Mandalay,One would think your summary is quite reasonable...

Mandalay,
One would think your summary is quite reasonable .
Atleast out here in the regular commercial world.
However, theres always an 'however'. What we assume to be the case is a far cry from what was promoted in their world. -PNG
That is why asked for Hal's take on it.
To make the issue more complexing, there is written information not privy to most (as you said) that contradicts what is otherwise a reasonable explanation.
Despite what Hal and myself were discussing regarding the arrangements, there were infact more than one 'agreement' entered into after the liquidation appointment.
The details of which are best left for a higher authourity to assess at another date and not in a public forum.
But only to say that based on the evidence before me and taken into its complete context, it would appear that this and many other issues will be topics of discussion for some time.

On a side note. What I find difficult to accept is that in this day and age so few people feel that there may be a moral if not legal obligation to keep the locals fully informed. Matters such as this and many more.
I accept certain items may be confidential in nature but that did not seem to apply at the beggining when everyone was more than willing to convince the locals of their spendour and transperancy.
If It is confusing to most people in our world just imagine how difficult it is for them to understand the fine details of such commercial arrangements. Especially when they are not properly informed.
The 10% for landowners was the main issue coming in the front door and was in no way a confidential matter.
What is being kept quiet from the locals is that their expectations of their equity is not what they were lead to believe.
It is more the case that it is better to keep them guessing and wanting and therefore contained as opposed to breaking the bad news to them and then try to get them to the table.
Cheers
Jack