Saturday, June 08, 2019 12:50:16 PM
Your problem is you continue to mischaracterize and ignore the rights of the CT shareholders in your narratives and bias.
In 2011, the CTs were in a 20 Quarter deferment period.
What were they to contest? The Plan Administrator left open the case the CTs would be paid if they had the money and they needed a process to determine that availability.
Since then, the Court has approved stays while they settle casework of other subsidiaries and address all interested parties.
The concessions the Courts have required while over-looking the rights of CT shareholders in the CT prospectus is not a failure of the CT owners.
The Courts have known the rights of the CT owners and have listened to LBHI legal reps arguments to make restitution in the future for the CTs.
So, if they needed accommodations and concessions, it is time for the Court to tell the Estate to pay for them.
You are not above the law, joe stocks.
mojo
PickleJar Debuts Nationwide Contest With Brian Kelley for Fans to Win a Three-Day Bahama Cruise • NREG • Jun 3, 2024 8:45 AM
ILUS Provides an Update on the Binding Term Sheet Signed with Actelis Networks (NASDAQ: ASNS) • ILUS • May 31, 2024 12:52 PM
Element79 Gold To Provide Summary and Update on Active Exploration Program, Community Relations at RMEC on June 4 • ELEM • May 30, 2024 1:18 PM
Branded Legacy Secures Exclusive Extraction Partnership with One of the World's Largest Kava Distributors and Producers • BLEG • May 30, 2024 8:30 AM
ECGI Holdings, Inc. Announces $2 Million Debt-to-Equity Conversion • ECGI • May 30, 2024 8:30 AM
North Bay Resources Reports Assays up to >25% Mg, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.3 ppm Pt at Tulameen Platinum Project, British Columbia • NBRI • May 29, 2024 9:03 AM