The bigwigs on the creditor committee should have done something like that months ago. 
You mean, when a deal to sell all of the asset to a company that would have screwed everyone even more was being negotiated, by the people who would have benefited most from that deal, to which HF was refusing any subsequent claim, and the inventory couldn't be touched because the company wanted it?Why was there only one deal on the table?
And how have we benefited from letting the chips sit around losing value for 6 months?
No deal is perfect, but it takes two to tango and a lot of money was lost while the angry out-for-revenge types took their sweet time to realize that they were going to have to calm down and work out a mutually agreeable plan.
The brinksmanship served nobody except the lawyers' interests, as many of us predicted all along.
