Answers.1) David Williams was drawing attention to the...

Answers.
1) David Williams was drawing attention to the inconsistency of the bondholders ostensibly wanting their money back , being the reason they had taken Chemeq to court in the first place, and then refusing to accept the opportunity to do so. He said the bondholders want the intellectual property, not their money back.

Now that IFCA is reported as being still interested in Chemeq, they obviously have the money, and the bondholders' argument is proven to be false.

2) IFCA did supply sufficient financial information. The judgment was made on the fact that $60m of bondholders' money was invested with Chemeq and IFCA had none. It was not made on the basis of insufficient financial information.

As for twisting information, abobo, your manipulation of statistics is a case in point. Apart from not including your many aliases in the count, you have chosen vastly different time periods for the comparison, you have not measured the time taken to post each entry, and you have totally ignored the fact that it is my time, not yours, I am talking about as a ratio of that available. I do not have the time or inclination to counter all your repeated mistakes. And if you actually count the last 100 or so entries you have entered about twice as many as I.