Intel01 - you said: In my thinking is it in the various US...

Intel01 - you said:

In my thinking is it in the various US Defense related institutions interests for MST to fail ? I cant figure it ? One would think an Defense Compamy involvement would want the company and team behind the drive which holds the inspiration and inititive to realise what the technology offers.

You raise an interesting point, which I agree with. It is occasionally claimed here that there is a malicious intent for someone to screw the Company 'to get the IP'. However IMHO screwing insolvency for the IP is arguably silly - because you can't just walk in with a new team without all the existing engineering detail and contacts/product development knowledge etc then expect the (hopefully imminent) move to looming global contracts etc to be completed on a seamless business as usual timetable. Pigs will fly stuff. So I agree with your thinking that it is illogical to want MST themselves out of the picture, given the (hopefully imminent) timetable.

As the New York ASOF Notes holders are lawyers(!) I don't see them as realistically expecting to punt MST? Yes they might want to extract teeth in financial terms - but I would be surprised if they want to punt MST, because with strong growing Maul/Taser enforcement interest and MPM etc looming, they presumably wouldn't have time to ask the market to go on hold for 3 years or something while they resort the show in their own uninformed way?