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.
