I will agree that the line about Equity having any value, in the company's current financial condition, is far fetched, does not sound good.
However, please keep the context in mind when reading that line. A lawyer's job is to argue a point for their client in Court and win. Therefore, they will argue the point to the extreme end of truth in order to sway the Judge.
You were also comparing a public statement to a line in a legal motion before the Court, I believe. Two different animals.
And, notice they wrote "based on the Debtor's current financial position..." That is a very important phrase. At the moment that was written, GT had less cash on hand than bills in the file, could not sell upgraded ASF's in Asia and no approved loan to help them in their business ongoing. Yes, in that financial position shareholders are screwed!
Just food for thought.
Now on to the other part that bothers you. I also agree that the smack down comment about the 0.1682% was just that a smack down. They do own a very small portion of Equity, but want to represent us. OK, where the bleep are they? Why have they made 0% effort to reach out to the rest of us paltry Equity owners? If they are in fact here why do they not identify themselves to us and make their case? Where are their efforts to reach out to the institutional owners? With Insty support we might have some real skin in the game, maybe?
The notion that they want my support because they say it is necessary according to them and it is for my own good without soliciting me is not a good way to garner my support IMO.
Now if they engage us, answer questions, provide explanations, then I for one am willing to listen.
Until then I can only go by their actions, which to date appear opportunistic and not well thought out.
Disclaimer, I own no bonds in any company and am long on GTAT.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
