It's totally understandable why posters are on edge and squabbling here. We've been chasing our tails for what feels like ages, and getting clear, straight facts has been a challenge.
It's surprising there's been no discussion from management about downsizing the board or adjusting their salaries. You'd think that would be one of the first things on Locke's agenda during due diligence. Think about it, in the last four months, every penny the board spends means less in the company coffers, increasing the risk for the funder. So if it's such an exhaustive due diligence process why haven't they tackled the issue of the oversized 11-member board and executive staff by now? If a litigation funder is covering the costs, they're certainly not going to sign off on funds being diverted to overpaid staff who aren't even directly engaged in the legal proceedings.
Even 6 Months due diligence feels like a smoke screen:
"In litigation funding, due diligence strives for thoroughness and efficiency, usually spanning from weeks to months depending on case intricacy. A six-month timeframe would be deemed unusually prolonged and might signal undisclosed issues or inefficiencies within the process."We've been kept in the dark like mushrooms, deprived of the real facts for years.
Here we are, like a flock of sheep waiting to be finally told the truth about our destiny.
