Thanks for posting this.

It's interesting that the parties objecting to the DIP terms are equity holders, evidently not creditors themselves.

It's also interesting to think about the AMR case. I wonder if the arrangements made between three members of the creditors' committee, and a company not currently auhtorized to offer a competing business plan, are also a way to diadvantage creditors in general, at the expense of creditors in general.

There must be a problem in one of thses two cases, not sure which.