Paau, you have made some statements that don't fit with my memory of how things happened.

The noteholders did want 100% but not for the same loan if you are refering to the amount. They were pretty clear they thought the amount was too much and the rate was too high. They offered the company a much lower rate if memory serves me correctly.

It was Fung who insisted that the Tenor deal was better for everyone including shareholders. This is the deal he wanted. The majority of shareholders didn't object at the time because they were not told that by the time Tenor and Fung were done Tenor would own the company as you have said and Fung would be paid by Tenor. Shareholders were lead to believe that they would retain 50% of the award.

So if the shareholders had a say back then to take ZERO from the note holders or a piece of the award from Tenor they would have chosen Tenor. Basically this is the same decision shareholders face right now except they actually have a say as to what happens. Shareholders can do nothing and watch tenor and Fung take everything or chose to fight by opting in. Some may chose not to opt in but I would be surprised if the majority of shareholders who have stuck around don't opt in.

One more point that I want to make here. You mentioned the noteholders wanting 100% which is correct. The difference between the noteholders and Tenor is Fung wasn't going to get as big a chunk with the noteholders especially with his share coming from Tenor directly. It is now easy to see why he favoured Tenor despite the higher interest rate. They would give more money to be cobbled up during the process for mamagement.

JJ