I do not believe the proposal treats shareholders fairly...for a whole host of reasons. It doesn't help when the 3 Special Committee members that approved this, despite having an average tenure of like 7 years on the board, owns a mere 25,000 shares between them. How interested were they in protecting shareholder value? Why didn't they insist Gallagher do a warrants deal, or a rights offering instead, in exchange for his personal guarantee of the debt. Why wasn't Gallagher CONTRITE about all the value he destroyed over the last few days, with the Sheridan Square deal, and then the U.S. Screen "implosion"? Where is Paul Levine (still a large shareholder) to take a public stance in favor of this deal? DEAD SILENCE from him?

Personally, I think the board has decided to "hand this thing over" to Gallagher, and be done with it, simply because they are not willing to have the risk of Ch. 11 on their hands. I think it's b.s., and they basically "walked away" from their fiduciary obligation to shareholders. Just because Gallagher is the "salesman in chief," does that mean he can put the shareholders and company "over a barrell"

Personally, what Paul Gallagher would have done, if he was showing good faith, was take a $1 salary for the next year, and maybe 2 million warrants at 30 cents, in exchange for guaranteeing the debt. Or doing a rights offering instead, so that those shareholders who wanted to stick around, could have.

IT PISSES ME OFF THAT THEIR PROXY SOLICITATION FIRM is calling people and singing the praises of the "premium" that Gallagher is paying. Yet, I have every reason to believe that, if it were NOT for the offer, this stock would have "bounced" with the rest of the market to probably 50-65.

This whole thing has REEKED from the beginning! It still appears fundamentally OPPORTUNISTIC to me. Destroy the company, and then when the stock market "punishes" you by driving down the stock, step in and try to buy out the whole thing on the cheap. Is that honorable?