You have to set forth the theory that you think this supports to make a compelling case. What it appears you are saying is it is not logical to you that a JV named after only one of its partners would enter into a single transaction, as the second, larger partner would want some name recognition in a deal. And you are using failure to identify such a case as evidence (I wouldnt even know where to begin looking for this). And so there must be a second transaction that is named after the second partner.
The problem with this is the second, larger partner recently wrote a letter through its legal representative publicly denying that shareholders would receive anything, importantly, either in CCAA or outside of it. The lawyer even referred to the same transaction, interchangeably, as the LCY Transaction.
So can this theory still be legitimately pursued, despite how tantalizing to you the lack of LCY in the transaction's name is? If so, a new theory would need to be presented as to why the letter is not valid, not believable or forged.
