I certainly have! I have also provided a link showing the different uses for “affirm” vs “confirm”. I don’t need to post them again. Look up post history or google it. I can assure you it’s exactly what I said it is, and used correctly exactly as I’ve mentioned. If words didn’t carry so much more weight in the courts between what are called “learned colleagues” I might just blow it off as an incorrect use of the word by its author. Simply speaking, judges et al are not allowed to be so flippant with the words they use and there very legal meanings. In fact when it comes to the courts, it is important to look up the “legal definition” of words as they trump the regular uses of those words when used in the courts. I hope this helps.
I’m also still wondering why no one can seem to provide ta link to the letter from LCY (whether it be an affirming one or a confirming one) if “everything’” has been disclosed. Also where could “elsewhere” mean if there were only “3 corps in 2 countries” when “elsewhere” was added in addition to Canada and the US in authorizing pwc to go where it had too to do what it had to do? If one were to think that “everything material” had to be disclosed then how can they get away with “elsewhere”? Is it just one place or more? Which place/places? Very arguably any other business the monitor would have to conduct outside the specified Canada and US would have to be considered “material” especially since 189 of 192 creditors weren’t going to see a penny from the UPFRONT PAYMENT of The Visolis Transaction. So many questions and opinions, so few facts. It will definitely be interesting to see how this one finally plays out.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
