To: Saul Feinberg Jr. who wrote (1040 ) 6/20/2007 9:30:14 PM From: Glenn Petersen Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3862 Saul, Coincidence. I don’t think that the liabilities are a factor in whether or not a deal gets approved or disapproved. I would suggest that the liabilities are immaterial to the individual transactions. If you look at the latest filings for companies that have open deals, you will see that many of them have incurred substantial liabilities, and in some instances the companies have borrowed funds from their insiders. You will find the same pattern with the companies that have recently closed on transactions. I think that ultimately the transactions stand or fall on their individual merits, though I suspect that some of the principals of the early blank check companies may not have anticipated that their transactions would face a close scrutiny, and that two or three shareholders (who only need to control 20% of the shares) could kill the deals. After the first few terminated transactions, we have seen the insiders with borderline deals either restructuring their original stock positions or committing to purchase additional shares, either in the open market or directly from the company. I am sure that their larger shareholders have requested many of these adjustments as a precondition for a positive vote. I have been meaning to sift through the board and document these adjustments in a post. Some months ago, when someone expressed some curiosity about the liabilities associated with the companies that had gone into liquidation, I took a look at the disclosures for the first four companies that had to liquidate and was surprised to see that there were some unpleasant ramifications for the insiders. Message 23241358 I have not had an opportunity to explore this issue in the filings of the other blank check companies, but I would expect to see similar language. Regards, Glenn