You do know that as part of the Confidentiality Agreement that was signed between the Equity Committee and the Debtors, any info (work product) they were privy to, could not be disclosed. When they found the documents that would eventually be the "sealed docs" they had to bring them to the court's attentions, because if they did not and it was proven they viewed the 'work product' of the debtor and did not bring it to the debtors and the courts attention in a closed door meeting with the Judge, then the EC could be in jeopardy and "Motion to Abandon the EC" would be on the docket.
SG knew that the debtors did not want them there and most likely felt they were setup. If they brought the 'work product' to the debtors and courts attention, they could protect the EC. If not, Judge Walrath may have to side with the debtors on a 'Motion to Abandon the EC.'
We (shareholders) challenged the EC on the "sealed docs" because we felt since more than 3 individuals had viewed the documents (work product) in question and therefore it was no longer "privileged work product" and the Judge may allow the docs to be publicly filed. We lost that battle, she sided with the EC and the Debtors who pushed to have them sealed. I am sure the scope of that 'work product' was put on the table in the closed door mediation between the debtors and the EC. EC was aware of the content, the debtors could not dispute it. They released their 'work product' to the EC. Was it on PURPOSE? Many thought so...
If EC was setup on the 'work product' they played it right and were allowed to stand. Debtors did not challenge EC after that.
EC prevailed in getting the Escrows and shares in the NEW CO. We could not have asked for more than this, at the time. If we pursued the Noteholders on the "insider trading" angle, it would be costly, time consuming and they would surely appeal all decisions to a "higher court." We knew that this was not a good scenario for a bankruptcy court and got all that we could get without a trial. Judge Walrath wanted a settlement and pushed for it. When you have the Judge pushing you to mediation, you have to go and you have to be open to a deal. If you are not, the decisions from the bench (during the trial) could affect your chances of winning. A new precedent was set by the EC challenge, so We actually changed the way Noteholders/Creditors do business in BK courts from that point forward. This could protect shareholders in future cases, from being "insider traded" to death. So, in essence we actually Won a big victory in that courtroom with the "insider Trading" charge.
Cheers
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
