I don't know what they are going to do. I may have to put in a call. I'd like the option to appeal my own interests, if i so chose. I've got a good appellate record when it comes bench decisions.
I was thinking of the D&O and Equitable Mootness. If there is a valid claim that can be paid via insurance, that would be a great argument against an equitable mootness stance by an appellate court. If the court decided not to take because of EM, it would be an easy defense against dismissal because insurance would be an addition to the current waterfall, and therefore shouldn't have any effect on a confirmed plan.
I expect an appeal. Walrath awarded costs and fees to the debtors.
I doubt they roll over now.
It was telling that Walrath ruled there was no claim for breach and then in the very next paragraph she addressed subordination. Here's a clue, judge, subordination is moot if there is no claim. The reason she slopped around the 510(b) issue was to place the LTW's in class 21.
510(b) doesn't have squat to do with placement unless there is a claim. What a crock justification for Class 21. Her interpretation concerning this issue is flat wrong. The LTW's shouldn't be pari passu with commons. That is a fact. It is only the plan that says it is, and the plan isn't correct.
The fact of the matter is that Judge Walrath doesn't know where to place the LTW's, so she let the debtor's give her an 'out'.
They should at least be put in the preferred group. Then the debtors can keep living up to the contract they supposedly haven't breached (sarcasm), and distribute that stock the judge said the LTW holders are entitled to based off that 337 million against the market caps of the preferreds. Then we'll see how the preferreds like it when the LTW's take 75% of the 70% of the newco.
A 90 cent LTW would take some of the 'shaft' out of this ruling.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
