Essentially, the common shareholders sued, the settlement (a non opt out class) requires issuing more common, which necessarily dilutes the APEs. The parties tried to sneak into the settlement -

- that not only would claims of common SHs be extinguished, but also the claims common SHs had with respect specifically to their APE holdings, if they held both.

@annmlipton This stood out to me, because presumably it's the reason they tried to sneak the APE release into the settlement. In a footnote it was noted that an APE holder unhappy about the settlement consideration could pursue claims elsewhere...but how would that work in practice? Would such a claim potentially delay conversion, hence why the company is scared of it? The company and AA have often claimed the units are equivalent, which sits poorly with a conversion settlement specific to AMC.

@annmlipton Got it - it totally makes sense that APE holders angry about being diluted (by the settlement consideration relating to AMC shares only) might prefer to sue for monetary damages rather causing a delay in conversion. It just seems so weird to me that AMC holders complained and got some settlement consideration at the expense of APE holders, and then APE holders might complain about the consideration and get monetary damages, which necessarily must come at the expense of AMC holders.

@AttractiveNuisance not necessarily. If Apes sue they could get monetary damages from the directors and officers who orchestrated the scheme and not the company. Or from their insurance. I mean I don't necessarily expect a suit but that could be the theory.

@annmlipton Thanks again for your commentary - it turned out that the $APE complaint really did end up happening.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_State_Court_of_Chancery/2023-0835/Simons_v._AMC_Entertainment_Holdings_Inc/92351725/