While I agree with your premise (the BoD - like EVERYONE else - would like a settlement before the SHM), I don't quite get your "as self-serving as they are". You make it sound like THEY are the only ones that would benefit (and WE would somehow suffer). Self-serving? So any person that benefits from actions that they have at minimum endorsed (e.g., share buy-back, stopping dividends, etc., to posture the company) are automatically labeled "self-serving"?

Gosh, I'd sure hate for them to be successful at anything for this company, because they've just be self-serving! Conversely, to remove that label, I guess they'd have to make decisions/endorse company policies that would cause us to go bankrupt and them to lose their jobs. Then they wouldn't be viewed as "self-serving".

Where are my waders?

SGE