Colorable means not frivolous, plausible. Enough smoke to justify the time and expense of investigating further whether there is in fact a fire. The available evidence makes the claim appear as if it might be valid, therefore a judge can justify the time and expense involved in further proceedings.
Think of it as her saying that she can see that there is substance to the EC's claims of insider trading.
It would be like a suspect going before a judge in a preliminary hearing, where the judge would decide whether there exists enough evidence to justify proceeding with a trial against that suspect.
I like the way Rochelle characterized it on that Bloomberg podcast: that it likely means that there is enough evidence that the EC could win a summary judgment motion against the Hedge Funds. That's when they simply file a motion that asks the judge to rule on the presented evidence without waiting for a trial.
A plausible legal claim. In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. The claim need not actually result in a win.
--------------
It's lawyer speak for -- "You've made enough of proof of a case that you MAY have, but I'm not saying that you're going to win. Just that you probably can move foward with such a case."
But in this case, she goes on to say quite a bit more about her predilections here, with regards to IT. She didn't just stop at colorable.
come on board it's obvious of what this judge is doing..she will not put the rubber stamp on this...she does keep us hanging in there ,but she was told not to rule on the closure of this..these (almost rulings but not 100%) have happened numerous times ..she continues to hope jpm/fdic will step up and settle by doing her delaying routine,but i feel they are laughing at her ,she either has to step up an order some heavy demands or get off this case ...