Assuming that covenants have been broken and that the banks will now call the line of credit and finish the firm, I have a reasonable question.
Given that revenues were overstated for some time (i.e. at least since the banks renewed the line of credit), it is conceivable that covenants were broken before the line of credit was even extended.
Given this scenario, one wonders if the banks didn't have a role in this fiasco as well. They may have given heroin to the addict in extending and enlarging the credit line based on mythical revenues. They too shoud have done their due dilligence, and it is hardly right that they can finish the company now by calling a line of credit that should never have been extended in the first place.
If the lawyers want to go after deep pockets, the banks should be part of it.