Thanks for the substantive reply. I clearly am outside the loop and not availed of information critical to deeper understanding. As I can only reasonably comment on what I know about, there's little more I can say.
I also agree with your assessment that all things aren't black and white, and there are certainly conceivable situations that may require action from witnesses that may appear surficially to violate sound principles, but actually be necessary because of them.
Just... Given the threat from multiple witnesses, I cannot see that Stinc can leave corporate assets in a position that leaves them vulnerable to that threat being carried out. Failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility involving such a critical corporate asset would be unconscionable, actionable, and criminal, IMHO.
Unaware of the insider details, I am unable to comprehend any other specifics that might mitigate this. Your reply certainly shows that you do take this seriously, and are capable of nominally parsing complexities of the matter I remain uninformed regarding. It's your responsibility, and you demonstrate here that you're effectively undertaking it.
Accordingly, recognizing my incapacity to cogently comment, I'll leave it at that.
Thanks!