Linda, you're preaching to the choir. I agree with you 100%. I just suspect the judge fears his decision to do so could set a new precedent in some way, even a small way, which most non-activist judges avoid doing at all costs.
This type of situation, a legal award/liability getting absorbed by a bank consolidation before being paid and subsequently swept up into a bankruptcy and being erroneously "comingled" with ordinary claims, and thus being paid at pennies on the dollar, might never have happened before and might never happen again.
I suspect a favorable ruling for us could be "narrowly written" quite easily to apply only to this particular case. But that would require judicial courage. Anyone else not holding their breath?
We can keep hoping for the best, but at this point, it's getting down to the wire.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
