Exhibit 1. 43 . The court assumes that the advice given by the financial advisors to their clients was consistent with their adamant defense of low values during the sworn testimony at the Valuation Hearing. 44 . Following the Valuation Hearing, the court issued two letter rulings requiring re-running of Debtors' business model and recalculation ■ of TEV. During the process of recalculating values the principal parties agreed to a term sheet that ultimately was embodied in the Plan. 45 . The value of Debtors was to be determined as of the effective date of the Plan. See Code § 1129(b)(2)(B). Coleman, during the Hearing, told the court he was pleased with his May 2005 valuation that ranged between $7.4 billion to $8.7 billion. It was his view that that amount, bear d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting In re Lister, 846 F.2d 55, 57 (10th
holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate recognizing under analogous section of california code that the right to recover property conveyed by a decedent in fraud of creditors is an asset of his insolvent estate and that the executor or administrator is a trustee thereof for the benefit of creditors holding that the principal test of substantial contribution is extent of benefit to the estate holding that the ordinary observer test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed holding that in determining whether there has been a substantial contribution pursuant to section 503b3d the applicable test is whether the efforts of the applicant resulted in an actual and demonstrable benefit to the debt ors estate and the creditors