Yes they continue to rehash the same old argument.. Ever notice how they never actually provide even one counter argument against the actual facts presented by AA?

I've been following this since 2008 or so and while initially pacified that management had our back, it became clear that I was in simply in denial. We all know management has long abandoned any sense of fidiuciary duty esp. with Tenor's backing succumbing to all sorts of legalese trickery and doublespeak to paint a picture of "adequately representing our interest" and "maximizing recovery".

The courts simply continue to buy this at face value.. AA's last motion is for the judge to take a look at the reality of the situation. I encourage all to read it at the link below.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/2cym5y  (You'll need to pass the captcha)

If denied, then I really have trouble understanding how Stark would believe that a crafty and cunning entity that is Tenor/KRY would cede on collecting hundreds of millions they were legally entitled to. "Maximizing recovery" ...

As AA argues it's always been "form over substance" for the weasels at KRY/Tenor..

About time Stark sees through (plain as day) deceit as was the case with judge Silverstein (at least that was my impression of her).