The way value flows to equity has to be viewed as a waterfall and it is commonly referred to as a "waterfall analysis". You have to envision the admin claims and credit claims etc. as folks who are above you in the waterfall. If their buckets never get filled, there is tyically nothing that trickles down to equity although there are rare circumstances where some value is carved out for equity that is hopelessly insolvent (see the Smurfit Stone Case). In the event that the buckets above you get filled then anything that flows past them collects in the equity pool that is distributed pro rata. In a liquidation, the pool is cash that gets distributed. In a reorg situation like this one, the pool will consist of some percentage of the new company. All things being equal, the larger the enterprise value is, the more "water" there is flowing in the waterfall. The smaller the claims turn out to be effectively means it takes less to fill the buckets above you and thus more value flows into your pool. There are a certain number of shares to be issued at emergence and the distribution of those shares will be done pro-rata based on the size of everyone's respective value pool/bucket.
As to your question about rejection of the plan by creditors if the company gets revalued, I guess they could but I doubt they do if the revaluation is as small as is contemplated. We are really only talking about a 10% revaluation here. I just don't buy the idea that the deal falls apart for such a small change. I simply see it as courtroom posturing which is necessary to support their own value assertion. The creditors and debtors had to act like it was doomsday to revalue it upwards in order to tow the line that they drew.
.jpg)
