You'll find my posts among those that took issue with your post when you read tomorrow. Take it FWIW.

Two points I'd like to make with you:

First

This last post, however, isn't necessarily in concert with your other one. In the other one and subsequent one's that followed, you paint Brian's success as black or white. You imply for him to have ANY complaint and to post it, is to assume total failure as the Shareholder Rep as he was part of every move the company made (to paraphrase you). While I understand your logic, how can you apply it. When Brian took his role, the share price was below 10 cents, there were debentures and warrants and litigation, etc. etc.

Since that time, many things have improved dramatically with the share price rising to over $2 briefly, and elimination of debentures and warrants, settlement of litigation, appointment of Board members, etc. So along with things he has criticized, there have been relative successes as well. On whole, the company has progressed / succeeded, though apparently there are many things that Brian takes issue with, so you can't call him ineffective unless you completely discredit the successes. Have you quit every job you had because you disagreed with 10% of things being done, 30%, 50%, 80%.....What threshold of effectiveness should apply in you mind, and take into account that in an advisory role, ANYONE's level of effectiveness will be constrained to the parameters allowed by that role.

Secondly,

You question why Brian seems to discount any explanation about contingent payments, royalties, etc. about the J settlement. I've posted several reasons why I discount that explanation, though I don't completely dismiss it, as the dollar figures in the 10q are so disappointing without the possiblities that your raise.

However, that being said, why do you think the company would try to obfuscate that possiblity to such an extent whereby the CEO almost blatantly rules it out with the language he issues that the financial results are FULLY reflected. Surely, that implies to even the most optimistic reader that there is nothing more to the settlements. For what reason that is NOT opening him up to liability for misrepresenting the results or to charges of share price manipulation, can you provide that would explain this characterization. Why wouldn't the NEW CEO who admittedly is focussed on M&A (for which share price appreciation would only be beneficial unless nefarious forces are at work) be anything but as forthright and positive about whatever he could possibly say to suggest there was a much greater price to be paid by the J's? How can even the perception of a low settlement, even if it were just perception, be in the company's, the CEO's, or the shareholders' combined interests? The flaw identify in your reasoning is just that, that our new "Legitimate heavy-hitting CEO" has all but confirmed that what you see is what you get, when there was no good reason for him to suggest so. If your explanation/interpretation were to prevail, why wouldn't RG gone out of his way to leave it ambiguous, rather than use the language he did. All of the explanations offered to support more to the agreement/settlement would have had credence with less direct language than what RG used, so why would he use it? If you can explain that, I think the contingency/deferred payment/terms gain a boost in credibility, but without a SOLID explanation, I find the theory a reach, IMO.