What ambiguity are we talking about?
Under Section 4.4 of the Warrant Agreement, WMI and its Board of Directors were required to take such steps as necessary (whether WMI was undergoing a Reorganization or a Combination) to protect the interests of the LTW holders in accordance with the essential “intents and principles” under the Warrant Agreement. Those “intents and principles” were, as stated in the Registration Statement, to give the value of the Anchor Litigation to the LTW holders. Thus, if it was not practicable to give LTW holders stock of WMI for the value of the Anchor Litigation, WMI and its Board had the duty to compensate the LTW holders in some other form of currency (e.g., cash, notes, etc.) The failure of the BOD to perform their duties on behalf of LTW holders and safeguard the value of the Anchor Litigation recovery, as required by the LTWs and the Warrant Agreement, is the basis of the Claimants’ claim against the Estate and/or the Board
It’s very clear to me and I don’t claim to be of superior intelligence..
