The reason people might get a bit snappy about your post is because as @gattertop said the value of all the performance shares at the time was closer to $60m, but there have been people who repeatedly quote $300m intentionally to muddy the waters I think and create confusion. The irony is the the $60m odd worth of shares only became worth >$300m due to management's hard work, mostly the same management who are now accused of being scammers and not deserving said performance shares. Want my opinion? If the management had turned out to be hopeless and the share price tanked and the performance shares ended up being worth only $10m, no one would have ever questioned them.
