It would fit (connect) beautifully into a theory that a partnership or buyout was being offered, Nader wasn’t on board (wanted too much), and since everyone else felt it best to take the offer they fired Nader after giving him time to get on board and seeing that he wasn’t budging.

I also don’t read too much into the firing versus resigning. There may have been good monetary reasons for Nader not to resign or for the board to help convince him to give up the fight and leave by allowing some compensation triggers to occur via termination. Not saying he had those, but sometimes the way in which a termination goes down will be based on those kinds of factors. Sure, us investors might get worried about what seems like a potential bad thing but what if they soon follow it up with major news we would like?

Just spitballin’.