gunns vote announced, page-5

Dear Bodo288,

I had a more worrying thought regarding your position...

If you vote to have no new RE you are voting to destroy the investment. Any decision regarding the loans will take into account your actions, which will say you contributed to the poor performance by taking action to make the performance worse, to destroy any remaining value.

An example would be if you bought a new car which had numerous problems, a total lemon. So you now don't want to repay the finance company. To prove the point you then throw it off a cliff. Any court will say you contributed to the now total lack of performance and value of the car.

You can't decide to destroy any remaining value in the investment and then say it had no value at all. A court will hold you at least partially responsible and reduce any claim you make even if you win the case, which isn't guaranteed by any measure. When asked what action you took to save even some of the investment you can either say you actively wiped out what was left or you tried to save what you could and reduce losses.

Overall, if you want to argue the investment wasn't worth what they said it was, you can argue that whether the projects continue or not. There is various pieces of evidence that the projects were never going to perform and GTP knew this quite early on. To vote no to wipe out the projects on the chance it might help set aside the loans just makes you complicit in the projects' failure, and you might end up with no investment at all and the loan.