I don't have the crystal ball that other posters seem to...

I don't have the crystal ball that other posters seem to possess, because I really didn't know the better direction on this. As I wrote earlier, both options were distasteful, but neither is completely destructive.

I still have some concerns about the CEO's behaviour in the long run. and I am uneasy about the new board's mandate from three shareholders (who hold 19% of the shares) to re-hire the former CEO, even if the new Chair said he will do "appropriate checks and balances".

As for comments that share price will rise significantly or even "fly": just settling this matter will likely increase the share price because it brings stability and quite possibly a better board chair.

But no one seems to notice that the vote was tipped by only 3% of the votes overall (approx 53% for, 47% against). Equally significant, the majority (about 53%) of direct votes -- mostly from people with large holdings who attended the meeting? -- were against the removal of the board! So, while posters are gleeful, some of the 47% of shareholders may feel less motivated to remain with this stock.