I can't help but wonder what on budget means. To me, it would...

I can't help but wonder what on budget means. To me, it would make sense to factor in profit for debt payments, otherwise what would be the point? Especially with all the consulting that has taken place.

Krispy, 53m comes to mind with regards to escrow claim which was calculated by the third party barrister. If there was anymore to claim I'd imagine it would be through separate litigation but nothing has been indicated in this regard.

Another point I'd like to make is that AG was not born a CEO and nobody is. It is a roll that must be grown into by experience and I'd say he's had some bitter pills to swallow recently. I do commend him for offering his resignation which I believe was ethically right. I also commend him for sticking with it given the chance. I fail to see how he could single handedly get us into the mess when so much dd was done by various entities and so many people. He is however the CEO which is English for punching bag. It would be goo to see him steer the ship to positivity.

Lastly, the debt buyers did not buy a great deal of debt. I believe McQ Banks parcel was only 20m. I can't remember how much the other parcel was from Citi. What is 20m as a % of total debt? I believe IF there is a DFE, it would be indicated closer to the first repayment. Should anchorage become hungry what is 20m worth in a DFE? Depends what the price is if they decide to try that on. Should they buy more debt, they are still governed by the terms of the debt agreement are they not? It's easy money for them anyway. Thoughts on this?