This case should be decided upon a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a double-edged sword as it can cut both ways.
So far neither K or R have submitted any evidence that could cause a reasonable thinking person to come to any conclusion of any kind other than they did not do what is necessary to do in order to bring the company out of bankruptcy.
Nelson on the other hand has along with others (Thanks Ilene) and others brought to the attention of the court just how much egg Rosen has plastered over it.
So far a preponderance of the evidence would show the Debtors have not done their job, there is no emerging from bankruptcy and as for not showing the true value of the WMI claims on the grounds it would show their plans for future litigation; just how stupid do they think the court is? If the plan grants a blanket immunity or gives the power to prosecute to the liquidating trustee then there is no plan for reclaiming what belongs to the company and it is all just a straw man argument for further obfuscation of the facts.
Clearly the restructuring company does not know what is going on and did not have much, if anything to do with the GSA or the POR. If they were actually doing their job at the very least the disclosure statement would have been straight forward and not require the judge to declare what is acceptable or lawful. These are suppose to be professionals they are to know their job, and do it correctly the first time. We might just turn it all over to the judge if she is going to have to do their work. How many times did I hear that the judge would need to make that determination?
The outcome, I do not know; what I do know is that the debtors should not be given a second chance. Open this up to other interested parties, let them turn in their idea of a POR get a vote on them with a top two vote and then one more vote a disclosure statement and an approval. It could all be done before April.
IMO
OT:
UZ; yes I saw it, it was only a matter of time and inevitable.