JC, given your view that stays are unlikely until arbitration is complete and your 3 strike analogy where we are approaching stike 2, what incentive do the noteholders have in doing a deal if Kent is correct and Kry has submitted a plan and the noteholders have not?
Do you believe that the judge will view the failure "the orders to bring a Plan - meaning "an agreement of compromise or arrangement" - to the judge, now twice." as equal if Kry has a plan and the noteholders don't. Would the judge reward the noteholders for rejecting the KRY plan but not supplying a plan of their own other than they want all of KRY?
It seems to me that if this were the case then the noteholders are trying to win by not playing or comprimising. Given everything that has transpired and all the past rulings I just don't see the judge saying to Kry well you have failed 3 times to reach an agreement with the noteholders so I plan to issue no further stays. Like in the past where the judge has seen through the noteholders plan and rejected it he will continue to do so unless the noteholder position changes from the I want everything plan.
This is just my opinion which is worth about the same as a Kry share right now.
JJ
