Linda,
I understood you arguments and I pretty much agree with you. The Warrant agreement itself provides language for "Other Events" as you pointed out in your post.
Essentially, given a good faith reading of the agreement, when one of these "Other Events" (i.e. in our case BK) occurs, there is a stated fiduciary duty on the part of the board that they make adjustments to the LTW agreement that protects the interest of the LTW holders as claimants to 85% of the Adjusted Award Amount.
This is a good faith reading. As Wallstreet has pointed out, if one were so inclined, you could deliberately misread the document to commit fraudulent conveyance. This is the current state of affairs, as the SNHs have gifted our asset away without due compensation.
But, as you stated, the agreement itself allows for LTWs to be paid in anything of equitable value. They could pay us in gold bullion if they so chose. It's irrelevant, since the warrant agreement makes the statement that the board could choose to payout the LTWs in any equivalent currency so long as the net payable value to the LTWs is the same per the agreement.
Thus, I completely agree with your statement.
My statement about ambiguities was also aimed at what Wallstreet was pointing out, which is essentially, within the context of the on-going BK, the language of the agreement can be used against us (the may vs. shall). Clearly, he is correct, since this has been done ad infinitum by the debtors. While I think that this is all mere sophistry, my expertise is not in litigation, so my own application of logic may not apply.
At any rate, I think that we're on the same page!
Best,
Jared
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
