My main question is, how will the judge will rule on the materiality of the non-public information that the SNH's had?
The SNH's have all said that they had non-public information, but it was not "material".
They didn't believe that the information they possessed would have lead other investors to trade differently.
To date, no other investors have claimed that this non-public information was material and would have affected their trading.
Based solely on the evidence before the judge, the non-public information that the SNH's had was not "material".
The judge does have the discretion to decide on the materiality of the non-public information.
A lot hinges on the IT. If the judge finds there was IT, then the GSA would be tainted and the Debtors would be not be seen in a good light because they let the SNH's lead the settlement negotiations.
If the judge finds there was no IT, then GSA will stand and we will again be fighting uphill with the Debtors still in control trying to minimize our claims against other parties and maximize their claims against us.
I just saw it as too coincidental in the 2nd Confirmation Hearing that all of the SNH's kept repeating the same, "it wasn't material" mantra.
They are all putting their eggs in the not-material basket(no other choice) and hoping the judge will agree.
Based on the judge's opinion of the last Plan, I am greatly concerned. The thing that troubled me the most about her last opinion was that she stood in basically as a witness for the Debtors and inserted her own opinion as evidence for the Debtor. Of course the EC is appealing that, but the fact that judge even did it is egregious.
I think the issue of "materiality" is the keystone for this second opinion and the judge currently has the discretion to go either way.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
