linda, in a large picture sense {I won't get into the nuance of DimeQ, because honestly, I'm not nearly as up on it...}
The concept is this. The GSA is an 'proposed structure' for settlement between signatories -- Debtors, JPM, and FDIC at this moment. The GSA can change, die, renew, etc. It's not a done deal until confirmed as part of a larger plan.
Numerous assets are at dispute as to ownership. Examples, BOLI/COLI insurance polices, tax refunds, litigations, etc, etc. This includes the DimeQ stuff.
The Global-Settlement-Agreement is then part of the overall "Plan of Reorganization" -- eg, how to exit bankruptcy and what is that plan.
The GSA is the sub-part of the POR that says how all of those disputed assets will be settled. Eg, how to end the arguments about them and the fights about them.
The Plan of Reorganization (POR) states how settled assets are disbursed through the GSA, and other non-disputed assets are to be distributed. How stock would be exchanged at exit of bankruptcy, who gets paid what, and in our case what "loans" between SNHs and equity happen, secured by what, etc, etc.
The "Plan of Reorganization" will go through a Disclosure Hearing {A summary of the plan}, then voting - by the various classes, and then as long as ANY ONE SINGLE IMPAIRED CLASS votes yes, then the plan becomes 'confirmable'.
It then goes to a Plan Confirmation Hearing. Objections are heard as to the plan.
Then the court issues a ruling/opinion -- and if the plan is APPROVED -- it then BINDS EVERYBODY TO THE PLAN. Doesn't matter whether you voted for the plan, against the plan, or didn't vote at all. If the plan is approved, then you are stuck with whatever the plan approved says.
It's that last part that is the answer to your question: "How does the GSA prevent the LTW Holders from filing a Motion to be a Party of Interest in the Anchor Litigation if they were not a signature to the GSA? "
If the Plan, and the GSA inside of it, are approved, then such further disputes, by anyone, of a settled component are done and over once approved by the court.
The concept is similar to a personal bankruptcy -- once the court wipes the slate clean, perhaps with partial payments to certain creditors, then nobody can come back and sue again. It's just the way bankruptcy court works. Not everybody will be happy, but if there weren't such a mechanism in bankruptcy, then there wouldn't really be an exit from bankruptcy with a clean slate -- suits would go on, creditors would still demand payments not received, etc, etc.
So, the ONLY way that anyone can choose to fight on their own, outside of bankruptcy, is to vote NOT TO GIVE releases. That is, not only do they not agree with the plan, but they refuse to GRANT A RELEASE {eg, allow such settled things to be binding on them}.
Voting on the plan is different than voting on releases. Most classes will be given both choices.
BUT, and it's a HUGE one... IF YOU VOTE NOT TO GIVE A RELEASE: You don't get any distribution {cash, or stock, or anything} that anyone else might get. And you must pay for your own fight -- up against the big pockets of the FDIC and JPM.
That's the way it works.
Do I like it. No.
..Catz
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
