Por cierto, echad un vistazo a este post de yahoo. De ser cierto, me parece muy importante. Os dejo el post original y su enlace.
"See this chain (text reproduced below):
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Busine...
The I-HUB posting that discusses the adequacy (or requirements) of a disclosure statement
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/rea...
mentions this case:
In re Scioto Valley Mortgage Co., 88 B.R. 168, 170 (Bankr. S.D. Oh. 1988).
Judge Walrath has cited (and distinguished) that case in one of her opinions. See In re Zenith Elecs. Corp., 241 B.R. 92, where she wrote:
"1. Standing
Zenith asserts as a threshold issue that the Equity Committee does not have standing to object to the Disclosure Statement. Under the Plan, equity holders are receiving nothing. (See Plan at Article III B8 (Class 7).) Therefore, the equity holders are conclusively presumed to have rejected the Plan and do not have the right to vote. 11 U.S.C. § 1126(g).
[*99] Since the Disclosure Statement need only contain adequate information for those entitled to vote, some courts have concluded that non-voting classes have no standing to be heard on the issue. See, e.g., In re Scioto Valley Mortgage Co., 88 B.R. 168, 171 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988)(creditor only has standing to object to adequacy of disclosure statement as to its own class and not as it affects any other class).
However, the Equity Committee, as an official committee in this case, does have standing to appear and be heard on any issue in the case. 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). Thus, we conclude that it has standing to object to the Disclosure Statement."
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=te&bn=86316&tid=569870&mid=569870&tof=4&frt=2#569870
Sldos.