With the caveat that I have not been following this case too closely, it has the feel of the TX side being driven by trial lawyers and the CT side being driven by BK lawyers.
That is to say, the bankruptcy legal culture is to always be looking for a deal, while the plaintiffs law culture is always looking for an individual to get a trial on the merits. There are pros/cons to both sides. If I'm the TX Plaintiffs attorney, I want my judgment enforced. The best way to do that is for a dismissal of the bankruptcy and then act to seize assets. If I'm the CT bankruptcy attorney, I know everyone is getting a haircut, and since I have no enforceable judgment, it makes sense for my clients to all take something - anything - distributed through a Trustee. Because that's all they're ever likely to see. Of course, once the bankruptcy is dismissed there's nothing to stop them from going directly after the various liable parties either.
As to the extent of the Trustee's powers once a case is dismissed, I suspect he's trying to preserve assets of the estate on the expectation that the CT claimants (or some other interested party) will appeal the dismissal. In turn, I think the TX plaintiffs attorneys may be getting bad bankruptcy advice to try and seize the FSS accounts so quickly. "Dismissed", while seeming to convey finality, is not really the end of things. You need the Super Really Truly Mega Dismissed as conferred by the District Court, or even Circuit or Supreme Court after appeals play out.
I think you're correct that we now have CT v TX claimants at odds, and that's a shame, but not unexpected under the circumstances. But maybe they make some deal as to how to go after Alex and his grifting crew? The upside for the bystanders is that they can make Alex's life a long living hell. And maybe that's an upside for some of the plaintiffs. I have to believe, however, that the revenge party within the plaintiffs' constituency as a whole is probably not as large as the "lets fuck him as hard as we can and get on with our lives" constituency. That'd be my guess having represented creditors/creditors committees for, well, a long time now.