You appear correct but in our defense I don't think any thing in that report openly suggests that management wanted 10% of the award.

My take on it at the time was that the note holders wanted to get rid of management and they were saying what an important role they had in any successful arbitration.

I also thought that the option of losing everything to the note holders was worse than what ever management came up with. Even with the 10% it is still better than the note holders selling new shares and making our current shares worth ZERO!

So while you were correct about them holding a gun to our heads you should have mentioned the bullets were going to cost 70 million.

JJ