"A perpetual victim of circumstance mentality" would have nothing to do with ex parte validity challenges and waiting for a USPTO determination, would it?

I have still to hear a realistic alternative to buying out the S&L contract, often cited as "mismanagement" with a dollar value given.

The BoD took independent advice regarding ARS, as did many bigger companies with "experienced directors" and subsequently bought into them as well. It would appear that the BoD should have gone against conventional wisdom and advice to "maximize the right circumstances" Then who would be complaining?

20/20 hindsight is the straw man argument as one is always wiser after an event. The "if only scenario" is fine for retrospectives as long as all variables are considered. I'm basing my view of the BoD on what they are doing, and are able to do, as a consequence of prior actions, suing DB over the ARS being one example of management, along with arranging borrowing facilities to provide ongoing liquidity.

You might call it mismanagement, I see it as management.

Be well