My criticisms and insults to the judge, tenor and Feng only stand IF it is true that we now are set to get only 12%.
Truthfully, putting the 3000 mile wall aside for the moment, I don't believe the Judge has done this to us.
I think it is 12% of the first 500 million.
Then Feng gets less and we get more.
But I do want to let them know that if 12% is their plan as we are lead to beleive without correction from feng - then we should go beyond this court to higher courts or political action or American intervention to leave them Feng/ Tenor with the 12% (if any)

You, more than anyone, has kept peeps aware of the Feng-Tenor Combine's plan to GUT our asset KRY.

12% ,if any, is the apparent status of this "thing" going on within this cartoon courtroom under one of the Queen's clown judges.

A group is trying to work for shareholders within this judge's seedy rhelm under his shoe - good luck with that plan LOL

SHAREHOLDERS are due 34 - 50% and not a penny less!

The solution is beyond the kangaroo court!

Let this judge, and Feng-Tenor dig their hole deeper -trying to take it all.

If they do then WE take it ALL and pay only the bondies.

That is our plan of action!

I am one of many American shareholders and I will suggest to Trump that we Americans got a bad deal with this Canadian KRY company and this Canadian judge who is giving 88% of our American money to this Canadian Feng and his Fengsters. Unless shareholders get at least 1/3rd - America should build a Wall up north and have Canada pay for it!

Here is another bad deal:
KRY shareholders invest $600+ million into the mine.
Add $100 million for bondies.
Add about $100 million for Tener
That equals $800+ million

Now KRY wins $1400 million
Next Vennie cuts a deal with KRY to pay half the award cash now.
So the settlement costs Vennie $700 million cash out.
So we are left $100 million in the hole.
So Vennie winds up paying for less than our total loss of $800 million.
AND VENNIE PAYS NO PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, CORRUPT, UNJUST, and CRIMINAL BUSINESS BEHAVIOR!!!!
For that reason I propose - NO DEAL WITH THE COMMIE VENNIES - PAY THE FULL $1.4 BILLION !

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.

I'm a 10 year bag holder from Jim Kramer's pump/dump - dumb thing.
Doubled down 10X before trading halt - smart thing.
I am new posting here but I have always enjoyed Options Gal, Boss Kent, and EZ the most.
I cast my votes for those three for lifetime membership!

The most stunning thing is that Feng thinks we are "stakeholders"....... most of us think we are down to 12% and even those crumbs are in jeprody of being sucked up by Tenor. I wish Feng's PR addressed that issue. Is 12% the most we "stakeholders" will get? If any? I hope we read this wrong and it is only 12% up to a certain amount and then a higher percent...... why doesn't Feng define our status as "stakeholders" ...... instead if this useless PR?