O.k., I'm clear on the point of discussion now. I was still confused by RS's continual use of his term "actual offers", when I've already questioned what that may mean. In my experience, an offer isn't real ("actual"?) unless it's in writing. Seems you and I agree on that point.

Certainly if there have been informal offers, we can not know the level of sincerity behind them, or whether or not they may meet the standard that constitutes what RS means by "actual offers". That's like seeking "actual" value, when "value" (actual?) means different things under different circumstanes, hence the term "fair market value", which arises from the historical and legal foundations of the term "highest and best use." See Sacramento Southern v. Heilbron which was in 1906, I think.

We have to accept that management may rightfully reject or refuse to follow-up on those expressions of interest that are little more trollings for "liquidation value".

I certainly agree that what may be construed as offers occurring during disussions or exchanges of information do not have to be disclosed. I'm sorry if I added to anyone's confusion.

VP