JC, why distort the content and use a heading of trouble in paradise?

Fung wanted December 2016 and the noteholders wanted September 2016 is what it says. You make no mention of that and suggest the disagreement is between fung and the monitor.

APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR STAY EXTENSION 23. The current stay of proceeding under the Initial Order, as extended by subsequent orders, 6 expires on June 30, 2016. The Applicant’s motion seeks an extension of the Stay Period to December 31, 2016. 24.

The Noteholders proposed that the Stay Period be extended to September 16, 2016 and served a notice of examination to Mr. Fung in respect of Fung’s June 21 Affidavit.

With the assistance of the Monitor, the Applicant and the Noteholders have agreed to terms for a stay extension to September 16, 2016.

Accordingly, the Monitor recommends that the Stay Period be extended to September 16, 2016.

The monitor recommended September 2016 after an agreement was reached between Fung and the Noteholders with assistance from the monitor.

I'm not supporting the monitor here but think all the information should be posted when you make comments that are misleading. Actually, I'm not sure if I have ever see you make any negative comments about the noteholders. Why is that?

JJ