seeclear - IMO
"The NSS theory just does not cut it" - agreed
"1)Must for some past reason, hold a significant amount of PBLS shares." -
Yes even recently, I heard PA was giving the rights to buy shares at 50% to market, and those may not be restricted.
"2)Have had those shares beyond the time lines as stated as 'resticted' (5 years)." -
PA did not begin restricting shares for 5 years until 2004
"3)May be in need of immediate cash for 'whatever reason'." -
PA has been making deals with distressed companies, and distressed individuals, who may need money immediately and ongoing.
"4)May have 'grievance' or 'litigation' with or against PBLS."
YES !!! There may something going on with ProGas and hurricane related damage liability that on the surface looked pretty serious. Unfortunately I saw only one post on it (on Raging Bull) and everyone seemed to look the other way but mastercraft did acknowledge the post and seemed to have knowledge of it. This was many months ago.
"5) May be 'truthfully' out of their freakin'" -
a little of that maybe
"The "only" party that I believe fills the bill and is 'appropriately' motivated is "THE LAND OWNER" . . ."
I have seen bits and pieces of what you are suggesting but never have seen it all written in one place like this. It all makes pretty good sense, though how it will turn out in the end may be something stranger than we can imagine.
IMO the big problem is PA was way too loose with his shares in the past, and even though he is tighter with his shares now, the damage caused by old deals might be very difficult to repair. I really don't know how bad it is.
