ABW is a listed fund, and as such all investors can make their...

ABW is a listed fund, and as such all investors can make their own minds up as to the volatility and largest holdings of the fund that are made public due to their 'continuous disclosure' obligations.
The fund was invested in the notes, presumably for income purposes. Income securities such as notes are by definition less volatile than shares. The yield was high and AZZ had a 100% track history of paying the coupons.

As I've said before, I am both noteholder and shareholder (in roughly equal weightings). As time went on I became more convinced that the directors/management of Antares were no longer the best people to hold their offices.

I've been in the presence with Aurora at the three noteholder meetings and they haven't tried to convince anybody. Indeed, AZZ by their very obstructive nature have been the ones convincing me that AZZ needed to fall into administration. I feel all noteholders I have met were of the same opinion.
By the reasoning behind the article you quote, if ABW had a failing, it was not calling AZZ to account for further disclosure in the same way our friend @tt2000 did.

Lastly you must remind yourself that noteholder interests are different to shareholder interests. Noteholders simply want a return on capital. Whilst there was a high likelyhood that 100% of capital could be returned early-on, the longer JC span this saga with no success of sale the less chance we would have our capital back.

As a shareholder we take our risks... I suggest you take it as an expensive lesson as I am.