I'm guessing with the Sunlot plan, the clients have a small chance to get back their entire account. At least in a long time.
That is just spin. They propose to give back (say) 10% of the assets and force clients to invest the other 10% into MtGOX2.0, and will count their share of whatever profit that MtGOX2.0 may make as the payment of the other 90%. Why is that better than giving clients the full 20%, so that they can invest those same 10% into Apple stock instead? The clients will surely recover their 90% back much faster this way.
You keep asking the same question over and over, as if you know the answer, and you keep suggesting the best answer, also.
The answer is going to vary with customers, and likely many customers would prefer to recover more than to recover less, but the devil is in the details, and hopefully, the court will take those considerations into account. IN the end, the court may impose something that the court believes is best for the situation as a whole (and maybe best for the court), which may NOT necessarily mean that customers get their whole payment back right away or may mean that customers are stuck with some equity stock.