We could speculate until the proverbial "cows come home" but we will know soon enough. However, just for fun, let's give Art Steinberg and Jonathan Hochman a bit of credit for always, and I mean always, being two steps ahead of everyone. Certainly there is some concern over the 510(b) subordination issue given that the waterfall doesn't currently reach Class 18 and that is the brilliance of the LTW Plaintiffs introducing the Board of Directors as named defendants lo those many months ago; long before there were even whispers of subrodination. Let's say that the Judge finds that the LTWs have a Claim but the Claim is subordinated under 510(b) and resides in Class 18. I'm fine with that scenario provided that the Claim arises due to some sort of breach on the part of the Board. In that case, the D & O insurance claim kicks in to satisfy the portion of the Claim that was not paid from the estate. D & O is a first come, first serve buffet line and is blind to priority.
LTW Counsel knew long ago to prepare for any possible scenario. It is no accident that the Board members found themselves as named defendants. It was a calculated move on the part of the LTW counsel to provide for the most optionality for their clients.
While an Equitable Lien or GUC Class 12 are preferable, Class 18 doesn't necessarily mean its over. In fact it isn't over until REALtime64 says its over and it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...;)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
