You misunderstand the nature of the motion. Normally, it would be stated in the positive, "Motion ... to appoint an EC". But, that puts the burden of proof on those supporting the motion, ie those wishing to appoint the EC must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one SHOULD be appointed. In this case, the judge changed the motion to "not appoint an EC". That puts the burden of proof on those who oppose an EC. So, the default judgement, unless clearly proven otherwise, would be to appoint one even if no evidence was presented in support of the EC. Think "innocent until proven guilty". In this case the EC is innocent (and will be appointed) unless those opposing it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (lower standard in civil/financial cases).
The analysis presented by the equity holders and especially the SEC filing provide substantial "reasonableness" in favor of the appointment. To overcome that reasonable doubt created by the Equity Holders would take a lot more than what has been presented by the company and creditors.
Given the work done by Martin Bienenstock, et al, I would gladly pay my fair share of that legal bill.
