Paau, there you go twisteing what was I said which is unfortunate. I never said the judge chose the best loan for shareholders, in fact I said the opposite. He chose the loan Fung wanted. This was after under oath he told the judge he wanted to protect all parties including sharholders. That now appears to be an inaccurate statement.

What I said was the Judge chose to side with a plan that allowed shareholders to benefit rather than just the noteholders who offered a better interest rate but less of a loan. Not sure if the judge would have done the same thing had he know Tenor had plans to take all the award away from shareholders anyway.

I also doubt that the judge was informed the interest rate would break the criminal code. This is why shareholders should have had representation for them selves at the time but instead chose to believe Fung that he wanted to protect shareholders.

As I have said shareholders were duped by both Fung and Tenor. While shareholders may not have been at the table to stop it in the beginning I'm sure glad we are there now.

JJ