Originally Posted by
tsquare
Which is exactly why "law" is such a slimy business. An opinion is just that. Even a judge's opinion or ruling is subject to reversal if pressed long and hard enough by someone with deep enough pockets to out-bleed the opponent. (If this weren't true, why is Roe v. Wade still being discussed?) My guess here though is that the creditors aren't interested in out-bleeding anybody, and they carry the load at this point in time.
Without getting into the specifics, RvW was built on a foundation, many see as obviously intentional, of being overturn-able under a myriad of circumstances. Sort of a "I'll go along with the out of thin air preamble if you throw in a juicy tidbit for later".
Regardless of one's personal views on the subject, and regardless of the underlying morality on either side, RvW as it was written was set up to be a stop gap ruling to be clarified or overturned at a later date. Contrary to popular opinion, it never established a right to abortion, only a newly interpreted "right to privacy" and was pack to the gills with numerous ways to reverse it by using criteria within its ruling.
Just saying. As for APA scope, I hope they pursue it, and it will be interesting to see if they can even get the proxy credit to cosign on the regional feed (those big RJ's are VERY expensive and they want a lot of them) while still in BK with it being a still open and disputed issue (assuming APA fights it hard).