Here is how I see it,
Going forward, we really should be thinking of Gallant, not WC imo. WC is a share holder and an activist per their BOD leverage of SOUP. WC owns Gallant, but Gallant is the owner of SOUP assets.
Gallant was created to handle overseeing the everyday operations of SOUP. Although Gallant is a subsidiary of WC, contractually, Gallant owns SOUP, not WC. Gallant won the auction not WC. Gallant has a responsibility to share holders as noted in the court filings and as required by the judge that approved the sale. Gallant will not cancel shares because they would be cancelling WC shares (which they don't own) worth millions of dollars and would put themselves in a legal mess with shareholders that own the remaining 49%.
