When you read section 303 the first time -- you did it when we told you to do so, right -- you noticed that subsection (b) requires that the petitioning creditors' claims be non-contingent. Assume Markell beats up Nickles, and Nickles sues Markell for battery to recover his medical expenses and lost wages. Is Nickles' claim contingent up to the point that final judgment is entered in his favor? See In re All Media Properties, Inc., 5 B.R. 126 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1980), afford men., 646 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1981). Is it unliquidated? What's the significance of each of theses terms, and what is the relationship of these concepts to one another? The Fountain case, which we have included below in subsection 3 should also help you understand the distinction between contingent and liquidated. But, whaat about the not subject to bona fide dispute requirement?