El Silencio del EC visto desde perspectiva psicológica
Doesn't the silence to date by the EC indicate that we have a deal that is to our liking?
The first thing to occur if the EC was party to an unfavorable deal is that they would release a public statement indicating the terms in order to generate shareholder outcry, which they could then take back to the bargaining table and demand a better deal due to equity objections.
The fact that this has not occurred indicates to me that we are sitting on precisely the deal that the EC was looking for, on our terms, and the cancelled depositions indicate the deal is done.
The EC silence is telling... And, its telling me that we got a deal very favorable to equity.
Its simple behavioral psychology... Which party is behaving like they are in the drivers seat?
I'd say equity. Please allow me to further "flush out" this hypothesis".
The key to my post above is that the EC would make a public statement BEFORE the deal was signed in order to fully utilize the equity outrage position at the bargaining table. The fact that it appears the deal is signed (by the cancelled depositions), yet the EC has not utilized this strategy indicates that simply they didn't need to... We got what we wanted.
From a purely behavioral psychology perspective, the EC is behaving like a party with the upper hand.
Rosen's statements at the hearing further support this hypothesis. He is keenly aware the historical significance of this case and he was trying to frame his legacy by implying that the debtor had a large role in the settlement (when in fact we know it was the IT allegations that brought the parties to the table). He claimed this deal was "the right thing to do" and he had worked on this for the past year. He knows this is a landmark settlement and he wants history to say that he, and his client the debtor, was the facilitator. We all know this not to be the case but clearly this was his vein attempt to cast his clients, the debtor, and himself in a more favorable historical light considering they discarded the interests of equity up to now.
The EC is simply behaving like the winners of this negotiation.
If you were in a position where you were able to close an agreement very favorable to your side how would you behave? A party in this position would not say a word until the deal was OFFICIAL for fear of something unexpected derailing the agreement at the last minute. You would stay silent, champagne on ice, until everything was signed. If a party was in the opposite position and was forced into agreeing in principle to a bad agreement because it was that or nothing, then before the deal was signed the terms would be disclosed in order to generate equity outcry as a possible final bargaining chip.