Look, you have pointed out a real inconsistency. Generally, many of the items offered here ("affirming", "upfront", etc) I have found horrendously not compelling. Just nothing there. But this is a written statement referencing a share purchase. This has been directly refuted by all of the Monitor's reports, but it is still right there in writing.
Look at the motivation here. This letter is from the losing bidder, it references the share purchase in a conversation (nothing in writing EVER from PWC confirmed any share purchase), and it was made to make an argument. On the other side, the Monitor and judge are bound by a whole different level of duty of precision, and the secured creditors' motivation was their own money.
With LCY's attorney now writing letters asking to be left alone on the notion of a second transaction, the company's board and employees nowhere to be found, and delisted, which notion, the share purchase, or liquidation, is more consistent with the current state of things?
