I'm sure all holders want a return on their investment. However, doesn't anyone else find it odd that they need nine board members and executives for what seems to be primarily a litigation journey? Nigel has stated in the past that if things got tight, they'd cut back on costs. But it seems like that was just hot air, there has been no real attempt to reduce unnecessary corporate wages.
They still all have their heads in the trough. How do you think Locke would view this situation? As litigation funders, they are not responsible for supporting the lavish lifestyles of directors. Over the years, there have been so many smoke and mirrors that it's hard to know what's real and what isn't.
This whole situation doesn't add up; it reeks of management taking advantage of their positions.
AVZ Price at posting:
78.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
