Dude, you totally don't get it. I listened to Sandridge's hearing on conference call. I think I may have missed only about an hour of the hearing. I wasn't able to listen in on this case but they were argued and decided completely differently.
First of all, please note the wording of the motion. In Sandridge's case, it was a motion "to appoint an EC." That put the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the equity holders. In THIS case, the wording is reversed. It was "to NOT appoint an EC". That put the burden on the opposition to prove their numbers beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, guess what, there is a TON of reasonable doubt about the creditors' and company's numbers.
Listening in on the Sandridge hearing, that judge wasn't ever going to appoint an EC. He gave a hearing as he had to but the reality was he gets his rocks off by listening and watching two lawyers go toe-to-toe in the court room. In his ruling, the judge even apologized to one of the witness for letting the lawyers go to far. He as much said that he enjoys watching two lawyers duke it out.
Yes, I know that most BK cases go against shareholders. But, THIS ISN'T MOST BK CASES. First of all, on a broad level, even with "mosts" each case is still decided individually. Secondly, this case's merits WERE SUBSTANTIAL.
Sorry to have to emphasis too many things but it was obvious that without them, you wouldn't get it. Maybe, you still won't.
I doubt if you own shares here so you don't have a dog in the fight. Regardless, if you did anything but buy these shares, you have lost this fight because THE JUDGE RULED.
