No. Just no. Stop torturing these people.
This is the Fifth Report.
In the 6th report the Asset Purchase Agreement was set forth. Assets - in Par 3 below. Not Par 4. There was no recapitalisation.
Later- the 10th Report was released, which could be summarized as "Whatever you do, don't believe there was a recapitalization".
Then, the buyer's lawyer wrote a letter that could be summarized as "whatever you do, don't believe there was a recapitalization."
Why do you keep mentioning the possibility of a recapitalization? Why do you keep referring to earlier Monitors reports that are completely, utterly, HOPELESSLY clarified by subsequent monitors reports???
Why do you make any mention of a transaction that has 2 steps more than 2 years apart? How could anyone possibly believe that could happen??
