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~
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
