RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Elliott's blusterMy best guess is that GRZ's bid was rejected because the SM was not convinced of their financing. Sort of like when you're selling a house and you reject the highest bid because it's conditional on the bidder getting financing (and you have doubts they'll be able to).
Not inherently unreasonable except that one thing other creditors later complained about was that Amber Energy (part of the Elliott bid) was just a recently-created shell company with no sign of assets or financial supports.
So why was the SM okay with the Elliott bid and not GRZ's? A problem question for the SM.
The PDVSA 2020 bonds are an issue for any bidder. My view is that bidders have to make their own determinations as to the likelihood that the holders of those bonds will (or will not) be able to keep their 50.1% of Citgo collateral.
Then bidders should price their bids accordingly--based on their valuations of Citgo and their views on the 2020 bondholder prospects.
I suspect Judge Stark will hate the Elliott $2.6 billion holdback (in case the 2020 bondholders win in court) just as much as I do. It's a ridiculous gift to the bondholders--because it frees the bondholders of any credit risk between now and a final court determination (likely years away).
Even more important, it is obscenely unfair to any creditors being asked to wait for years while the 2020 bond case winds its way through the courts.