I don't get the whole 'in debt to the record label' thing. That's something that is essentially impossible despite what most people like to believe. You sign a deal, get a recoupable advance, and then make a certain % of sales. But recoupable costs are not bills - it's just money coming off your earnings. An artist is never obligated to pay a dime out of pocket, if a band breaks up the label just eats it. The only way to get 'in debt' to a record label is to do something stupid or sleazy like borrow additional money as a loan for a tour (which you would be better off doing from a bank) or charging extra recording costs to the label rather than paying it with the advance (which I'm not sure a studio or label would let you get away with in the first place). If for some reason Sanctuary was not paying them correctly for a number of years and the legal battle was to have the correct amount paid to them, then I can understand being upset and they would certainly be entitled to those monies - but it's far from a DEBT. If I paint a fence for $100 and only receive $60, I don't say 'I'm in debt $40', I would say 'I am owed $40 more' - it's account receivable, not accounts payable. There may be something I'm not understanding about their situation because, admittedly, I'm not going to read through every 3 hour rant Timo Tolkki, et alia, spit out - but from what I have read, their phrasing of calling what is likely money yet to be collected a 'debt' is the greediest aspect of the whole saga.