Its up to you when and how you accept the meaning and intent of the infamous "best interests and no hardships" language. It is present in every bankruptcy case, as it is the Monitor and judges duty to arrive at a conclusion that is in the best interest of all stakeholders. That does not mean all the stakeholders are happy with the conclusion. It also doesn't mean that the Monitor is capable of a Sermon on the Mount event where they produce more recovery than what was otherwise possible because they've promised full recoupment to all the layers of financing. It also FOR SURE does not mean that they accepted a way better deal behind closed doors, reported a fraction of the deal to the public, winked at the investment community with this "clue" language, and then plan to reveal the spoils many months later.
It comes down to this. Why wasn't the 2nd deal laid out? If the answer is because it needs to be kept a secret, then why wasn't it kept a secret ("best interest...no hardships"). Why can the judge drop hints if it is required to be a secret?
