Management does not care about the shareholders and has shown its true side ever since Fung demanded a greater percentage of the recovery with the threat that he and the other officers would no longer cooperate with their attorneys unless they received it. The fact was that his cooperation was no longer needed because the attorneys had all of the factrs and had already submitted their initial brief. Moreover, Fung and his ilk could have been subpoenaed to give their testimonmy if they refused. But more importantly, they had a fiduciary obligation to the company to coperate and not do anything to jeopardize the value of the corportion or the shareholders' interests. Nevertheless, no one who had entered an appearance in the case made any of these points. The only person who could have been expected to was the shareholder who appeared as what I believe was as friend of the court (amicus curiae) and to my knowledge he said nothing. You could call Fung (I used to speak to him) until the cows come home and he would merely try to sweet talk you. The fact is that the only person now who could make ours points to the judge is that person who has entered an appearance in the case and is represented by an attorney.
Of course, the court should be made aware of how we are getting taken to the cleaners, and the point made about what Fung has done compared to GRZ under similar circumstances would be most enlightening to the judge. But remember that Fung had no reason not to get a better deal than the one that was accepted by the court. So if he could have done better it was not intentional but rather negligent for not doing enough to seek other bidders out.
One other thing has come to light that needs to be brought to the court's attention, namely, the amount of money for attorneys' fees and other expenses that has been presented for approval. If you look on Gold Reserve's website you will see how much they have spent on fees and if my memory serves me correctly, it is a small fraction of what KRY has spent. It's like a good ol' boys club with the monitor, who also seeks its fee, as one of the good ol' boys and the officers of KRY as another. One approves what the other wants in return for receiving the same. The judge of course is out of that loop and does what he thinks is right based upon what is in front of him only.
The bottom line is that there is now only one person who can speak for us and he is already a party to the case. My suggestion is that those who are interested contact him and/or his attorney and get off your chests what needs to be said. In this vein, there is nothing to prevent you from writing to the judge directly. If you were an attorney it would not be considered the proper way to do things, but if you are not an attorney there is no such ethical problem. You could even ask the court permission to enter an appearance as amicus curiae on behalf of all of the shareholders on this board. The judge may be impressed by the number of such shareholders and shares represented.
