First of all, great find CJR. This is the most informative article I have seen on KRY in quite some time. It does an excellent job of outlining the legal pros and cons concerning the bondholder action. Second, HOOV you picked up on the paragraph that was of most interest to me. If this article is correct, it suggests that the bondholders want KRY to file for arbitration. KRY shareholders should take heart if that is true. Because, it seems to me that the great fear of shareholders was that if the bondholders were successful in their lawsuit, it would cause KRY to go bankrupt and rob us of the opportunity of arbitration. If the bondholders and KRY management can come together on the issue of arbitration-----WATCH OUT VENEZUELA----GET YOUR PAYCHECK READY.

Third, after having read this article, I am very confident in KRY's legal position in the bondholder action. The directors of a company owe a duty to all STAKEholders, not just to the bondholders. KRY management has kept the MOC in good standing thereby preserving the right to file for arbitration which protects not only the shareholders but the bondholders also. There is no way in hells bells that the court is going to protect one STAKEholder (bondholders) to the total detriment of another STAKEholder (shareholders) when such action would rob the shareholders to a multi-billion dollar cause of action (arbitration).