Fine, but he stated, publicly and in writing, a fe

Fine, but he stated, publicly and in writing, a few months ago, that all the cases were being resolved in our favor. And that's not true, unless you consider not owing legal fees favorable, and I don't think many here were thinking that.

As far as I'm concerned, he was extremely irresponsible to write things like that, and he was a CIO, so would know better. It was part of the basis for my, and I'm sure others, increased position in SFOR. Why would you be so amenable to take his word on this, now? Plus, Duo is owned by Cisco and has a battalion of in house lawyers at hand - I'm sure they really couldn't care less about the theoretical legal fees.

It's possible that Mr Kay has believed for a while that the court cases would be lost. Based on his inaccurate statements in the past, it's also possible that the shares were increased to give management an even greater voting percentage, because they feared a shareholders' rebellion (see DSS).

Where's the accountability for the misleading statements, the litigation loan, the continuous moving of the goal posts, the inability to turn a profit? Somewhere else, I'm sure.