stockdawg44
i'm a bit short on time so won't read past posts although i think i did read most of 10/16's posts. The ad hoc had access to inside information. There is no more credible source. Further, the Debtors made a mistake with that info in that their own data supported solvency--which is a standard required to support formation of an EC. The Ad Hoc showed that with the Debtors very own data, they were solvent. Debtors did not provide a counter value or attack the Ad hoc position outside of saying that at present, the Debtors are in very bad shape. Current cash burn is not a determination of value, particularly when the debtors are investing in the very future that projects present value for equity.
Hyperion is only a side show. You cannot use innuendo and conjecture in these situations (not without the court questioning everything you say).
The ad hoc's bar was to show that the fair value of assets exceeded $1.0 billion in claims. The Ad Hoc did this in multiple ways. The Ad Hoc presented that numerous claims by the Debtors were without basis, misconstruing facts, and in the case of asserted claims, the Debtors were ignoring that over 25% of their asserted claims were duplicates.
I cannot imagine any outside details that could have bolstered the ad hoc's arguments. If there was something, it should have been presented to the Ad hoc's counsel.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
