent of doing so, but her "diplomacy" is doing the court no more good at this juncture. The debtors, FDIC, and JPM clearly aren't interested in settling. So I, like many others, will continue to be upset with this judge until she starts evening things out, according to the law, and not simply her opinion.
