In my opinion much of that expenditure was a waste by...

In my opinion much of that expenditure was a waste by management. They went to court because technically the entities did not meet the necessary ownership threshold. As I posted at the time this is just a technicality and would only result in a slight delay but more costs for all parties, but a nice earner for the respective legal teams. Sure enough it only resulted in a slight delay and the vote went ahead. It was obvious to everyone that Welker had sufficient ownership to force a vote.

From posts on these forums the company used a third party organisation to phone up shareholders to encourage them to vote against Welker. No doubt this would have come at a cost and I do t think this is justifiable use of company funds.

A group of shareholders are unhappy with management and so want a vote to attempt to oust them. Management then use shareholders funds to try to get them to vote in favour of management. Seems wrong to me, but clearly it is not illegal.