First of it was chump change, secondly lawyer's got paid regardless....thirdly, there were other reasons for fighting that charade....fourthly, it served as a distraction for other more important aspects of the case....
QUOTE: LMAO SURE THEY DID and THE UW's fought for almost 2 years and spent a couple of million to fight to stay in a worthless stock
JUST HOW STUPID ARE FOLKS??????
Did you ever stop to consider the nature of the issue? A claim was added to the payout waterfall AFTER the final settlement terms were in place. The claim should NOT have been added because it diluted the value of claims in lower payout classes. Further, the claim should have gone before the judge to be added in any scenario, and that step was skipped.
Do we agree that this is 100% Shenanigans?
Do you think this is the only bankruptcy ever where something like this has occurred?
Is it possible that this kind of "maneuver" is actually alot more common and a great tactic for certain stakeholder?
Have you considered that it would be worth fighting JUST TO AVOID losing this case and having CASE LAW established that may lead to ending this practice in the future?
Maybe this was worth fighting because the stage was alot bigger than you realize.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
