Some have assumed that the noteholders must be given something above and beyond the principal and interest on the notes as part of a compromise. JJ disagreed and I agree with JJ. In fact, I never understood how the noteholders were entitled to anything beyond their P & I. The only thing I see that kry must do is to negotiate in good faith with the noteholders. This, however, does not mean that they must agree to any of the noteholders demands, only that they not unreasonably refuse to agree to a particular offer. To me, any offer that requires kry to give up anything more than P & I is unreasonable and hence kry need not agree to any offer that requires more. Here's why. The noteholders loaned money knowing there was risk and being willing to lose all of their investment. Kry found it necesary to go into "bankruptcy" (in reality, a reorganization similar to a Chapter 11 in the U.S) in order to keep its arbitration going in the most competent hands in order to maximize the potential award so that the noteholders, shareholders, and anyone else owed money could recieve maximum benefits. The judge has already determined that these interests can best be served by keeping kry in complete control of the arbitration. Why now the judge would determine differently just because the noteholders think they should have part of the arbitration award is not logical. Thus, as I see it, kry can refuse all unreasonable offers, which in my mind amounts to anything other than the payment of principal and interest. In this manner and because a realistic award will repay everyone plus then some, the noteholders stand to be made whole while kry manges the ballgame. If the noteholders stand to be made whole and since the chance that this will occur is very substantial, I don't believe the judge would force kry to do anything beyond the P &I. Were there some real risk in kry being successful in the arbitration and thus paying off the noteholders in full, the judge might very well rule differently, but that is not the case as I see it.