I would think that the kind of difference it would take to have the reversion clause voided by bankruptcy would require a major structural difference in the contracts, not a minor differing stipulation; the buyback clause in the all-new books were almost certainly word-for-word the same. But it's at least possible, if not terribly likely.
I'll also note that if Kevin is correct about what Priest and Bright were told about their attempted buyback, that Acclaim's reasoning made no sense. If they didn't run the contract by someone they should have and still signed it, that doesn't invalidate the contract. Unless there was a clause to that effect, which would be a big red flag to lawyers and others reading the contracts. If that's what they were told, then it was just stonewalling of the "No, we're not honoring the deal, sue us if you like" sort that some companies too often feel they can get away with.
If that's indeed what happened, that's a shame and a black mark for Acclaim, and hopefully not anything the new Valiant would think was binding.
But yes, the only people who know for sure precisely what the contracts say are the people who've read them. Which is why what I said about the subject was that VEI owes creators "whatever the contracts say they owe."
I can't speak to precisely what the Q&W contracts say (I've got the language on the buyback clause in my files, but can't be 100% certain that their language is the same as mine) -- my point is that bankruptcy doesn't erase all previous agreements, doesn't undo all obligations, and anyone telling you it does is either confused or trying to get you to believe something that ain't so. And that the idea that if you create something for a company you aren't due any further compensation is nonsense.
They owe whatever the contracts say they owe, and each contract may have slightly different language establishing what, exactly, that is.
But there is no blanket erasure of those contracts or their obligations due to bankruptcy.