From: Eileen Alexanderson < To: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ArtSpace Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:16:53 +0000 Recipients only had to respond if they wanted to participate From: jeffrey E. [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:56 AM To: Eileen Alexanderson Cc: Richard Joslin Subject: Re: ArtSpace what is a negative confirmation process.?? On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Eileen Alexanderson < wrote: Just received tonight. Forwarded to you a few minutes ago. Also in the drop box in case you have trouble. Let me know if you have any problem with link I sent you a few days ago. They used a negative confirmation process. I was told they took the addl round of loans down because the other buyer said there could be no more than 500k in liabilities on the balance sheet. They paid off the bankers and lawyers. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2014, at 3:04 PM, "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> wrote: show me proof that all shareholders were offered debt postion . ? their responses. and the renotification if nec after leon said he would buy it so they added addtional debt on a 3 to 1 , after knowledge of a sale On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Eileen Alexanderson < > wrote: From: Lakhdhir, David K [mailto Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 12:34 PM To: Eileen Alexanderson; Cc: Larsen, Sonia; Grisin, Cara Subject: ArtSpace Attached is a case summary of a case in Delaware with facts somewhat similar to those in our situation, in which the Chancery Court held that a class of shareholders that received no merger consideration had no claim because the value of the company did not justify their receipt of merger consideration. This is part of what makes us believe that (based on the facts as we understand them) the litigation exposure here is manageable. Also, on my call this morning with Ron I confirmed his understanding that all shareholders were offered the opportunity to participate in the emergency debt f