I dont understand why people are such staunch defenders of...

I dont understand why people are such staunch defenders of JK.

Sure the grant of performance shares may have been legal, but no reasonable person could honestly believe that the scheme implemented to unlock them was in the best interest of shareholders. As is laid bare in the SOC, the company raised one off invoices for works which were then outsourced at a cost of approximately 100% i.e. COGS were ~100%. The only reasonable explanation is that JK wanted to increase revenues to unlock the shares for his own personal benefit.

Notwithstanding the outcome of any litigaiton, why would anyone endorse this kind of corporate malpractice?