Curious, and distressing to Ambac, as the line up of the Commercial Division justices can be assessed for sympathy to plaintiff mbs claimants in much the same manner as the Supreme Court justices can be assessed for "liberal' or "conservative" orientation.
While it is something of a generalization, just between you, me and the lamp post, Justice Bransten is most sympathetic to the claims and arguments presented by mbs plaintiffs, with Justices Kapnick and Kornreich lying somewhere in the middle ground, and Justices Ramos and Sherwood most antagonistic to plaintiff mbs arguments. We will find out about Justice Friedman in the bye and bye.
So, one wonders why Ambac v Normua was initially assigned to Justice Sherwood, or perhaps rather how Nomura's counsel was able to persuade the assigning clerk to make this initial assignment. In any event, Ambac was able to petition to vacate this assignment and oblige the Commercial Division to follow its own rules. See here.
NB: this blog is not intended to be investment advice, and should not be relied upon by anyone to constitute investment advice. Investing is a tough game, and everyone must do and "own" their own work, because you will certainly own your investments.