ceojim, You also sound remarkably like abobo. Just another...

ceojim, You also sound remarkably like abobo. Just another alias.

Let's get this point right. The bondholders had a vested interest in frustrating the IFCA offer. So one cannot count their argument as honest. They and the court were given the source of IFCA funding.

The reason why the pre-existing condition was not lifted was because that funding had not been put into a Chemeq account, not that it was not available. That created a catch-22 sitation. The money was not in the account because IFCA needed to carry out due diligence first, and it was not permitted to carry out due diligence because the money was not in the account.

If the bondholders had shown any interest at all in wanting their $60m back, the court would have gone along with putting aside the condition precedent. It is all set out in McKecknie's judgment. With the company in administration, that catch-22 problem is overcome.

As for having time on my hands. Every point of error you make could be countered by several pages of factual and logical rebuttal. I only have time to post but the briefest of explanations, and some days you will see I have no time at all. For the sake of long-suffering readers it is probably just as well I have very limited time.