More about appointing the Examiner
"All these guys are Big Boys they don't need their hand held by an examiner. Much better to let them fight each other directly. If the HFs and funds can't blow up the re-organization plans values, then whatever an Examiner might say probably wouldn't have much import or change anything. If Management can't prove their valuations are right, they have nothing to hide behind their just done. If both sides are too scared about discussing what they're doing on the record in open court they'll probably cut a deal. If too much trash and ugliness comes out in court that's the time to appoint an Examiner, if for no other reason than that the judge may be able to get all the parties to agree to accept what the Examiner finds before the Examiner takes a step out of court. Thus eliminating any fights over his findings, which would probably take years, certainly months."
Sorry for the lengthy quote, but this is the first time the case of appointing (or not) of the Examiner was explained accurately and with great detail.
If I am the Judge, I am thinking the following:
1. The BOD is interested in undervaluing the company.
2. The HFs are interested in overvaluing the company
3. Even if I (the Judge) don't know a thing about valuations (which is not the case, since I am a BK judge) the easiest way to arrive at approximate valuation is to take the number given by the BOD, add to it the number given by the HFs and divide it by two.
I will try this before considering the Examiner and only after the #3 above fails for some reason. This is what I believe the Judge meant by "let's have a brawl".
-mm-
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
