Well a few things here:
1) It's not like I'm delighted by this plan. It just seems there is no other recourse.
2) I'm not breaking a whiskey bottle over a counter and exclaiming, "who's with me?" I just think after 6 years we're entitled to better treatment than no acknowledgement of our investment as the sails unfurl for VNTH.
3) I believe the concern over statutes of limitations for filing is real (gimmedaloot, agree). There's no way I'll let this slip out of hand that way. We made the initial investment based on good faith and good technology, and we have a right to see a result if one is possible.
Nothing personal but if this must be mired down in legal grievances for years, and we lose what little time-tech edge we have, well, maybe they should have handled themselves differently.
4) Nothing is known right now but there have been no comments re: msgi and its stake in Nanobeak, and that's a primary concern. Why not choose the route of transparency rather than this? Assuming there's no legal reason for this imbroglio, it's troubling that he's not forthright with thick-and-thin investors, especially when he was slapped with a $100,000 fine for things not unlike what we are discussing! Give us a timeline for a report that coincides with the Scripps research, a bone, something.
5) I am not an attorney but a good researcher. I'll let you know what I discover. I have some fancier friends who have chosen law degrees and paths. I'll ask them for some initial comments over the holidays and see where to go based on the research and their comments. Dane, I agree, money to the la(w)yers is not good, but I also prefer not to be hoodwinked, and if that's happening, well, we have a right to know.
SD
