Even the witness for L2, Mr. Adam Long,conceded that he had received a large
amount of money when the money was due. No one argued that the collateral
should be forfeited because of delinquency. L2’s essential argument was that
there were ill-defined defaults in their ambiguous note terms, and therefore an
undetermined additional amount of money might be due them. Based on the
testimony, it was not only likely that the ultimate fact finder would rule in favor
of Quantum, but highly unlikely that there would not be a directed verdict in favor
of Quantum. Far more than the required evidence to remain status quo.

Thanks for your findings Jamis