no, wouldn't agree. don't think 4034 is related to 4033.
when one document is related to another, the related document is referenced. there is no reference to 4033.
additionally, 4033 was esl's standalone adversary complaint against shc for various things, none of which had to do with superpriority claims as i recall.
one of the main complaints in 4033 was that shc was failing to sign transfer deeds/titles to 13 undeveloped parcels at the hoffman estates hq site despite clear language in the apa that shc had sold its real estate interests to transform.
additionally, there was a schedule referenced in 4033 of "excluded assets" and the undeveloped parcels were not excluded.
i commented on docket 4033 earlier and didn't feel drain would be too sympathetic to shc relative to the complaints esl was leveling against shc.
for docket 4034, based on shc's allegations, it seems like esl, cyrus, and the bank might be overreaching related to claims of asset diminution.
will be interesting to see esl's response.
while i thought shc looked bad in docket 4033, esl looks bad here. again, that based on not seeing any response from esl.
remember, when the apa was approved and became effective, eddie had not set up a cash management system for the stores and struck an agreement with shc to use shc's cash management system and banking relationships.
that turned to $hit and this has all the marking of a bad divorce.
