Sure, it's "limited" liability, not "no" liability. And criminal actions remove even the limited part. But it isn't clear to me that the owners having criminal

Sure, it's "limited" liability, not "no" liability. And criminal actions remove even the limited part. But it isn't clear to me that the owners having criminal liability was the basis the bankruptcy court was operating under ... though it is clear both side thought it was the way things _could_ go, so they preempted that state.