I really think this stated capital reduction is more than just a legal paper suffle. I think its a red herring or a double edge sword kind of thing. First, it appears that CMM is currently being presented as insolvent (liabilities greater than asset base). Under the section of the act being used for this arrangement with WTG, CMM can not be insolvent so they reduce capital to qualify. But if that is voted down and there is no arrangement, CMM remains insolvent and something else can then be triggered like bankruptcy or receivership or something else that gets Finskie what he wants. This thing is troubling to me, should I vote no to both or yes to the reduction and no to the arrangement? Hoping for some clarity on the sight. Thanks