What good would the share price going up do them if they can no longer use RETC to raise capital for their business?
If they give up the shell, they give up their source of capital.
The RETC control people have used RETC to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years by borrowing money from toxic lenders then paying off the Notes by issuing stock.
If Sharp hijacks control of their shell, they can no longer use the RETC stock as a capital source to borrow more money for their business operations in the future.
Quite often, public issuers get abandoned because the business operations have failed, and it is no longer worth the money to keep up with filings and business taxes, but in the case of RETC, it seems obvious that the control people still have an interest in using RETC as a capital source for their business, otherwise, they wouldn't have answered the petition filed by Sharp.
This isn't somebody asking a court for custodianship of an abandoned shell. This is somebody trying to hijack somebody else's business (no matter how good or bad that business may be).
It's easy to look at this from one point of view (as a trader) and only focus on the share price, but you have to remember that these public issuers often represent somebody's business and livelihood.
Would you want somebody coming in and trying to steal your business or your life just because you are struggling a little bit to keep up?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
