Hello RG,
I suspect that Phila's answer would parrot yours pretty closely. You both know thede people and have a history with them and both of you seem pretty-much baffled that a self-proclaimed prosperous Company could find itself at the mercy of one (or more) individuals feeing them bad advice. A "quiet period" is certainly another possibility but one must ask; "When did this period begin?" Been awfully quiet for a helluva while now. lol.
The long and the short of it seems to be this; If these principals wish, they can remain indefinitely in the uncluttered, unregulated safety of the pinks wherein, if business permits, profits can be distributed at will. Kind-of like a private concern, but with shareholder funds at the root of the Co.
I keep reading such terms as "maybe, maybe not, hopefully" etc. when it comes to conjecturing on their future moves. Obviously, there is very little concern as to the investors' welfare, so long as everything is fine in Boulder. There is, therefore, little wonder that a Co. that SHOULD be worth much more than is currently the case -- isn't. I would say that the majority of the present shareholders are where they are due to blind faith which isn't much of an investment strategy, I'm sure you'll agree.
So, you may ask why this particular poster has deigned to remain invested. At present, two reasons only -- yourself and Phila. Oh yeah, there's blind faith too.
Market Data 
Markets 
