Well Played AZZ, page-17

As I understand it; administrators have a fiduciary duty to obtain the best price for an asset, however their masters are creditors. Noteholders are such creditors, and equity holders are not. Noteholders (including myself) had the option of sitting on the committee of noteholders. I chose not to, trusting FTI consulting myself, and I maintain that trust.

Regarding your first point re ASIC,

the point is that they (ASIC) should be looking after the interests of all stakeholders in the company, whereas from @tt2000's recent postings (and my observance of JC and AZZ in general over the last year) this was highly suspect, and he was putting equity holders (himself as largest holder) and directors (himself) ahead of the interests of noteholders who believed they had investment in an asset with a lower risk profile than equity holders.