I'll see if I can answer some of those questions...
First, any "interested party" in the case can legally file an objection. If you read your voting materials (even a commons holder who was deemed to 'vote no' is counted), all holders are 'interested parties'.
Secondly, the letters could have been returned as 'ex parte' communications. Since they were not, and have hit the docket, they are legally filed within this case and have entered the case record, and therefore, are referenceable by the EC, and yes by Bri Bri, etc. They're "in" -- good and bad.
Third, if you remember, many of the DS objections were deemed "to really be POR confirmaton objections" and claimed by Rosen to be "better" dealt with at that time. If you remember the DS hearing, that argument, legally, held water -- and THJMW asked several people, over and over, "isn't what you're objecting to really a POR Confirmation issue" -- and even some speakers began with "well, I know that xxx is normally a POR confirmation issue..."
Well, here we are.
And lastly, as we saw in the earlier Schnabel ("the German") filing, (back about the tax refunds, split, WMB being out of the WMI Tax group, etc) -- once on the docket, THJMW can ask the Debtors questions based on this information, and can also even ask for the filer to speak, etc.
Now, the "weight" IMHO, isn't whether each of these filers are going to then hire their own attorney to push their specific issues, or even are asked "Is Mr. Mason" in the court today?
The weight is that they are now on the record, can be referenced and argued as necessary, to bolster any point that the EC wants to make -- I fully expect to hear and/or read things like "in section xx of docket # yyyy -- The 'Mason' objection, blah, blah, blah"
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
