I've been on the, uh, wrong end of the stick a few decades back when one of Overland's competitors/customers/friends filed bankruptcy (on a couple of occasions, actually). The (California) court didn't pay much attention to the creditors (see "end of stick", above). The assets that weren't smuggled out wound up being brokered off to the attorneys (or at least ostensibly so), who didn't do a good job of listening to anyone but the debtor.
The court also seemed to favor the debtor in other ways. The order to restore the good faith ("end of stick", ibid) was heavily abused, sort of like granting permission to twist the knife, given that it had already been inserted deeply into the back. The bench also presumed that the debtor was the only one in the courtroom who knew the business, and bought the "events beyond our control" spiel hook, line and sinker. Bankruptcy courts have become deaf to creditors claiming fraud, scams, cons, etc., as elements of these are present in virtually every case they hear.
If Overland/Tandberg offered twenty cents on the dollar for the debt in exchange for Snap, I wouldn't be surprised if a court would order it so, wipe the remainder off the books, and let the remaining operation continue under the debtor, owing only readily diluted stock. The justification would be that there isn't a better deal on the table for the creditors - 20% vs. zilch.
That's my cynical side talking. It has more experience (and is more often right) than my usual, happy-go-lucky self.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
