My fate is sealed. Content with my initial decision.
However, the question regarding "fair and equitable" treatment under § 1129(b) comes straight from the filing. However, I believe it needs to be addressed in this case. Think precedent: a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."
If untested, it would establish a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Not just this one bankruptcy case, all future bankruptcy cases.
Think about the importance of Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership 526 U.S. 434 (1999) in this case as it relates to § 1129(b)(2)(B). Charlestown filed an objection using the case one year ago today, which was a little more than two months after Berkadia (3/25/10).
Those of us not sitting at the OEC table can continue to buy shares. I just have to use a secondary account since all shares added to the primary account would be added to the tendered pile.
I am sure we would all agree it would be nice to have a done deal.
It is easy now to complain when most of the fog has cleared. Even more, there were several opportunities last week to buy even more shares in the mid $0.40s that should have been great prices to buy if you thought the company was worth substantially more than $0.35.
EI would never say this and for anybody else out there who voted for the C/H Plan AND tendered you have a perfect right to complain. It would very hard for anybody to stand still for a plan voted on in November watching secured creditors change their votes.
Think about this for a moment. When major components of a plan change h*ll yes I want a chance as a shareholder to change my mind as well. Fair is fair.