She would also have an incentive not to talk about it at all. Playing out the whole game so openly, especially with purely selfish interests, seems really strange to me, as well.
Halfway through, I started thinking, this piece is incredible marketing for the wife's attorney, Fisher. He's the only one really likeable character (the wife didnt care about defrauded customers, the husband was always the villain). Given that the money might never materialize, pitching an interesting, detailed, already researched article to NYT lets Fisher salvage some marketing out of a potential loss.
Don't underestimate greed. She wanted to have the money at all costs. The article says that she didn't have any issues taking money from other people. What's disclosed in the article is already shady, I wouldn't be surprised if she also knew of more severe business practices.
Yeah, agreeing on that. But do you see how it makes sense to do it publicly in the NYT? In her position I would try to keep the shady business in the dark.
Money perhaps? She still didn't get anything from the settlement. Maybe she hopes to either speed up the process or she got some money for the interview.
