Your missing the boat on this one EZ.

As JC likes to put it, Tenor is turning out to be no better than the bondholders. I won't go that far but to blame the court and Judge for what Fung has brought before the court is silly. Perhaps if Tenor had come in with an intial deal where they would be getting 70% the judge would have said hold on. They didn't do that however and that is what has some of us wondering.

Unfortunately the judge has been given the same load of crap shareholders were given but FUNG! The court didn't underestimate costs of arbitration it was FUNG. It was FUNG who made the deal with Tenor and told the judge and monitor this was the best offer they could get. At the time it was a way better than the bondholders offer.

Fung has his own responsibilities to himself, like every other person. He's doing what a flawed system allows him to do. If it's not made illegal, why wouldn't he.

I don't know, how about integrity! Instead of telling everyone he is trying to protect shareholders he should have simply said I'm getting all I can for myself. Actually he did say that when the bOD threatened not to help with the arbitration unless they got their percentage and wages locked in. None of the percentage cuts we are taking affects there percentage.

Anybody else would honestly do the same thing. You don't forfeit the well being of your own family for somebody elses when what you are doing is within the law.

There is a big difference in forfeiting the well being of your own family and robbing shareholders who pay your salary. There are a lot of things within the law EZ but that doesn't mean a person should do it. This sure appears to be a major difference between Fung and Belanger. You can critisize Doug all you want but tthe bottom line is Doug has done a much better and job for shareholders while staying within the law.