Our 45 cents or whatever has a good chance of being cut more in a deal with Vennie to get them to actially pay so 23 cents is a possibility - based on the 12% rip off if it could stand. A fair deal would be: Bondies plus Feng share 1/3 Tenor gets 1/3 Shareholders get 1/3 Judge, Lawyers, and Monitor get sent to re-education camp to learn common sense and justice. The International Court cited injustices committed against US - not a DIP financer plus one employee (Feng). There would be no $1.4 settlement without OUR loss of investment money. There would be no "injustice" committed against US without US! Together we all did our part and deserve a just reward. Shareholders, Tenor, Feng, and Bondies all were either ripped off by the Vennies of their hard earned money or took a big chance with their hard earned money to finance a DIP. The Judge seems to have this all wrong - shareholders are not people who deserve to lose their money. The International Court would have awarded Tenor nothing - there was no injustice against them - in fact if the judge wants to call shareholders irresponsible - well why not call Tenor "Gamblers"? Why doesn't the judge look down upon Gamblers as he looks down upon shareholders who tried to BUILD A COMPANY? Maybe I have misjudged this judge? If we are set get 12% maximum by this judge then we have no justice.