Stockman: I respectfully submit that you are missing the point completely.

One: There's much more work to it than you know, and it is this function which Mr Coglin relies upon to earn his livelihood. Parties A and B knew this.

Two: That was the deal, which they did not have to necessarily agree to, but apparently they did.

Three: Then they reneged, and evidently Mr Coglon received nothing, and that is the ingredient here that you are minimizing. It speaks to the character of the defendants, and their intentions.

The recipients of the benefit, and the obviously positive results which they and other shareholders accrued due to his involvement are what's important to acknowledge here.

Is Elon Musk worth a One Trillion Dollar pay package? That is not up to yourself to decide, although you are entitled to an opinion, but he did create enormous wealth. He was the catalyst for Tesla and many other successful enterprises.

In this instance, Mr Coglin was asked for his help my party A. They came to him. He delivered Party B. Parties A and B received a benefit and so did countless other people from brokers to investors to the stock exchange receiving fees, and the list goes on including employees of the company and others with relationships to the entities.

Mr Coglin received nothing.

That is an unsatisfactory consequence of his very important contributions.

This is also important to recognize: At the meeting at Cardero's, nobody would have known how successful this adventure might be. It might have been a complete failure and his incentive worth very little or nothing. He should not be penalized for its success, which may not have been achieved otherwise. Those dynamics are always a wildcard and dependent upon may factors, which Parties A and B are aware of. I could say the same about Tesla. It was never a guaranteed win. It very nearly failed. Many factors and conditions are required to achieve success, including providence, which is often underestimated or ignored.

They agreed to compensate him, and if the facts are as Mr Coglin asserts, and I believe they are, then he is entitled to what he is suing for, in my opinion.

Remember, I have personal experience with Mr. August, and he is the subject of a lawsuit I have commenced, as are two other individuals whom are also well known Howe St. characters, whom I may name later. None of this surprises me or anyone else who has been on the receiving end of the bad behaviour of unpleasant persons.

I am also acquainted with Mr Lekstrom, and quite frankly I would have thought he might behave better than Mr August.

Time will tell.

John B Good