as the debtor in this case, it is "old sears'" responsibility to file the por. since filing a por on its face means there is a plan to reorganize, that plan would have to be presented for a vote ( i believe to both creditors and shareholders). any party made whole is by defaut assumed to have ratified the por and would not vote.
if no por is presented by shc by the deadline and shc didn't have some compelling reason for failing to file (which one might think would have been addressed in some filing prior to a deadline), then it's my understanding the judge could dismiss the case which would throw what's left of shc into the state and possibly federal courts to defend itself without the protection of bankruptcy and the stays against prosecution which comes from being in bankruptcy.
if shc were to fail to file a por, an interested party (one of the creditors) could petition for the case to be converted to a chapt 7 liquidation with a trustee appointed to take over matters. something that shc doesn't have to worry about now as a debtor in possession. while shc needs court approval to do what it is currently doing, there isn't a trustee taking matters out of the hands of shc.
if a trustee were to become involved, that costs money and it would come off the top before anything went to creditors. for that reason, now that shc is where it is, creditors might be reluctant to push for a resolution which would involve a trustee and the expenses associated with that.
my guess would be if the judge takes matters into his own hands there would be no effective date, as in some date 90 days removed from his decision. i would think it would be immediately which is the reason why i think shc asked for that extension.
