RE: RE: RE: RE: why they offered more to the conve akaell, I used exactly the same standard of fairness that appears in the fairness opinions:
- The senior creditors must get less than 100% (but more than the fair value of their holdings without a deal)
- Whatever is left for everyone else must be fairly divided among them
The fairness opinions don't give any standard for evaluating the second condition. I added a condition that nobody do worse than anyone junior to them.
As with the fairness opinions, I only considered the fairness of the financial arrangement. I didn't consider the fairness of the voting process (which, I agree, is questionable) or the fairness of the process that produced the proposed deal.
But these questions are secondary. If you want the judge to toss out the deal, you don't want to argue "this deal, which by the way is financially fair to my clients, should be rejected because of the voting process."