The article treats the Windstream example like a smoking gun for market manipulation but the cited evidence is a little softer than he's suggesting. All the link really provides is Windstream's claim that Aurelius forced them into bankruptcy, which the judge evidently didn't find to be compelling. Windstream proposed a recovery plan for any default caused by the Uniti spinoff and Aurelius didn't agree to the plan. That doesn't prove that Aurelius shoved Windstream in front of a train, only that they didn't pull them off the tracks.