I think the Judge used July 30th so the appeal could be heard and dealt with before the next extension is due. This also will give both sides time to try and negotiate a settlement on the debt. This won't happen because the noteholders still hope they can win the appeal and take everything. This will work in our favor for the next extension since once again the party being unreasonable is the noteholders.

The Judge was quite insightful in seeing the noteholders for what they are, greedy unsecured creditors who shouldn't get 100% back unless it comes from a settlement or award. Newbould noted that with an award or settlement even if the noteholders took over they wouldn't get 100% because of our current value. The only way is through arbitration and not what the noteholders want.

The noteholders were and are overly greedy which is apparent under their plan which gives them 81% of the company. The Judge hasn't been fooled and I don't see an appeals could judge finding any of the decisions made by Newbould out of line. His reasoning is sound but I may be prejudiced because it works out better for us shareholders.

JJ