@mauiguy2 you strike on the exact points I have been making for a very long time.
Number one, the fact that Cyberlux has completely paid off and settled with the plaintiff means the receiver was never actually needed to begin with. The funds were always there.
Number two, a receiver is only needed when there is a severe risk of default, which was NEVER the case here but now the whole situation has created much higher risk of it. In simple terms the receiver has caused a lot more damage for EVERYONE on ALL sides.
Finally, I do place some blame on Cyberlux’ s legal strategy, as they should have just settled very early on before the receiver was assigned. Yes it is a tough pill to swallow, but in lawsuits like this it is not about who is in the right or wrong it is about cost benefit analysis.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
