Wow Penny....that is quite an informative post for beginners. Perhaps Mik and Ines will find that info useful. Understand, for a few of us....this is not our first rodeo. You asked "Why would this company be any different than any other company in bankruptcy and keep the shareholders in tact"? First off, do you know the difference between trust preferred stock as opposed to reg preferred and common stock? Do you know what trust preferred stock is classified as in bankruptcy Penny? We are not common equity waiting to be wiped out in bankruptcy (as common equity is a majority of the time). We are classified as debt. So, your argument with Cotton earlier insisting he show you where equity is mentioned is quite funny. We are in fact, an unsecured creditor, not equity. You mention bondholders only getting a small percentage of payout and make fun of the fact that we believe CTs may be paid at face value. Why don't you go DD assumption and assignment in bankruptcy. This is how CT's would be paid at full contract as opposed to the less than full recovery senior unsecured creditors received. Also read our prospectus which contains successor obligor clauses. You are right in your statement that bankruptcy law trumps policy/guarantees however the bankruptcy judge and trustees take the conditions of contract law into account when determining what recovery is just, and what obligations will be assumed or assigned upon emerging from bankruptcy. Finally, since you have this play all figured out with minimal DD...why don't you sell for your 100 percent profit? I bought CTs long ago under .05 and am riding free....I don't lose either way. Like I said, this isn't my first rodeo, but thanks so much for your concern.