2. Unlike the authorities cited in the Objections, the facts before this Court
require that exclusivity must be terminated. No case cited by the Objectors or any reported case
has ever allowed exclusivity where two competing plans of reorganization both reflect that: (1)
the debtor is solvent, (2) allowed claims will be satisfied in full or reinstated, and (3)
stockholders will receive equity in the reorganized entity. This case represents a drastic
departure from the authority cited in the Objections because the EC Plan represents a superior
alternative to the Debtors' Plan, which shortchanges current equity holders and rewards creditors
by (i) depleting acknowledged stockholder value by improvidently retiring below-market debt,
(ii) setting an artificially low level of funded debt post-emergence, (iii) paying creditors (beyond
any legal entitlement) in excess of $120 million in unnecessary and unsupported settlements, and
(iv) proposing to limit equity holders to a mere 5% ownership stake in the reorganized
company—a level that falls well below the projected residual values of Debtors' own overly
conservative estimates.
