Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
ABI MEMBERS ONLYABI Membership is required to access the full summary. please log in using your ABI Member credentials.
Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!
Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."
Learn More
Bill---this decision is a
Bill---this decision is a head scratcher to me. Not necessarily on the law, but on why any indenture trustee would want the gig.
Depending on the indentures, I'm wondering why the indenture trustee would want to serve on the UCC here in the first place. Seems like a lose/lose and some lawsuit waiting to happen. If non-bondholders and/or bondholders who haven't agreed to the Restructuring Support Agreement are squabbling with the debtor, but the other bondholders want the RSA deal, isn't the trustee trying to serve two masters here? Whose interests are these folks advancing here on the committee precisely? And why would an indenture trustee want to step into that briar patch?