Only confusion comes from those quoted sentences in your previous post.

Those not jaded when performing DD are ripe to scam. The "bully and banning" folks, as you call them, relocated to the "private" hosted board. Still around and as adamant as ever.

All information is in plain sight. Again, pointed out only so folks can make up their own mind. The motion is light on details about unrepresented shareholders having input, among many other things, even though it is their stated basis for the motion. And, as you were first to use the word, "murky," in the way the committee is funded. Being thin makes for questions. Lawyers are usually exact in their, and their client's, wording. But, lawyers will be lawyers. The term "Moving Parties' Estate" seems more appropriate if the committe is self funding, but instead Fine (and counselor) used "Applicants'Estate." Obviously, subject to interpretation as all wording is.

Have not said the motion has no chance or is pissing in the wind as you have.

I express support of the motion with hope, that the committee is the right thing for little guys.