I phrased it poorly. You are correct. However, the investors do stand to make more from the company going into bankruptcy, than from agreeing to the deals outside of bankruptcy.
That's because the deals outside of bankruptcy are blatant attempts to do end runs around bankruptcy law.
Imagine that you own 50% of a company, I own 30%, and someone else owns 20%. Say that the rule is that if the company goes into bankruptcy, it loses 50% of its value, but each of us get the same proportion (so you get 25% of original value, I get 15, someone else gets 10%).
Now say that right before it goes into bankruptcy, the government comes in and proposes a solution. They will save the company from bankruptcy by injecting an extra 10% of value (so the company will only drop to 60% of original value now). The only catch is that I get my full 30%, someone else gets their full 20%, and you're left with the remaining 10%.
Is the government solution a better overall solution for the collective company? Yes, because it ends up with an extra 10% of value.
Is the government solution a better value for me and the third dude? Definitely, because we make out much better than it would have if it had gone to bankruptcy.
Is the government solution a better value for you? Absolutely not, because you're getting screwed. Instead of the 25% you would be entitled to in bankruptcy, you're only getting 10% in this deal. So, while the deal might be better in the aggregate, it's ****ing you over.
If you had the legal right to prevent that government deal from going down, wouldn't you?