The pie is certainly not large enough for all the administrative claims, unsecured creditors, and unsecured claims ahead of preferreds and commons. So any piece of the pie going to shareholders must come from negotiations with parties in front of them—who have no desire to sit at the table with shareholders without being forced to by the judge—and who must then forfeit a piece of their pie, particularly the tranche b and 2nd lien roll-up lenders involved in last January's debt equity swap. These lenders lost 50% of the $700M of new money they put in January 2016. All they want now is to be able to buy some cheap TERP and SUNE shares. If anything, the forfeiture will be from them to the unsecured creditors. In fact, they came to a settlement with the UCC and BOKD, already securing enough votes for the plan to pass if the revised disclosure statement is approved. Don't think for a second the unsecured will then forfeit a penny to the shareholders.
The shareholders argument is basically that there was fraudulent conveyance, and the whole bankruptcy was engineered to avoid the Vivint lawsuit and to benefit BAM, NRG and Greenko. And somehow, these bidders have under the table deals with former SUNE management. That once SUNE re-emerges, they will magically be able to buy these assets back from NRG, Greenko and BAM for pennies on the dollar and former SUNE management will take their positions back from Dubel. That's really an absurd line of thinking to use in court. I think it'll be more productive to force discovery in order to build for a class action in case the new SUNE will be more than a pittance of a shell company. But who will be footing the attorney bill? It's a lost cause.
