smh article, page-30

If the banks want this to trade on, they simply have to deal with the BNB bondholders. There is no avoiding it.

The bondholders have plenty of rights and you would expect the banks to ask the bondholders to give up some of those rights in exchange for getting some money back, or a reasonably swap of debt for equity.

If they leave the bondholders hanging, the bondholders could cause them no end of trouble, so I sure something will be offered, if it gets to that stage.

Someone made a comment a few days ago that the banks have a whole lot more to lose that the bondholders. That was an excellent point. If the banks have $2.6B of non recourse debt that they may want to swap from debt to equity, and similarly the bondholders have $600m of the same, this may be a hint as to the ratio of the swap. If the ord shareholders end up owning only 5% of the new company, maybe bondholders may get 15-20% and banks the rest.

IF THEY WERE GOING INTO ADMINISTRATION, THE BANKS WOULD HAVE PUT THEM UNDER WEEKS AGO. When a company announces it is likely to have negative SHF and it still carries on in negotiations with the banks, well they are obviously discussing some sort of plan.