dont have standing?
—-//—-//——
They really don’t have standing because, There is no problem to complain with.
What they were actually suggesting under the guarantee is to reclassify cts into a Capital investment.
Their reason, ECaps (in parity with Cts) was swapped with equivalent Preferred.
And so, Wu or Waske thinks that Cts must be treated the same way.
My two cents:
1. ECaps and Cts are both in parities with most senior preferred.
2. ECaps was swapped with equivalent preferred for some reason.
3. But I don’t see it as a problem with CTs because it will still be treated in parity to the most senior preferred.
No problem, No case to bring into court.