JC,

I also agree about your importance on this board, however I am confused with your explanation. Are you saying that, eventually if no agreement is reached, the protection is removed and CRY is finished? If CRY is finished, everyone loses. The note holders can not take over CRY and continue with arbitration. Why would the judge completely reverse course in all of his previous decisions and allow this to happen? It appears that all of the courts decided that the note holders are due their principal and interest. Anything more offered by CRY would be acting in good faith, even if the note holders reject it, which they have been doing all along. I just do not see the judge allowing everyone to lose becasue of one unreasonable unsecured creditor. What am I missing here?