Biz - depends on how you want to read what I write. I think I write very specifically, and very plainly.
What I do not do is make up things, connect 'dots', or make wild proffers with imaginary or real dates, and then when they don't come to pass -- make up a new version.
When I am wrong, I say I am wrong. And have before. {Anybody remember the DimeQ decision? -- more recently, my incorrect wording on ROTH recharacterizations vs. conversions... I own up, ASAP, any time...} -- Anybody remember the 'proffer-er' stating they were wrong? Seems there's been more than a few times.
But otherwise, especially when I do have good comprehension -- it's not a 'good story' -- which, Goebbels tells us, is a better thing.
My version is much more pragmatic. And, continues to be much more correct. I've done the DD -- and it's not based on reading selective parts of the POR (unapproved and/or finally approved).
{One of the key things of the 'theory about billions and billions' is that they skip over the court 'vacating' the 'standing order' that they are relying on. And other "let's just read the good parts, and ignore all the parts of the PORs (both 6 and 7) that don't support the 'theory'}
I am very confident on my perspective. Alas, I don't get the wonderful "My theory (insert it here) expires in Dec 2016 (based on some sort of date in the POR, etc) -- until then, since it hasn't happened, it MUST be true" -- ugh. Lack of evidence is NOT evidence. Period.
Your comment "you don't know how much money is going to be distributed to escrow shares or when"
Well, isn't that exactly true of anybody here? The difference is -- I state, as the WMILT states, where things stand and the proper (IMHO and theirs) reading of the payouts as planned.
It has always -- from the early PRs, been dependent on litigation for Escrow payments to reach Equity. Nothing new there.
But "along comes a theory" that says otherwise, and that's perfectly fine.
But my perspective, and DD, say that what the WMILT is telling is is correct. And the fiduciary responsibilities make it even more so that it's not off by "billions and billions" -- folks got to jail over that.
It's not that I can't. It's that other proffers in the opposition (with wild numbers and great claims) -- can't either. But those versions, comes with impossibilities, and just random numbers -- IMHO.
...Catz
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
