Yazbeck determined it wasn't worth pursuing further.
Ask Yazbeck why he accepted $5,000 versus pursuing $29,000,000
The case was a 'slam dunk' since it was approved to be heard in front of jury right?
In that case, shareholders should be banging on Yazbeck door asking why Yazbeck avoided litigation worth $29,000,000 to shareholders.
Instead shareholders are claiming online it was valuable, but not holding the person in charge of their investment accountable for that value.
Pretty much that same thing as complaining about elected officials, but never voting. Except it's shareholder funds at stake. And blind trust, with no verification seems to be the DD of choice.