I get the point that any legal action is essentially suing...

I get the point that any legal action is essentially suing ourselves, but if any money were coming back to SH this way, it is better than none at all given the massive wealth destruction the board oversaw. Plus it is about holding the board to account as well and no doubt the directors would be called as witnesses if it went to trial. Lets face it no director wants to be in the stand and see their reputation and so called professionalism called into question. that alone would be worth seeing and would maybe ensure these directors don't go onto another board for a repeat performance.

Suspect the massive vote against the new director was SH expressing their massive discontent in light of the coy performance. At a loss to understand why the rem report and CEO package weren't voted down.