Another big problem is the following:
If Strochak and Chamberlain are correct and the board could just "kill" the LTWs (the term "may" in the warrant agreement), then why on Earth even issue these things in the first place.
I mean, if the warrant agreement is not an obligatory, enforceable document (i.e. one party "may" abide by the terms laid forth), then what the heck was the point of spinning these things off?
In my mind, the Debtors have focused on such tiny little details (like that student who has to point out that you missed a negative sign in an equation in 1 step out of 100 steps) just to try and distract from the common-sense reading of the document.
I guess they want to throw enough smoke on things to preclude people from just reading the document in its logical context.
I mean, according to Strochak et al., Dime could have won the Anchor litigation and just cancelled the warrants and said, "well, we didn't have to, look at the warrant agreement "may" is there instead of "shall"...." pure idiocy and sophistry.
I can't wait, I really can't wait, until Arthur takes these people to task.
Market Data 
Markets 
