that other creditor groups had endorsed the proposed Plan, could easily have prompted an even higher-than-usual degree of inattentiveness or inaction among affected creditors in these cases. Furthermore, many creditors may simply have assumed that a package that related to the Debtors’ bankruptcy case must have related only to their dealings with the Debtors and would not affect their claims against other parties. Charging all inactive creditors with full knowledge of the scope and implications of the proposed third party releases, and implying a “consent” to the third party releases based on the creditors’ inaction, is simply not realistic or fair, and would stretch the meaning of “consent” beyond the breaking point. See In re Washington Mut. Inc., 442 B.R. 314, 355 (Bankr.D.Del.2011) (<HOLDING>). As to creditors and interest holders who were
holding that 24 hours is sufficient time for a plaintiff to review release holding that inaction was not a sufficient manifestation of consent to support a release holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid