If bonds are perceived as a safer $($less$\text{'}$risky$)$ investment than stocks, how come bond buyers received only $0\mathrm{.}5\%$ of the face value of their investment?

The company can unilatrally change bond indentures and bondholders need to accept the new conditions or risk losing their investment.

The company declared bankruptcy and that meant all creditors suffered losses due to debt restructuring $($this means that bondholders received a $\text{'}$ha$$rcut$\text{'}$ using bond lingo$).$

Hornbeck's story shows that stocks are a safer investment than bonds.

The situation is unfair as bond buyers paid $$600$ and only received $$5.$