Here's my criticism:  Assuming "it is what it is" and success in the litigation is pretty essential, and assuming that our team is highly confident of prevailing (see my next post on this), why not buy back as many shares as possible (within regulatory limits)?  It just seems like a "do or die" situation - we win, we're golden, we lose and we face probable difficult times.

IMO, when the market Cap is at a depresed enought level,  OR if it is in an attempt to reach a target share price (Example being NAS listing, keeping the price above $4 for the required period), then I can see the timing in implementing buybacks with an agressive stance.

Neither is the case here...at least not at this time.

IMO and as unpopular a position as it may be, the company is being fiscally responsible in conserving cash and suspending buybacks during this time of uncertanty.

Regards