Why would she rule on it when the debtors said they were going to settle? That would have been contradictory to the settlement, and from a legal standpoint, I doubt she could have ruled since the debtors didn't want her to. Like it or not, it was their prerogative. (Not that it makes me happy.) Call me an apologist all you want, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious why the judge didn't, and couldn't, give a summary judgment on the $4 billion.
My money is on the judge pulling through for us by denying the POR, and I personally won't be shocked by that. I don't think she's adverse to equity, and frankly, I never have thought that.
We'll see if my faith in her is misguided soon enough.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
