I think that shareholders do not realize that just because they believe they found one avenue of attack that there might be either a fact or law that negates taking that route which is the reason you may not be seeing the ec join in and take that route. For example, there is the contention that FICA corporate is being released without contributing compensation for those releases ...which is against Walrath's view. So say shareholders are victorious and have FICA corporate removed from the releases. It may not matter, because there is a whole area of the law which involves the question of whether the written release of one joint tortfeasor also releases the remaining joint tortfeasors. So the law could operate to release FICA corporate anyway , although not a named party in the release. I haven't researched the issue to the facts at hand, so I do not know the answer in this specific instance. But I am using it as an example to show that an issue cannot be looked at with horse blinders on. Other things have to be considered which might make something look like a sure thing not be so certain at all. My thinking about no valuation evidence at the first hearing by ec, is simply this. They thought they could defeat that por without it, and technically they did. In the meantime they kept their valuation information secret so they could go about getting interested buyers or capital , so they could create a workable alternative por. The senior note holders have to be paid off someway or another , before the litigation against fdic and jpm could ever continue imho. JMHO. I think silence means settlement is near.
