First - Mr. Hancock you are a journalist who probably struggled with the math and science curriculum. Your recent coverage of this debacle demonstrates an obvious lack of knowledge as to how a trading enterprise works. Before you write, you should learn the difference between collateral and debt. Then you will understand how you and similar-minded journalists contributed to the downfall of this company. No doubt the company's executive leadership shares alot of blame. They are paid exorbitantly to ensure this scenario would never unfold. They failed. But the shameful broadcasting of inuendo, rhetoric, rumors, and speculation contributed significantly to the irrational sell-off prompting the dire situation that required a "white knight".

Second - Your latest coverage implies some eagerness to see a counter offer. Does this demonstrate some empathy toward the shareholders? Would a higher offer ease some of your conscious or subconscious guilt over your complicity in this failure?

Third - Federal law prohibits foreign interests from owning nuclear plants in the USA. Any counter offer from EdF won't be an equivalent full scope offer such as that from MEHC/Warren Buffet.

Jay Hancock replies:
Sir: I do understand the difference between collateral and debt. Constellation had too little of the former and too much of the latter. Of course that's the fault of journalists. EDF is reported to be seeking a U.S. partner to act as majority owner to trump Buffett's bid and satisfy Atomic Energy Act restrictions.