Head examinations may very well be needed by some here but I oft times wonder who needs em
SCUSE ME???????????????????
If, however, we were operating under BK Rule 1015(a), then 75/25% til the end could be viable, however, that would violate the APR.We is or we aint and guess what? .
YOU both have been saying we ARE operating under 1015 JOINT ADMINISTRATION for years and APR has already been violated or actually vacated and approved by the COURT so WHICH IS IT?????????????? I mean really please
OK how do you undue what has already been done, APR was already dropped and this has been shown in the distribution of shares already once and was as well CONFIRMED by the co itself in an 8K stating such.
So how do ya plan on putting that JENNIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE pray tell.
The only way that the APR could have ever been vacated in the first place was for the JUDGE to have been CONVINCED/SHOWN/ASSURED that there were ample funds to reach the commons, or APR would still be in force.
Guys APR is tantamount in Delaware it is the whole reason for it's very existence and the very reason most companies register in Deleware so as to PROTECT the Big Boy players Bonds and prefereds not becasue of common share holders.
It is very very rare that APR is ever dropped and it's a long process to remove and lots of proof is required for a Judge to do so and isn't flipped on and off or re-nistated like a light switch!
Again if you have seen NO 8K re-instating APR , there is no longer an APR here
SOrry
Or let's do it this way, will either of you show me where it has been stated that the APR was re-instated or re-applied in this case and the 8K supporting such an action?
APR over done KAPUT POOF GHONDI seriously guys think about it precedence has already been SET in this case there is no APR.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
