A wholistic analysis, rather than piecemeal critique, is logically and perforce the only way to make sense of this caper. Before DR voluntarily decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to clean the stables of Greenblatt, he and his (legal) advisors doubtless examined the sum total of the company's liabilities, assets, judgments, pending lawsuits, prospects, patent/technology values, deals in the offing (partnerships, licensing, buyouts?) etc. Having looked at the whole enchillada, DR et al. made a calculated determination not to throw up the sponge nor to surrender the company's jewels to the wolves. Meanwhile, the employees and directors have been spending their own funds to keep the ship afloat. Logic dictates that DR and those most knowledgeable of the company not only see something of tremendous value here but also calculate the rewards of spending their money rescuing and pursuing the business as far exceeding the risks of not doing so. Otherwise, why would they continue this enterprise just to lose their shirts? In the world of business and finance just about everything is negotiable. Most legal overhangs can be settled for negotiated prices. Settlement numbers are doubtless known and were likely factored into any wholistic appraisal before DR and employees/directors spent another dime to keep this venture going.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
